Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Why ideas are bad: On Haiti and why you should vote for Ralph Nader |
| 02.28.04 (6:10 pm) [edit] |
|
Escalating violence in Haiti as a result of opposition to the President is demonstrative of the manipulation of ideas. A good idea becomes dangerous when it is turned into dogma and is misused. To quote a passage from my favorite novel: "The problem starts at the secondary level, not with the originator or developer of the idea but with the people who are attracted by it, who adopt it, who cling to it until their last nail breaks, and who invariably lack the overview, flexibility, imagination, and, most importantly, sense of humor, to maintain it in the spirit in which it was hatched. Ideas are made by masters, dogma by disciples, and the Buddha is always killed on the road. ... "That is how the loving ideas of Jesus Christ became the sinister cliches of Christianity. That is why virtually every revolution in history has failed: the oppressed, as soon as they seize power, turn into the oppressors, resorting to totalitarian tactics to "protect the revolution." That is why minorities seeking the abolition of prejudice become intolerant, minorities seeking peace become militant, minorities seeking equality become self-righteous, and [b]minorities seeking liberation become hostile[/b]." Basically, good ideas lose their initial purity when turned into dogma or the guidlines for any sort of social movement. They become overly powerful, resulting in narrow-sightedness (or tunnel vision). This is why those on both sides of the conflict in Haiti have turned hostile. They become so engrossed in the concept, or the idea, that they lose sight of the fact that they are only killing the idea themselves. When the idea becomes overly powerful, those following it begin to consider any actions taken in the course of achieving the desired goal to be justified for the cause. Considering the same premise in regard to the Presidential election in the U.S., it is clear that those who state that a vote for Nader or another candidate other than represented by the two major parties is wasteful are embracing a dangerous idea. The "anyone but Bush" mentality fosters narrow-sightedness. If the focus is solely on defeating Bush, we lose sight of the issues important to our nation. Right-wing tyranny is typically only replaced by left-wing tyrrany. To only consider the importance of replacing Bush is to neglect the consequences we face by whomever it is that replaces him. Now, I know that I am only talking about the extreme view of the situation, but many do seem overly concerned with getting Bush out of office, to the extent that it is unimportant who he is replaced by. This brings me to Ralph Nader. Why is it such a big deal for a person who is neither a Republican nor a Democrat to run for president? It is absurd to claim that Nader caused Gore the presidency in 2000- no one can be responsible for causing another candidate to lose. I am not in any way endorsing Nader, I certainly will not vote for him. But this is not because I am afraid he could cost the Democratic contender the election, but because I disagree with many of his ideas and policies. That is what is really important. Few things would make me happier than to see Bush out of office, but I am not willing to force this to happen by replacing him with someone who will only reverse his policies and enact his own bad policies. When it comes down to it, what matters is who it is that is best suited for the presidency and whose policies will benefit the nation the most. Whoever's policies are the most appealing to you is who you should vote for. When government is nothing but a battle for power and politics focuses on shifting that power, we lose sight of what is important. |
| 15 Comments |
| The rebirth or the dying out of religion? |
| 02.27.04 (9:34 pm) [edit] |
|
First of all, I must make it known how much I love Jerry Falwell. Any time I have ever heard him speak, I have become angered, outraged, bewildered, shocked, or any combination of similar emotions. For any one individual to be capable of eliciting such a response from me consistently is truly impressive. Jerry Falwell appeared on Hannity & Colmes tonight and spoke mostly about Mel Gibson's movie. Towards the end of the segment with Falwell, he said that two great things occurred this week: the release of The Passion and President Bush's backing of a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (or, as Falwell said, protecting what we all know to be between a man and a woman). Everyone is in agreement that we are facing renewed interest in our culture and what we want our culture to be. Why is this? Is it because, as Falwell and others would have us believe, we are experiencing a rebirth of faith, or is it because we are moving further away from religion? If we examine the issues that dominate America's culture war (gay marriage, abortion, religion and schools/government), it is apparent that the basic discrepancies in values lie in varying ideas in regard to religion. The argument could be made that the reason the culture wars have come to the forefront of our attention is because of a renewed interest in and reverence for religion, Christianity in particular. The argument could also be made that the culture wars have been rekindled because of a feeble attempt at reinstating religion's dominance in our culture. Are we on the brink of another Great Awakening and spiritual rebirth, or are we witnessing the end days of Christianity? Considering the amount of coverage The Passion has generated, I don't think Christianity's days are numbered. There is a certain arrogance that is seen in the manner in which Christian values are defended. In our culture wars, any view other than the strict Christian view is regarded as immoral and degrading to our society. The concept of other religions' views or secular views is either neglected or attacked by many in dealing with cultural values. Whether we are facing a rebirth of religion or a spiritual Armageddon is uncertain, but it is evident that religion has been brought to the mainstream of our civil concerns. |
| 17 Comments |
| The evolutionary theory of morality |
| 02.27.04 (4:40 pm) [edit] |
|
Over the past few days, I have been engaging in a discussion with another tblogger in private on the issue of faith. As part of this discussion, she asked me how it is that we have moral standards and where the ability to distinguish between right and wrong originated. So, I present you with the theory of evolutionary morality. The primary principle of evolution is natural selection. Basically, those with the means of survival will outlast those with lesser capabilities to survive. The survival of the fittest is what allows for a species to evolve- the genetic traits that are best suited for our survival are passed down over generations while the traits that are harmful to us are generally weeded out. This is how morality was formed. When we act in ways that are conceived as bad or wrong, we face certain repercussions. The mental process that leads us to determine whether a potential action will result in positive or negative consequences is a result of an evolutionary process. What we generally accept as right or wrong is equivocal to what is beneficial or what is dangerous to us in terms of our survival. The development of morality has occurred over time as a means of enhancing and prolonging our survival If we did not develop the capabilities to exercise morality in our decision-making, we would not be likely to survive. If we were to disregard the consequences of our actions, we would not be acting in ways conducive to our survival. Morality is a mechanism we have developed to assure that we can comprehend and determine the effect our actions will have, then we can decide the actions that best suit us and our survival. |
| 3 Comments |
| More on communism and atheism |
| 02.24.04 (4:21 pm) [edit] |
|
A recent post on communism and atheism sparked quite a discussion, so I thought I would address some of the issues discussed a bit more thoroughly. First off, I'll deal with "newbie" (aka JamesYerian)'s comment, since many of the others were more related to religion than with the post itself. James says that, similar to my statements, communism was bad because it relied on force to get its message across and encouraged violence. This much I agree with and was my basic point- communism wasn't bad because of a lack of religion, it was bad because of its policies of forceful conversion. I am an atheist and am fundamentally opposed to the ideology of communism. The two do not go hand in hand, as James then claims. Atheism has nothing to do with how a person acts. Morality exists whether there is religion or not- maybe not your morality, but moral standards are an inherent part of human nature. Any person decides their own morality or which moral code to ascribe to and follow. Whether a person selects a religious code of morality or not doesn't necessarily mean that the irreligious moral code is evil. It is absurd to state that communism, in any way, was bad because of atheism, just as it would be absurd to say that Nazism was only bad because of Christianity. The rest of the comments, more or less, deal with religion itself and the differences between various faiths. For the purpose of this discussion, we need some definitions. Religion is a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power accepted as the creator and governor of the universe. Religions include dogma (list of things to believe, including a Creator), rituals, and a moral code. Faith, in terms of religion, is an acceptance of and belief in religious views as being true, without any concrete evidence of their truth. This is why I say that religious views are irrational- by definition, they are. To take something on faith is counter to logical thought. This doesn't mean that you must abandon all logical thought to accept religious beliefs; many use logical thought to arrive at their beliefs. Faith and science have little to do with each other. God's existence cannot be proven because there are discrepencies in even what the definition of God is. All attempts at proving God's existence (i.e. traditional arguments such as cosmological, ontological, teliological, etc.) rely on assuming God's existence prior to accepting it as proof. Conversely, it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. This is entirely different from proving God's existence; however, as it is illogical to attempt to prove a negative. If God did in fact exist, it would be possible to prove it, but there's no way to prove He doesn't. To many, there is evidence to support God's existence and that is what they base their beliefs on. I personally have never encountered an argument for God's existence that could not be easily countered. This is why I don't believe God exists. All the comparisons of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Deism, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc. is interesting, but means very little in the grand scheme of things. If you choose to accept the notion of a supreme being that created the universe, then it is important to examine the various religions and understand the differences. However, when discussing religion itself, it doesn't much matter which particular faith, or set of beliefs, we are discussing. A belief in God or no such belief is much more reasonable a discussion to have than which definition of God is most accurate. The same rationale goes into any religious belief, though the ideas may differ and the definitions of supernatural being(s) vary. Unless you have a way of truly proving God's existence, it is merely speculating over which idea of God is best. |
| 8 Comments |
| President Bush, the activist |
| 02.24.04 (2:27 pm) [edit] |
|
A familiar criticism made by President Bush and his supporters is that "activist" judges have made the issue of gay marriage an issue. I find it interesting that this claim is thrown around so often while the activism of Bush is forgotten. Adding an amendment to the constitution is about as much activism as a president can achieve. Supposedly the intentions of Bush's proposed constitutional amendment are to protect the sanctity of marriage. But I just can't help thinking that Bush is overly determined to truly have a historic presidency. Marriage is a social institution- even Bush recognizes that. So why should an amendment be necessary to define the legality of a social institution? In terms of the law, the social aspect of marriage should not even be examined. The government cannot define the meaning of marriage for all of society, only the legal aspect of marriage. In this regard, all that matters is the benefits given to a couple that is married under the law. All Americans should have the equal right to attain the same benefits. Whether same-sex unions are wrong or right in terms of morality or religious views or whatever it is that somehow makes them questionable really doesn't matter and is of no concern to the law (or shouldn't be, I should say). Bush's proposed ban is "to protect the sanctity of marriage." What exactly is the sanctity of marriage? And what are the reasons for being against gay marriage? Please educate me, I seriously can't figure out what the big deal is. I won't go so far as to agree with Kerry's campaign's assertion that Bush's presidency is in trouble and the amendment is a desparate attempt at solidifying his presidency, but adding an amendment to the constitution does seem a bit extreme to me, especially to disallow certain citizens the rights granted to others. |
| 7 Comments |
| Culture wars- gay marriage |
| 02.20.04 (5:23 pm) [edit] |
|
The debate over allowing gay couples the right to marry is heatedly under way in California, a demonstration of the importance of cultural values in society. We seem to be in the midst of a major culture war in America, as the prominence of the issue of gay marriage clearly shows. There have always been clashes in values, differences in opinions on many key issues, but there are times when these battles come to the forefront of our political atmosphere and question the unity of the nation. Examining the issue rationally and without the hindrance of biased thought, it seems obvious to me that gay marriage shouldn't be an issue at all. The union between two people (or more) is a private matter that should have nothing to do with the government. But, as it is, the government is involved in marriage. Married couples receive the benefits of tax breaks, insurance, and hospitalization visitation rights, as well as many other fairly minor things. Is a couple that remains together unmarried for many years any less a couple than if they were married? Most likely, you would agree that being a couple is not determined by marriage, just that marriage makes the commitment of a couple "official." In terms of my personal politics, marriage- gay or straight, or brother and sister or whole communites- shouldn't be in any way regulated by the government. The government should have nothing to do with private matters, such as marriage. I don't think married couples should be given different rights than non-married couples, nor do I think the commitment of marriage should be made a legally binding agreement. It is also my personal view that marriage is an immoral act. I disagree with the notion of committing to be in love forever, as that is contrary to the nature of love. Attempting to force a commitment of love is not moral to me. So, personally, I don't agree with gay marriage. I also don't agree with the marriage of heterosexual couples. However, I realize that my views are not maintained by most and I'm not likely to convince many of my position (I don't know why not, though- other than the overbearing influence of society), so I must consider the issue of gay marriage in terms of society and the law. As stated previously, the government should not be involved in private matters. Marriage itself is a private matter made legal, and that is wrong. But if marriage must be a matter involving the government, the means of intervention must be consistently sought. If a man and woman are married and receive benefits from the government, so too should two men who wish to commit to be together forever. Marriage is more a social issue than legal. The debate over gay marriage is rooted in the social views of marriage. To many in society, marriage is a religious matter. For those who view marriage as a holy bond, homosexuality is also conisdered a sin; therefore, gay marriage is a threat to these cultural values. It is obvious that gay marriage is a controversial topic and not one to be solved any time soon. The real concern should be over our legislation and the legal aspect of gay marriage, rather than the social context. Disallowing a couple to marry and receive the benefits of marriage based on who they are, whether it is race or sexual orientation, is discrimination. Our laws should not condone, and especially should not encourage, discrimination. Our legislation also should not be used to deny rights to any group of people. Any attempt by the government to take away our rights will not be successful and will not be conducive to the nation based on freedom envisioned by those who founded this nation and penned the constitution. |
| 6 Comments |
| Communism is proof all atheists are evil! |
| 02.18.04 (8:31 pm) [edit] |
|
Does that sound odd to anyone else? A comment from someone who neglected to leave a name: [i]Well a hundred years ago, michael faraday said that religion will die out in the next 100 years or so with the advancement of science. Did you think it did? Religion is not something you contemplate over a blog. After all, if I gave you all the evidence in the world that God exists and you agreed with them, you still won't believe in God :-). The reason people hang on to religion is because they see how it can change people's lives. For better or for worse is another story. But the fact that people are willing to put aside their scientific truths just to believe what a 2 inch think book says makes people wonder what is so great about the book. And as long as there is inequality, the group of people who are on the unfavoured side would pray to a divine being for justice. That's one of the reasons why karl marx came up with the idea of communism. Equality among everyone and absolutely NO GOD!. Look what happens to the idalogy..Communist Russia collasped. Look at China, is it progressing? People are dying by the millions there of starvation. Because without religion, people begin to lose the meaning of life. It's like why bother living? To survive? why survive? after all the next generation would have to take all this crap if there is no divine intervention to make their lives better. Work hard? Why work hard? If my government has no God that they swear an oath to, they might just take my money away with I painstakingly worked for it. I am not stating reasons to support that God exists. But reasons people are supporting the belief in God.[/i] I've encountered this sort of argument before and, I have to say it's just absurd. Communism wasn't bad because it embraced atheism, it was bad because it attempted to force equality by not allowing for individual progress. When all you work for goes to someone else, there is little purpose to your life. Just the same as if you dedicate your life to the docrines of a religion, you lose an individual purpose to your life. Giving all to a collective group, whether it be your government or your religion, is demeaning to the value of your life. As for those on the unfavorable side of inequality praying for a divine being for justice, that makes very little sense to me. Why waste your time praying for something instead of actually working to improve your life? Progress isn't made by a divine being intervening with the lives of mere mortals, it is made by the minority demanding justice. So, I have a theory about religion. I think that all major world religions change through time and, as with any human institution, eventually will die out. I don't mean religion itself will disappear from mankind, but that each particular religion will only exist for as long as society acknowledges and allows for it. As values, interests, technologies, and ideas shift, religious beliefs and customs are alterred, as well. The reason the major (current) religions have succeeded for so long is because they are rooted in fear. To focus on death and eternity is to lose sight of life itself, and the fear of eternal punishment is what encourages religious beliefs. The values of the Bible are often challenged, most recently with the controversy over allowing gay marriages. Issues such as this often encourage greater religious action, as it is made evident to religious leaders that if society's values shift to embrace what is considered a sin in the Christian religion, Christianity faces the danger of being uprooted. Anyway, seeing as I have seemingly responded to this person's comments in reverse, if anyone was ever able to give me "all the evidence in the world," assuming it was factual evidence, not solely based in assumptions, I would accept that God exists. As it is, there is more evidence to the contrary, thus I believe that God does not exist. |
| 24 Comments |
| Christianity and the Founding Fathers |
| 02.17.04 (8:35 pm) [edit] |
|
This is, more or less, a response to a comment by brogonzo (in response to a comment I made) on whynot's blog. [i]You're wrong about the founding fathers. Read the Federalist Papers and John Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding."[/i] "To me, it seems quite clear that America was by no means meant to be a "Christian" nation." [i]I don't know what you base your "feelings" about how America was founded. However, whether we as individuals are Christian or not, there's no sense in denying the fact that Christianity played a major role in the founding of the United States.[/i] Well, I base my feelings about the founding of America on what I've read and how I have understood the intentions and motivations of the founding fathers. There do seem to be some conflicting claims over the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, but I believe most of the evidence points to the fact that they were mostly, if not all, deists- not Christian. Deism was embraced by many of the founding fathers and whether Christian principles were involved in the framing of our constitution or not really isn't a relavent discussion. What is obvious is that religion was, from the beginning, meant to be maintained separate from the government. One of the primary motivations for establishing America was the desire for the freedom of religion- the freedom to worship or not worship as one pleased. "Christian principles" and Christianity are not the same thing, and it would be silly to try and determine the "principles" the nation was founded on. Christian principles may very well be inscribed in the laws laid out by our founders, but that doesn't mean that these laws were determined by Christianity. Similarly, I may hold similar values and moral standards as those held by Christians, but that doesn't make me a Christian. The founders of America sought a nation that allowed for the freedom of religion by maintaining a separation of the church and state. It is very much wrong to say that we are or were ever intended to be a Christian nation. Some quotes from the founders regarding religion: Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." John Adams: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." James Madison: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." Benjamin Franklin: "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." |
| 5 Comments |
| Armageddon days are here... again |
| 02.17.04 (3:26 pm) [edit] |
|
[i]They're 5 miles high as the crow flies Leaving vapour trails against a blood red sky Moving in from the East towards the West With Balaclava helmets over their heads, yes But if you think that Jesus Christ is coming Honey you've got another thing coming If he ever finds out who's hi-jacked his name He'll cut out his heart and turn in his grave Islam is rising The Christians mobilising The world is on its elbows and knees It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds...[/i]-[url=http://display.lyrics.astrawe...:2000/display.cgi?the_the..mind_bomb..armageddon_days_are_here_ again]The The[/url] If asked what the number one threat to the world is right now, I think most people would reply that terrorism is the greatest danger we face. Terrorism itself is not easily defined. If I can recall correctly (as I probably cannot), a textbook defined terrorism as the unlawful use of violence directed at a group of individuals or an entire society, often for ideological reasons. The definition doesn't really explain the difference between war and terrorism. Both terrorism and war often have the same results and can have differing interpretations. Assassins in Egypt viewed themselves as patriots but the government saw them as terrorists, for example. There are also different types of terrorism: state-sponsored, nationalist, ideological, and religious. I could go into detail on each type, but suffice it to say that, though each form of terrorism is certainly dangerous, religious terrorism is particularly frightening. This is because terrorists inspired by religious motives generally regard violence as morally justified in attaining their goals. They see God as being on their side and feel justified in using violence to further their cause. Also, they are unafraid of the consequences of their actions, even if they should die themselves- martyrdom is desirable. (note: have I ever mentioned that religion is dangerous?) So how do we combat terrorism? Do the holy wars, the jihads, the terrorist violence in the name of religion equate to Armageddon? Well, probably not- I have my doubts about the world coming to an end any time soon. But it is clear that there is a major battle being fought on the basis of good against evil. The only problem is that both (or all) sides see themselves as good. Terrorists have a certain resolve because they feel that their actions are just. When we wage a war against these terrorists, we clearly feel that we are in the right. Holy wars or wars based on conflicting values and views accomplish little other than violence. Isn't this violence, in terms of the world itself, self-destructive? Those in the East view the West to be based on immoral values, to be irreligious, to be imperialistic, and basically evil. Those in the West find these claims to be absurd and feel that their ways are superior to those in the East. The age old question of "can't we all just get along" comes into play here. Sure, we have different values and different views, but for either side to attempt and impose their values and ideas on the other is immoral and is dangerous. Imperialism breeds resentment, and this results in retribution- often violently. It's a little too late to try and accept our differences now, but we should realize that fighting violence with violence only encourages violence. And how exactly do we fight terrorism? It sounds like a noble cause, to rid the world of terrorism, but how is it feasible? These holy wars and the terrorist acts of late (as well as throughout history) illustrate the anarchic system of the political world. In a state of anarchy, each nation or group is left to defend against all others. When attacked, there is no security. When there is no security, violence is standard and the battle between supposed good and supposed evil is played out over and over again. The world may change as a result of these holy wars, as often has been the case, but the problem will likely never be resolved. (This blog brought to you by an easily distracted and wandering mind- this was intended to be about the end of religion...) |
| 2 Comments |
| How religious beliefs have advanced |
| 02.15.04 (8:52 pm) [edit] |
|
Watching the Simspons a few minutes ago, I was once again reminded of the arrogance of religious beliefs. That is, those maintaining these beliefs hold them as better than the beliefs of others- others of different faiths and others of different times, as well. While discussing the spirituality of Native Americans, Bart replied (paraphrasing): "Thank God we've come to our senses and now worship a carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago!" That sums it up perfectly, I think. To most, the beliefs and customs held by ancient groups seem absurd. Yet for some reason most are blind to the absurdities inherent in their own beliefs. Anyone who has studied Greek, Roman, or Norse mythology would likely agree that it would be quite silly to actually believe the myths to be factual. Considering an elite group of gods and goddesses who each ruled over a particular domain and interacted with mortals on occasion seems to modern man to be nothing more than a story, a myth. But somehow stories of a supreme being speaking the universe into existence and sending his son to earth to atone for the sins of mankind is considered realistic, and the book containing these stories is held to be historically accurate by some believers. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with assuming your beliefs are superior to the beliefs of others. In fact, I think it's impossible to actually have beliefs or veiws or an opinion without considering what you think is right to actually be better than the ideas of others. That only makes sense. But to claim that one myth is superior to another and to think that we have evolved in our religious beliefs is humurous to me. I can only imagine groups of students studying the Bible in high school English classes of the future and discussing it as mere literature, laughing at the notion of people actually taking the Bible literally. |
| 6 Comments |
| National Masturbation Day |
| 02.14.04 (6:12 pm) [edit] |
|
Alright, this just deserves a blog. Inspired by comments left on my blog (a few posts down: "'No sex allowed in the U.S."- Bush"), I am declaring today the first annual National Masturbation Day. Being Valentine's Day, an unholy holiday that encourages such blasphemous acts as love-making, it is only fitting. Credit for this wonderful idea must be given to "Me again:" [i]Just an idea: Why doesn't Bush start a worldwide masturbation fund program? Being such a professional jerk, he should know all about it. Hey, it'd fix both the issues of AIDS/abortions/etc and of uncontrollable sexual drive. Yep. No more copulation, no more fornication, masturbation on a grand scale is now the cool thing if you're a responsible citizen. Ok, Bush, let's all jerk off along with you.[/i] ... and Nivek: [i]Hmmm, what could we call it? How about: "National Day of Masturbation". And some slogans: "Just Say No to Sex"; "Masturbate and Live"; "Why date when you can masturbate”; “Don’t be a jerk. Just Jerk!”, and: “Use your head. Use your hands”. They can have this contrived TV commercial with a teenage woman and a baby, and how tough it is for her. And at the end of the commercial, the voiceover says: “Don’t let this happen to you. Brought to you by: The National Council on Masturbation”. Bush’s religion is obviously not separate from his policies. Maybe it’s time for him to have a “focus-group” on the US Constitution. We can't have controls and regulations on our lives and the choices that we make, or wish to make. Aren’t those “born-again” types, as Bush is, opposed to masturbation, also? Gee, I think I’d be hitting the bottle pretty hard! Hmmm, no sex, no masturbation, no nothing! How about no food, no water, no car, no sunshine, no friends, no music, no words, no rights, no freedom…[/i] So there you have it. In order to rid the world of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, and STDs, as well as the awful disease of sex itself, it is only logical that we advocate masturbation and abstinence. So, happy Valentine's/Masturbation Day! |
| 9 Comments |
| Right is wrong |
| 02.14.04 (12:04 am) [edit] |
|
I just can't stand it anymore. I wasn't going to bother with the silly propagandistic rhetoric of a certain blogger who is no longer allowing comments because I figured he likely just enjoys the attention. The only other possible alternative for the reason he posts such insanely anti-Left blogs is that he is, well, insane and honestly doesn't realize how ridiculous he sounds. I didn't think that was it, but lately that option is seeming more likely than the first. First off, there's the issue of censorship on tblog, as caused by the possibly insane. The issue was over another user posting the guy's email address, violating his privacy. What clearly isn't understood by the person whose sanity is in question is that he himself had his private email address readily available to anyone who wished to find it. The lovely Pulse Polls many have on their blogs show your email address if you select the options. So, it's not exactly violating your privacy if another person posts the address they found through your blog, is it? And I'm pretty sure that little threat at the end of Mr. Insanity's post on the matter is more worthy of legal action than posting an email address. Anyway, moving on, we have an attack against another tblog user in which the possible lunatic states the following: "Oh, because you have your own blog and you know how to cut and paste?" Apparently, cutting and pasting does not qualify one of being knowledgable or passing judgment on another, unless you are the writer of this statement. Hypocritical? You bet. Similarly, the previous post features this gem of a line: "That's how you know someone is a leftist-- they refuse to admit their allegations are wrong." Knowing the anti-leftist as I do from perusing his blog, if refusing to admit your allegations are wrong makes you a leftist, he sure as hell must be a leftist. I can only recall a few allegations made by the author that were actually accurate, and I don't recall him ever admitting his false allegations were, in fact, wrong. According to someone who could very well be insane, he doesn't generalize. He also, quite likely, doesn't realize that the following statement is saturated in derisive remarks that could very well equate to libel, if they were not mere generalizations. "Basically, if you are left of center you support lying as a means to get what you want. You disdain truth and honest debate. You hate facts, logic, and history. To you, disinformation means more than information. You cannot claim to be an American and love what this country is about and simultaneously say you're a liberal. For those on the Left are by default anti-American." Wow, anyone left of center is anti-American, by default. There's some good logic for you. Anyone who is a liberal cannot be an American? Sounds like someone wants to eradicate all liberals and encourage only his own beliefs. I for one think this person should be evaluated by a professional, should be encouraged to understand the viewpoints of others, and most importantly he should relinquish his position as the mud-slinging hate-filled right-winger of tblog. |
| 7 Comments |
| Insanity, paranoia, obsession... |
| 02.13.04 (11:14 pm) [edit] |
|
What else could it be? Just a few trends I've noticed on a fellow tblogger's recent posts. "Leftists tend to believe that the law doesn't apply to them. It applies to everyone else, but not to them." "That's how you know someone is a leftist-- they refuse to admit their allegations are wrong." "Lying is sport for the Left anyway" "Do you like negativity? Smearing? Slander? Rubbish? Then join the Left. They ruin like no other." "The Left, after all, invented and perfected propaganda." And the absolute best: [b]"Basically, if you are left of center you support lying as a means to get what you want. You disdain truth and honest debate. You hate facts, logic, and history. To you, disinformation means more than information. You cannot claim to be an American and love what this country is about and simultaneously say you're a liberal. For those on the Left are by default anti-American."[/b] |
| 2 Comments |
| "No sex allowed in the U.S." -President Bush |
| 02.13.04 (10:33 pm) [edit] |
|
Okay, he didn't really say that. But, he is proposing to double the funding for programs that teach abstinence only, rather than sex education. [b]WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work.[/b] Let's think about this logically. If we abstain from having sex, we will not get pregnant or get AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases. Makes sense. However, sex is a natural process and all living creatures naturally are inclined to have sex of some sort. In Bush's perfect world, I suppose, no one would have sex until they were married (homosexuals would no longer exist, as gay marriage would be illegal), and then only for the purpose of procreating. That's just not realistic. There is an innate inclination for sexual behavior in all of us and no amount of abstinence teaching is going to dissuade sexual activity. Teaching proper condom use and the effects and side-effects of the birth control pill does not equate to promoting sexual activity in teenagers. To be perfectly honest, a great deal of sexual desire is related to passion and lust- things greatly inhibited by such clinical things as condoms and pills. Believe me, talk of irregular menstrual bleeding, nausea, headaches, dizziness, mood changes, and rare occurrences of blood clots (common side effects of the birth control pill) isn't exactly arousing and doesn't in any way encourage one to go out and have sex. Anyway, abstinence works only if people choose to consistently abstain from sex. If we increase funding to programs that only teach abstinence and leave out education on proper condom use and ways of preventing STDs or pregnancy if one chooses to partake in sexual activity, what do you think happens once people do start having sex? And what about those who will have sex regardless of the message of abstinence programs? And seriously, how much funding is actually needed for programs that really do nothing in terms of educating but preach the message of not having sex? In addition, how much money does medical care require in contrast to proper sex education? As sex is biologically natural, it makes very little sense to focus solely on ensuring that people do not have sex. The needs of society could be better met than by doubling the tax payer funded programs that do little good. |
| 11 Comments |
| The meaning of life, the nature of love |
| 02.12.04 (11:20 pm) [edit] |
|
From the beginning of conscious time, there has been a prevailing question begging to be answered, yet ever evasive to all who have attempted to do such. This question is, of course, what is the meaning of life? Examining this question, it becomes apparent that there is no way of answering such a question. Assumedly, we are seeking the meaning, the essence, the value in existence itself. All humanity, perhaps all living creatures, having one distinct purpose in existing is the prime desire of most. To serve some purpose higher than the individual is a way of coping with the ever-pressing issue of death. It is generally considered that if we all hold a common purpose, there is a way of transcending death, a way of "living on" even after our bodies physically die, and this serves some sort of purpose to our lives. It seems odd to me, however, that the primary motivation in life is to avoid a sort of spiritual death. We all must die at some point, but if there is a higher purpose to our existence, we will not die in spirit, or we will at least have had some meaning to our lives. Well, I think the meaning of life has little to do with death. That only makes sense, doesn't it? Death is a necessary finality of life, but we shouldn't allow death to rule our lives or determine our worth. Our lives should be lived not in a way to invalidate death, but to ensure the worth of life itself. In this vein, I don't think there is a collective meaning of life. We each hold individual purposes in our lives. So, what gives the individual's life meaning, given that there is no higher purpose to be served by the simple fate of being a human? The common bond in all of humanity, the one essential necessity for living a contented life, is love. Love gives one's life meaning. Similarly, giving love makes the life of another meaningful. As Tom Robbins writes in [i]Jitterbug Perfume[/i], "The highest function of love is that it makes the loved one a unique and irreplacable being." Ultimately, love creates a meaning, a purpose for the existence of a person. To those who love you, you are a unique and irreplacable being. In the grand scheme of things, there is little more we can hope to achieve in life. Love defines our relations with others, and gives meaning to the nature of existence, in some small way. Without love, without compassion, without lust, sex, romance, and passion, there would be no importance in the life of another. We are all important because we all are loved. Romantic love is a tricky thing. It is fickle, it is untrustworthy, and most importantly, it consumes the highest emotional resources of any endeavor. There is no feeling that comes closer to happiness than a pure romantic love. There is no act that comes closer to transcending the inhibitions of time than sex between romantic lovers. But the intensity and passion that fuel romance are not unfettered by time. They are, perhaps, the greatest victims of time's cruel power. Passion, arguably the most important element in a romantic relationship, is the first thing to go in a long-term relationship. The meaning of life lies in the nature of love. Love gives our lives meaning. We waste time searching for some elusive means of justifying our existence, rather than focusing on living. And as far as love goes, "The bottom line is that (a) people are never perfect, but love can be, (b) that is the one and only way that the mediocre and vile can be transformed, and (c) doing that makes it that. We waste time looking for the perfect lover, instead of creating the perfect love." |
| 3 Comments |
| The "blame Clinton" refrain never gets old |
| 02.11.04 (8:32 pm) [edit] |
|
Not surprisingly, Republican officials are now blaming Bill Clinton for the Intelligence failure that has placed the Bush Administration under scrutiny. [i]WASHINGTON - In a sign of how Republicans may try to quell criticism of prewar intelligence in Iraq, the head of the House Intelligence Committee tried Wednesday to direct blame to the Clinton administration. Rep. Porter J. Goss, R-Fla., said he heard a 1998 speech in which then-President Clinton warned that something must be done about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. "Unfortunately, he did not complete that task before his term expired," Goss said at a Capitol Hill press conference.[/i] [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...]Read more[/url] So, apparently it was Bill Clinton's fault that... wait, I'm not even sure what it is they're blaming Clinton for exactly. Either it's his fault that the intelligence was wrong (the article goes on to claim that Clinton cut funding to Intel., then counters that the first President Bush actually was the one to cut the funding), or it's Clinton's fault that the war in Iraq didn't occur during his administration rather than Bush's. It seems a bit ridiculous to blame Clinton for not going to war when the war waged by Bush was based on false intelligence of Saddam's supposed WMD. And it seems like a feeble attempt to divert attention from the Bush Administration by blaming the Intelligence failure on Clinton. I think it would make more sense for the Bush Administration to accept some responsibility. No one would argue that Saddam deserved to stay in power, but there was no urgency to the war, and that is the controversy. It wouldn't be a very popular move to wage a war when it isn't necessary- and that is precisely what happened in Iraq. The WMD claim was the only way to justify the necessity of the war, and since these claims seem to have been false, we need an explanation. Blaming the previous Administration or refusing to take the blame at all by saying others believed it too just won't suffice. Bush's credibility is at stake, both at home and abroad. Of course, he doesn't seem concerned- he can always blame Clinton or make excuses rather than giving an explanation. Who needs responsibility and accountability when you can just blame Clinton? |
| 5 Comments |
| Thoughts on anarchy |
| 02.10.04 (8:59 pm) [edit] |
|
Inspired by a conversation with my brother, I would like to dedicate this discussion of anarchy to my brother. I jokingly asked my brother (an anarchist) if he voted in today's primary (Kerry has been projected to win easily, by the way (I didn't vote for him)), to which he responded that he thinks voting is immoral. Now, I understand his view: he views democracy- or any form of government- to be coercive, thus voting is an act of coercion, and he is morally opposed to coercion. But I just don't think we are capable of living in a government-free society, or that it is in our best interest. Anarchy is a very optimistic and freedom embracing philosophy, I think. I just don't think it's very realistic as a means of social betterment. Many would view anarchy to be dangerous, but this view is based in a lack of confidence in humanity and a general feeling of inferiority of the human race. If we are absolutely free, free to do as we wish with no intervention from a governing body, we will not necessarily resort to barbaric behaviors. Consequences of actions, accountability, and responsibility are necessary regardless of an active government that enforces punishments- acting barbarically will not benefit us and will not be conducive to our survival. So, I don't think it is fair to attribute anarchy to being negatively chaotic. That being said, I don't think government can be dismantled. As stated by Aristotle, man is social by nature and is a political animal. Human nature includes a desire to form alliances and societies are created by this natural inclination. According to Hobbes and Locke, human nature is defined by the state of nature. In Hobbes' philosophy, we are essentially equal and the same in the state of nature, which results in a constant state of war. Locke's view is that, in the state of nature, we have perfect freedom, within the bounds of the law of nature. Now, clearly it could be argued whether there truly exists a "natural law" and even the issue of human nature requiring politics could be debated. So it could be argued that anarchy isn't impossible, but I do think it is implausible. We have politics because we are divided, we are not perfect, and we have a variety of outlooks and interests. If there are no laws governing our actions, there is no guarantee of our rights. With anarchy, we have true freedom, but must be in a constant state of defense against others. Government exists to defend our rights (or, at least, that is why government should exist). Since we are social by nature, since we have differing views and interests, and since the alternative to government is a state of constant fear, government makes sense. Leaving anarchy aside, as I don't think it is a likely system, the way to avoid coercion by the government is to ensure the system is limited. In Locke's philosophy, and the basis for our democratic ideals, government is limited by consent. The laws made must be made with the consent of society and by authority received from them. Government is also limited by the purposes it is created for and therefore must act in accordance with those purposes. Political philosophers have worked for centuries to determine the best form of government and the best ways of implementing politics. Anarchy is the equivalent of true freedom, and I am all for freedom, but I think we need government to have security. |
| 2 Comments |
| Thanking JamesYerian |
| 02.09.04 (9:41 pm) [edit] |
|
I'll try and avoid getting too sentimental, but I just had to thank JY for his touching blog, "Helping DragonBait22." So, let's read what James had to say and I'll even respond directly to his statements. [i]It gave me a headache, but I gave in to temptation and read Dragonbait22's blog "Moral relativity versus relativity of morality".[/i] Aww, I'm sorry my blog gave you a headache. Now you know how all the rest of us feel when we read many of your posts. [i]Dragon insists that she misunderstood what we Christian fanatics were talking about, and so she means to clarify, yet again, something that isn't hard.[/i] If you'll notice, I said that it was tempting to use the term Christian fanatics to describe the author(s) of the article I read. They clearly were. I wasn't calling anyone else a Christian fanatic. Anyway, I guess it isn't that hard to understand, and maybe I'm just stupid, but there are different ways of interpreting relativism, which you made clear. [i]While I think her definition of morality will suffice,[/i] Hmm, I wonder if you'd think my standards of morality would suffice... [i]she seems to have a real problem with relativity. The word "relativism" means: "a view that ethical truths depend on individuals and the groups holding them."[/i] Okay, fair enough. I think that this definition leaves open the possibility for interpretation, though. Does that mean that the validity of ethical truths depends on individuals and the groups holding them, or does it mean that morality is unimportant because all moral systems are equal? [i]Moral relativism is pretty clear now, right?[/i] Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, again. [i]Ok back to her blog.[/i] Are you sure you read my blog? [i]This is what she says: Part 1: Moral means right, and Christian fanatics think that I'm saying their notions of what is right are not important. I'm not saying that at all, silly![/i] To borrow from you, James, ugh. I said that 'moral' only relates to what is right, leaving out what is wrong. It's not the same as morality, which involves distinguishing between right and wrong. I don't think Christian fanatics think I'm saying their notions of what is right are unimportant, do they? What I'm saying is that morality is individualistic in nature. It isn't universal. [i]Part 2: What I am saying is that moral relativism is about "promoting the acceptance of the validity others' views of right and wrong." Or, "is considering what is right and wrong with respect to the notions of right and wrong of other individuals and cultures." "It doesn't promote equality of moral standards, just acceptance of the fact that there can be no absolute, universal standards by which to judge morality."[/i] Yeah, the dictionary's definition of relativity is: "The quality or state of being relative." Now, I don't have the best dictionary, but oh well. It gives the following for the definition of relative: "Considered with respect to others." So that's where I came up with my assertion that the relativity of morality must mean distinguishing between right and wrong, considered with respect to others. [i]Ugh... Ok, first of all Christianity believes its moral code is absolute. Christ's moral truth is absolute, and if you choose not to accept it, ok, fine, but it is not as "valid" as mine. Since Christians believe in the absoluteness of their moral foundation, that is the standard to judge the morality of other belief systems. We judge belief systems, not people.[/i] Well, that's great. I know that Christians believe their moral code is the only valid code, just as they believe their religion is the one true religion. But what about those of us who aren't Christian? Does that mean that we can't have a moral code since, to us, Christ's moral code is no more meaningful than any other human's? No, it just demonstrates my point (which, I'll admit, I didn't articulate very well). We all develop codes of morality, maybe based on others' and often in consideration to our society. We all hold our moral code to be absolute, otherwise there would be no point in implementing morality. But morality is only absolute to the individual. James, being a Catholic, I would assume that my moral code is better than yours. As I'm sure you would assume the opposite. This is because I have very high, absolute standards of morality that are not the same as your absolute standards. To me, the most important things in terms of morality are to never use force, to always avoid dishonesty, and to always consider the implications of your actions in regard to others as well as yourself. These ideas guide my moral framework and are considered in every decision I make (for example, I would never marry because I view it as forcing love, I'll immediately lose respect for anyone who lies, and I'll always consider things from others' perspectives). Your morals guide you similarly, but likely to different conclusions. And that's why morality is not universally absolute, but only absolute to the individual. [i]Whatever Dragon wants to call it, moral relativism is, indeed, a moral system itself that passes judgment on others through its beliefs (mostly against faithful Christians). [/i] Exactly, we do judge other moral systems- that is the best way of determining our own moral codes. I'm not sure why it is you say it is mostly against faithful Christians. Maybe because Christians are generally not very likely to accept the possibility that a non-Christian could have morals too. [i]If you notice, saying that everything is valid is the same thing as saying it is equal. Talk about semantics![/i] No, saying that everything is valid means that everything is worthy of consideration and comparison. [i]If everything is valid, everything is acceptable. In terms of moral belief systems, one isn't any more absolute than the other, then. Because none of them are true (absolute) they have to be equal in that respect. Therefore moral relativists can cleverly step outside of these belief systems and say they are all equal in their failure to know truth (we can't know it).[/i] You couldn't have possibly missed my point any more. All moral systems are absolute, but there is no one code of morality that is universally absolute; that is, there is no moral code accepted by all. This is why we compare moral systems. [i]Not surprisingly, folks with a lot of time on their hands-- westerners, mainly-- have made this belief system the staple of thought among "intellectuals". Yet the only reason they're able to make that claim in the first place is because they are raised (in the west) in a Judeo-Christian civilization. When Dragon says "If morals were universally absolute, it would be illogical, and unneccessary, to compare values or to accept that others' beliefs may be just as valid as your own.", she fails to recognize something: Where is it written that human beings have to accept the beliefs of others? Why is that necessary?[/i] You don't have to accept my beliefs, but you should be able to acknowledge them and consider them, in comparison to your own. That's all I'm saying. [i]Christians believe that their views on right and wrong are absolute, and that moral relativism, which is regarding all moral systems as valid, hence, equal, is quite unnecessary and illogical.[/i] Again, that's great if you're a Christian. But you seem very negligent of the fact that we are not all Christians, and you obviously aren't going to accept the possibility that maybe Christianity isn't right. That's okay, those are your beliefs. But your discussion leaves out all non-Christians. Not all moral systems are equal, but they all deserve to be acknowledged, that's how they're valid. [i]Dragon is delusional if she believes that the morality of forced clitorectomies for 7 year old girls, stoning a woman if she's not a virgin, sacrificing humans, or flying a plane into a skyscraper in order to reach heaven are "acceptable", "valid", or "equal" to every other moral system.[/i] Yeah, I would be delusional if I thought all that was moral. But those actions all violate my code of morality, so I see them as immoral. My moral system isn't universal, though, so others may have differing opinions. Those opinions should be considered, and then we can determine which moral code is best. [i]That's a cop-out argument. Yet moral relativists are the very first to judge us Christian fanatics using their own ideology. The only moral system that isn't equally valid to all other moral systems, apparently, is moral relativism itself. It's better![/i] Right. You lost me somewhere. Anyway, to state it as simply as I can (remember, I'm not claiming to be an expert or a genius or even that smart, and I'm not an English major- I could make mistakes), morality is absolute for the individual, but not universal. |
| 5 Comments |
| Moral relativity versus relativity of morality |
| 02.07.04 (9:38 pm) [edit] |
|
After reading an article (which, by the way, elicited many reactions of shock and appall (no, not shock and awe)) http://www.onearthasinheaven.... suggested to me by jimdoney, I believe I now realize the discrepency in the discussion of moral relativity. It lies in the definition, in semantics. Moral means what is right, and that is why those opposed to moral relativity view it is an absurd philosophy. I now understand this reasoning and acknowledge how wrong I have been in using the term. To say that what is moral, or right, isn't important because everyone has differing views is wrong and ridiculous and self-contradictory and anything else familiar in the arguments against moral relativism. It would be silly to assert that morality isn't important. While I don't think that that is the actual intention of moral relativity, my misunderstanding lies in the fact that I never considered moral relativity to be about claiming equality in the ideas of what is right, but in promoting acceptance of the validity others' views of right [i]and[/i] wrong. Moral relativity would mean, according to those opposed to it (I'm finding it increasingly difficult to refrain from using the term "Christian fanatics," given the nature of the article), that the view of what is right (and only what is right) doesn't matter because we all hold differing views. The relativity of morality, however, is quite different, and this is what I think is actually meant by the notion, though I could be wrong. Morality is distinguishing between right and wrong. Relativity, as noted previously, is consideration with respect to others. Therefore, the relativity of morality is considering what is right and wrong with respect to the notions of right and wrong of other individuals and cultures. It doesn't promote equality of moral standards, just acceptance of the fact that there can be no absolute, universal standards by which to judge morality. Comparison of ideas is paramount to cultivating a rational moral code. If morals were universally absolute, it would be illogical, and unneccessary, to compare values or to accept that others' beliefs may be just as valid as your own. But there are differing moral codes among individuals and among cultures. Morality is individual in nature because we all hold different values and have different interests, leading to different priorities in our moral codes. While I may disagree with another person or another culture's moral system, it does not invalidate their standards, nor does it invalidate my own by my admission of their validity. Unless you can prove to me that there is an absolute moral code, I'll continue to accept others' views in contrast to my own. |
| 8 Comments |
| The rationalism in religious beliefs |
| 02.07.04 (5:45 pm) [edit] |
|
Since I tend to make the assertion that basing your beliefs and your life on faith is illogical and irrational, I would like to clarify how it is that religious beliefs and rational thought do intermingle. And since I, apparently, write long-winded explanations because I think I know everything (compliment courtesy of JY), I will try and make this brief. Though it is not rational to accept religious beliefs, religion is based in rationalization. It is through questioning our existence that we have been led to religion. Religion provides answers to these questions. Therefore, religion is a [b]means[/b] of rationalization. [i]Accepting[/i] religion, however, depends not on the use of rational thought, but the desire of rationalization. To accept religion you must desire a way of rationalizing your existence and the nature of life and the universe. This desire for rationalization is a good thing; it is what leads us to understanding. However, accepting religious beliefs denies the cultivation of true rational thought. It is not rational to accept something based on faith, as is necessary to have a belief in God. Rational thought stops at the acceptance of religious beliefs. |
| 0 Comments |
| Clarifications of faith (for magicjoejoe) and moral relativity (for JamesYerian) |
| 02.04.04 (8:41 pm) [edit] |
|
Rather than continue conversations on these subjects in various places, I have decided to explain my points in a blog so that others may comment and to make things easier on myself. That's right, I'm lazy. Magicjoejoe replied to a statement I made in a comment on RedTigress' blog and had this to say: [i]I can't believe that someone would actually say that faith is illogical. Quite the contrary. The entire human history, every human culture, most human beings, most great human minds and simple human logic has always had faith in something. That's the one. The second point is that even the brain of dragonbait himself[/i] (correction: herself) [i]is hardwired for faith or belief or god or whatever you want to call it. That's right. The human brain itself provides the ultimate in evidence that human beings need a faith of some kind, because there is a specific rgion of the brain in every single human being that is entirely devoted to nothing else. It would be located, I do believe just inside your left temple, near the areas for language, thought, and emotion. I'll double check on the location.[/i] I said that faith, by definition is not logical. This is because faith requires a belief in something based not in logic or rational thought, but on emotion. Emotions are not logical. This in no way means that your emotions are wrong or that your faith is wrong. I was simply saying that to argue the existence of God and accept it is to go beyond logical thought and take a leap of faith. As far as the brain is concerned, there is evidence of an area of the brain that is responsible for religious belief. There is evidence that the brain experiences moments of hightened awareness when the person is involved in prayer or other, similarly intense, religious activities. To me, this signifies the strength and intensity of a person's religious beliefs, rather than pointing to an innate inclination towards such beliefs. I don't really know much about neurology, but I would be willing to bet that the area in the brain which you speak of as responsible for religious belief is also used for other functions. It does make sense that there is evidence that a portion of the brain is designated for allowing beliefs or faith, and it makes sense that it would be located near the areas of language, thought, and emotion, because we are all capable of understanding and even accepting stories of a grand nature, such as myths or fairy tales. Alright, moving on to moral relativity. I think I finally understand where it is that JamesYerian's ideas of moral relativity differ from my own. In a comment also on RedTigress' blog: [i]If we truly do create our own morality, then how sad is it that, in the view of an alarming number of people, morals are all relative. If all we have is ourselves, then you should really, really, ,really care about right and wrong, not discard it as a relative thing.[/i] The second point, that if all we have is ourselves we should really care about right and wrong, is precisely how I feel in regard to morality. Morals are relative because there is no set standard of morality that is universal. Religious belief is universal, but there is no one religion accepted universally. Our nature as humans includes a propensity for survival; our actions must be conducive to survival. The way I see it, the only absolute in morality is that the actions we choose must maintain a certain level of responsibility, otherwise we will not survive. I don't think that moral relativity means that we are not allowed to compare moral standards, or that all moral codes are equal. I view it as allowing a certain validity to all moral codes. My morality likely differs from yours (whoever you are, wherever you are) in some way. This does not mean that my standards are better than yours or vice versa, though that could be the case. It also doesn't mean that, because it's all relative, both views are equally valid. But they are both valid. There is no way to determine whose morality is better. That's my definition of moral relativity. Hopefully that clears up some things, and I apologize to both magicjoejoe and JamesYerian for the impersonal responses (but, like I said, I'm lazy). |
| 6 Comments |
| Correction to my Super Bowl conspiracy theory |
| 02.03.04 (11:28 pm) [edit] |
| In a speech tonight, John Kerry referred to his victories in 5 primary states as another vicotry for a New England Patriot. So it seems that I was wrong in part of my theory- it wasn't Bush and the White House that rigged the game, it was John Kerry. |
| 4 Comments |
| The dilemma of the Democratic Party and the anger of American politics |
| 02.03.04 (8:45 pm) [edit] |
|
With John Edwards winning South Carolina, John Kerry securing victories in at least Missouri and Delaware, it is important to look at the Democratic Party itself and the upcoming election in November. There is no candidate with a clear appeal among the Democrats of the nation. That's not entirely unusual, but it is a problem in regards to the hopes of defeating Bush in November. The longer it takes to decide upon a candidate from the Democratic Party, the longer Bush has to present his message without the interference of an opponent. The more the Democratic candidates continue to debate each other and attack the views of those within the party, the more fodder Bush is given. The longer it takes to determine the candidate, the more money is spent by all the Democrats. All this benefits Bush in a major way. The biggest motivating factor among Democrats, and those voting in the primaries, is a desire to remove Bush from office. The candidates themselves have little support, other than the potential for beating Bush. Issues no longer matter; all that is important to the majority of Democrats is getting rid of the current Administration. I would like little more than seeing Bush removed from office, but this doesn't blind me from the importance of the candidate's views on the issues that are important to me. The Democratic Party's lack of cohesion signifies a greater problem than simply a disillusionment with the direction in which our nation is moving; it points to a national apathy towards politics, and a lack of faith in the party itself. The message is no longer clear, the candidates don't support the party. That being said, there are also problems within the Republican Party, most notably an unfavorable view of the President among many conservatives. The Republican versus Democrat debate has lost its appeal, has lost its effectiveness, and has started to lose the nation. If you've ever so much as glanced at the [url=http://www.rnc.org/]Republican National Committee's[/url] website or the [url=http://www.democrats.org/]Democratic National Committee's[/url], perhaps you noticed what I did- both use anger and hatred of the opposing view to get their message out. Rather than focusing on the actual message of the party, both of the major parties rely on comparison to persuade the voters. Without searching quite a bit, it is rather difficult to read just the views of the party you are interested in reading about. The Democratic Party's site has a link to [url=http://www.democrats.org/issu...]Issues[/url] in which you can select an issue and see how the Democratic view differs from the Republican. Obviously, this is not the best way to present your views, and it is not the best way to understand the two parties, either. The debate between Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, depends on anger to spread any message at all, and to determine what is the best for the nation. Anger has its place in politics, but the focus should not be based on anger. Issues and solutions to political problems should be addressed directly, rather than through criticism of the opposing side. It is more beneficial to explain the views of a party than to simply contrast them to those of the party of opposition. There seem to be a loss of faith in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party taking place in the nation. The problems inherent in national politics have not been successfully resolved by either party. We, as a nation, need to overcome the anger and the disillusionment. New solutions are needed, and now is a time that the views of different parties and political ideologies should be welcome. With that, I urge you to visit the [url=http://www.lp.org/]Libertarian Party's[/url] website. |
| 11 Comments |
| Religion is deadly |
| 02.02.04 (9:26 pm) [edit] |
|
[b]Stampede Kills 251 Muslim Pilgrims[/b] By Rawya Rageh The Associated Press MINA, Saudi Arabia -- Seven more pilgrims died after being crushed in a stampede during the ritual stoning of Satan at the Muslim hajj, bringing the death toll to 251, a Saudi official said Monday. ... [b]Pilgrims also have been trampled to death on their way to the stoning ritual in 1994, 1998, 2001 and last year.[/b] Despite the Sunday tragedy, waves of pilgrims pushed and shoved their way through the crowds to continue with the devil-stoning rituals Monday. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com...]Read the entire article here[/url][LINE] I am curious as to how religious belief, at least in terms of aligning with the major religions, is justified in light of such horrendous circumstances as hundreds of people being trampled to death in a pilgrimage dedicated to a religious ceremony. I suppose the reason for continued faith in a religion is to chalk the deaths up to "God's will." Isn't religion convenient like that? Well, I don't know, I tend to think that if God wills 251 people to die in an act such as this, He isn't worth worshipping, at least not in ways ascribed by religions. Maybe that is the message- God is angry at how religions operate. Or maybe some rational thought is needed to explain why deaths like this occur. There have been countless deaths resulting from actions motivated by religion. The Crusades, among the most brutal of wars, were fought 'in the name of God.' I have a feeling God, who orders that we [b]not[/b] kill, wouldn't have been too happy about that justification. Consider the jihads, or holy wars, constantly fought, and the numerous terrorist attacks motivated by religious faith. Religious zealotry is dangerous, and often deadly. It is important to note the distinction between religion and spirituality. Religion relates to a particular belief system, in which there is a strict moral code, dogma, and set of rituals. Spirituality is more individual in nature and relates to a means of experiencing and realizing beliefs. Those who seek a spiritual means of relating to God do so from within. Those seeking God through religious practices use external forces to guide them. When I say religion is deadly or dangerous, I do not mean that the belief in God itself is deadly, though I do think it can be dangerous. |
| 12 Comments |
