Jul

21

One River, Many Wells

July 21, 2010 by Brandon | Leave a Comment

All religions are not the same. All religions do not lead down the same path, or achieve the same goal. You may notice that there are some similarities that many religions share with each other, but make no mistake, one of those similarities is divisiveness.

For whatever the reason, I’ve been thinking about people who seem to think that all religions are a path to the same end. It’s called pluralism. It might be because the Dalai Lama recently said on his 75th birthday that all religions basically preach the same message.

How horribly untrue this is. The fact of the matter is the similar concepts that religions sometimes share and get right, ideas of compassion and love, are not ideals exclusive to religion, but to human nature. And that is why religions also happen to contain those messages. One only needs to delve under the thin veneer that religions coat themselves in to discover the darker, deleterious truth.

Personally, I think that those who subscribe to this pluralistic ideal are simply people who are afraid to be wrong. Perhaps they think that this is the correct answer to Pascal’s Wager. If they think any path is the correct path, then they’re certainly hedging their bet. The only problem is that they aren’t taking into consideration that nearly every religion, especially the major world religions, go to great lengths to describe how everyone but themselves are wrong, and that they are the one true path. Heck, they can’t even agree amongst themselves most of the time. There are an estimated 38,000 unique denominations of Christianity alone. Which one is right? Which ever one you belong to, and the others are all wrong.

So let’s be realistic. The idea that there many wells, but one river is silly. People either think this in a vain attempt to win a false cosmic gamble, or they’re just pretentious, conceded pricks who think that they sound deep and meaningful when puking up this nonsense.



Apr

14

More Famous Than Jesus

April 14, 2010 by Brandon | Leave a Comment

Because the Vatican has nothing else of any importance to work on, they’ve decided to forgive The Beatles for their past transgressions, most notably Lennon’s 1966 comment about the band being bigger than Jesus, causing the church to brand them as being satanic. How kind of them.

At least one of The Beatles couldn’t care less, as Ringo Starr told CNN. Like myself, he thinks that the church has more important issues to deal with than forgiving a band for some comments made over 40 years ago.

It seems to me that in the wake of their massive abuse scandal, they’re attempting create some news worthy stories to divert attention away from the fact that the Pope is at the head of numerous abuse cover-ups perpetrated by the church.

If this keeps up though, I think I’m going to have to dedicate a whole category to the Catholics.



Apr

14

Catholic Backlash Leads To Vandalism

April 14, 2010 by Brandon | 5 Comments

There seems to be a growing backlash against the Catholic Church, and more specifically, Pope Benedict, as their pedophile sex-abuse scandal continues to wither the public’s faith in them.

Yesterday, Pope Benedict’s birthplace in Marktl am Inn, was vandalized with spray painted obscenities referring to the scandal. The building was recently converted into a museum to honor the Pope. Authorities have since painted over the text, and unfortunately I’ve been unable to find exactly what was written.

Now obviously I have no idea if this was done by a Catholic, and odds are it wasn’t, but I think it’s a perfect demonstration of what I’ve been saying; the Catholic church needs to admit to their wrong doing, launch an investigation with full cooperation with the authorities, and Ratsinger needs to, at the very least, step down as Pope. There is no other way that the Church is going to gain forgiveness in the public’s eye over this.

It’s extremely unlikely that any of these things will occur, because the Church is in far too deep at this point. Instead, they’ll just keep blaming who ever or whatever they can, from the devil and Jews, to the media and homosexuals. Next thing you know, they’ll be blaming Obama.



Dec

6

Here’s A Bulletin

December 6, 2009 by Brandon | 3 Comments

Once again I’m here apologizing for a lack of posts, but life has been keeping me a little busy, and work often doesn’t allow me much time to write. But today is dead, and a co-worker has informed me of an article that I just can’t pass up.

It seems Bill O’Reilly is at it again, as if anyone thought he’d put the War on Christmas on hold this season, with a scathing article that attacks atheists for being “jealous” of the Christmas season.

Mr. O’Reilly, when he isn’t sexually harassing women, seems to enjoy taking issue with innocuous bus signs, stating things like, “No God? No Problem! Be Good for Goodness’ Sake.” What a horrible message to send this time of year. Be good for the sake of being good, not because you’re afraid of eternal punishment.

I will let him pass on one sign, being displayed in Las Vegas, which states, “Yes, Virginia, there is no God.” I can understand that this sign does seem to be more of just an attack, rather than a sign that reaches out to other atheists and lets them know that they are not alone.

Bill O’Reilly doesn’t seem to care that there are millions of people in the United States who do not believe in any gods, and feel very secluded, especially this time of year. It can be a very depressing season for a person who may not celebrate any religious holidays, and seeing something that lets them know that they aren’t the only one out there does help.

So no, Bill O’Reilly, the issue isn’t that atheists are jealous of the season. As a matter of fact, Christmas is, in my opinion, a purely secular holiday. The United States government recognizes it as an official holiday, and therefore it cannot be religious, otherwise it’d be unconstitutional. Christmas as it is today is also a relatively new thing, created by commercialism. I celebrate Christmas, insomuch as I put up a Christmas tree, I will decorate, and I give and receive gifts. There is nothing religious about this. I do not need a baby Jesus, I do not need a God. I don’t care if that’s what you want to make your holiday about, either, just don’t expect me not to make comments about religious displays on government property; it has nothing to do with the season, or Christmas, and everything to do with something I see as being unconstitutional.

O’Reilly also rails against the use of “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” throwing out some poll suggesting 72% of Americans favor “Merry Christmas.” Good for them. Can’t imagine why. Certainly this number doesn’t correlate at all with the percentage of people who are Christian, and specifically celebrate this holiday, while the 22% who favor “Happy Holidays” may celebrate the other holidays which fall in or around this season, or may not celebrate any at all and are just being nice to people who do.

Bill, who permanently has his panties in a bunch, says that the efforts of secular organizations and atheists to stop the vilification of the non-religious have backfired:

Here’s a bulletin: Many parents don’t want their children to see bus signs proclaiming that God is a big hoax. That message may be constitutionally protected, but it is not going to engender much good will among believers.

An interesting thought. Well, Bill, here’s a bulletin: many parents don’t want their children to see road signs that tell them they’re going to hell if they don’t believe in God. That message may be constitutionally protected, but it isn’t going to engender much good will among non-believers.



Oct

17

Paranormal Activity

October 17, 2009 by Brandon | 5 Comments

People would probably be surprised to know that scary movies involving religiously tainted or paranormal stories are among my most favorite movies, including, but not limited to, The Blair Witch Project and Stigmata. Just to give you an idea.

So obviously I was pretty excited that Paranormal Activity, an extremely low-budget film that had a viral ad campaign on the intertubes, received enough attention to be released in theatres nationwide. The film followed in the same vein as the above mentioned The Blair Witch Project, in that it was shot with a simple handheld camorder. The film follows a young couple who have recently moved in together. It’s explained at the start by the boyfriend, who bought the camorder, that his intent was to document some strange occurrences which have been keeping them awake at night.

The movie itself doesn’t rely on the usual tricks that will make you jump from surprise, but instead gradually makes you feel more and more uneasy as the recorded nights you’re viewing progress and stranger and stranger things occur.

What the idea that will perhaps scare most people is that the paranormal activity the couple are trying to endure in the film isn’t caused by a ghost, but by some demonic creature that has been attached to the girl nearly all her life. Why is this thought scary? Well let’s assume you live in a new house, with no reason to suspect that anyone died anywhere near the property. Why would you be scared of a ghost? Instead the film postulates that this sort of possession can afflict anyone at any time, no doubt causing movie-goers to second guess what that bump in the night just might be.

Truly the movie scared me, which is ironic because obviously I don’t believe in any of this. Still, I never really cared much for the dark; deep inside everyone is a lingering, primal fear of what can’t be seen in blackness of night. The dark can be a dangerous place, and it was even more dangerous for our ancestors who learned it’s best to keep out of it, lest you want to be some wild animal’s meal. But in times where one need not venture out into the woods and caverns, religion and superstition filled our imaginations with other terrible things to keep that part of the brain alive and well.

There are some emotions which, no matter how rational you want to be about it, still get the better of you.



keep looking »

What is Fractal Wrongness?

The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.

  • Recent Comments

  • Visitors Online

    • 01 visitor(s) online
    • powered by WassUp