digitaldiscipline (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
digitaldiscipline) wrote2003-10-03 11:11 am
digitaldiscipline) wrote2003-10-03 11:11 am
Entry tags:
A rant, in two parts
In her column of September 29, Palace contributor Liz Pavek expressed her sentiments on the homosexual and a-religious thusly:
The atheists of the world are in need of a new name, they say.
I've never met any of these atheists. I suspect that these are some breed of ivory-tower asshole, common in academia, and bearing approximately as much resemblance to real people as I do to Britney Spears or the Pope.
Daniel Dennett, one of the leading lights of this group of believers in the negative
Hold it, Liz. If you want to proselytize [and, if I recall correctly, the directive to convert non-believers of any stripe, is a core tenet of Christianity, which I suspect may either color the objectivity of this argument, or at least makes for an interesting counterpoint], slagging an alternative viewpoint right off doesn't build a strong rhetorical foundation.
If you want a more objective view or phrase, I suggest "group of folks who'd like to see objective proof of Divinity, rather than using a reliance on faith (blind or otherwise)."
The term "atheist" is too negative, and should be replaced by something more positive
In this, I think Mr. Dennett has been gazing at his navel a bit too hard, and has moved his head too far astern. "Atheist" is a pleasingly neutral term - the only folks who get bent out of shape by its utterance are people who are rather fervent in their faith.
If you're secure in your belief system, someone who harbors doubts about it shouldn't ruffle your feathers nearly this egregiously. The squawking and denigration that ensues when someone dares to maintain a differing opinion seems, to this participant, to be more indicative of the frailty of that faith on the part of the believers, rather than any intellectual, spiritual, or other failing on the part of the cynic. Maybe I'm an abrasive grain of sand, but it's your paroxyms that accrete about it that make the pearl bigger.
-- something along the lines of term "gay," the word co-opted by the homosexuals in the West to describe their destructive, negative, and unattractive lifestyle.
"Hey, let's slap the queers, as long as we're going to denigrate everyone I don't agree with!" That will improve the ol' rhetoric.
I'm not sure what's so "negative" about being gay, or, nine million remodeling shows aside, what's destructive about it, either. I mean, other than the whole "abomination in the eyes of God" thing, but so is eating shellfish, I think. Maybe this is a broad intepretation of the whole "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass," commandment. At least it rules out that whole "Coveting thy neighbor's wife" thing, huh?
As far as being unattractive - I know a lot of fuck-ugly straight folks, too.
The term Dennett thinks will describe his fellow unbelievers and himself is "bright."
*wipes coffee off monitor* After an assertion like that, the -last- thing I'd call Mr. Dennett is "bright." Danny boy, you sound like a fucking idiot, trying to co-opt a perfectly serviceable term from normal use to push your agenda. Sorry, thanks for playing, you don't get to come back tomorrow, you don't even get a lousy copy of our home game.
But is it really descriptive of people who not only refuse to believe in a Creator, but refuse to look at any evidence that might lead to belief in such a Creator?
When "evidence" consists of the testimonials of faith that established practitioners recount, then, no, that's really not worth looking at. I'm amused by the bumper stickers that read "Jesus, save me from your followers," because, on the off chance that you, as Christians are -right,- a lot of you are being real assholes about it without any substantial evidence to back you up.
The burden of proof is solidly with those who assert a thing to be true. "I've got a million dollars" (show me the bank statement). "My wife is a Playboy model" (whip out the issue). "God created the universe" (did he keep the receipts for materials?) There's no way to prove that, is there? There are some pretty strong scientific theories that go a long way towards explaining where the universe came from, and they're subjected to rigorous peer review and objective testing, but faith. . . ahh, that's a personal belief, subjective in the extreme. You'll have to pardon my skepticism that your faith, whether it works for you or not, will stand up in the cold light of day for -everyone-.
"Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like 'gay'," says Richard Dawkins, another "bright" light of atheism.
Apparently, Mr. Dawkins needs to get out of his office more often. I would strongly recommend a weekend spent playing video games, consuming mind-altering substances, and enjoying the company of a professional escort - there's some damn fine enjoyment to be had when you're not hell-bent on being an obsteporous dork. We don't need a word any more than Michael Jordan needs another pair of sneakers.
A simple lack of animosity from folks like Ms. Pavek is plenty good, thanks.
Atheists, by their own choice, are believers in a negative.
Note the word "choice." I'd be interested in seeing the statistics of how many people choose to eschew religion after being raised with it compared to those who choose to pursue it after being raised without. I'd quibble with the semantics of Christians' belief in something that doesn't exist [vis a vis, the proof of God's existence] as being essentially the same thing.
Maybe I should pursue an agenda of militant agnosticism - "I don't know if God exists, and neither do you." Nahhh, that's proseltyzing, and that's too much like work.
[to be continued]
The atheists of the world are in need of a new name, they say.
I've never met any of these atheists. I suspect that these are some breed of ivory-tower asshole, common in academia, and bearing approximately as much resemblance to real people as I do to Britney Spears or the Pope.
Daniel Dennett, one of the leading lights of this group of believers in the negative
Hold it, Liz. If you want to proselytize [and, if I recall correctly, the directive to convert non-believers of any stripe, is a core tenet of Christianity, which I suspect may either color the objectivity of this argument, or at least makes for an interesting counterpoint], slagging an alternative viewpoint right off doesn't build a strong rhetorical foundation.
If you want a more objective view or phrase, I suggest "group of folks who'd like to see objective proof of Divinity, rather than using a reliance on faith (blind or otherwise)."
The term "atheist" is too negative, and should be replaced by something more positive
In this, I think Mr. Dennett has been gazing at his navel a bit too hard, and has moved his head too far astern. "Atheist" is a pleasingly neutral term - the only folks who get bent out of shape by its utterance are people who are rather fervent in their faith.
If you're secure in your belief system, someone who harbors doubts about it shouldn't ruffle your feathers nearly this egregiously. The squawking and denigration that ensues when someone dares to maintain a differing opinion seems, to this participant, to be more indicative of the frailty of that faith on the part of the believers, rather than any intellectual, spiritual, or other failing on the part of the cynic. Maybe I'm an abrasive grain of sand, but it's your paroxyms that accrete about it that make the pearl bigger.
-- something along the lines of term "gay," the word co-opted by the homosexuals in the West to describe their destructive, negative, and unattractive lifestyle.
"Hey, let's slap the queers, as long as we're going to denigrate everyone I don't agree with!" That will improve the ol' rhetoric.
I'm not sure what's so "negative" about being gay, or, nine million remodeling shows aside, what's destructive about it, either. I mean, other than the whole "abomination in the eyes of God" thing, but so is eating shellfish, I think. Maybe this is a broad intepretation of the whole "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass," commandment. At least it rules out that whole "Coveting thy neighbor's wife" thing, huh?
As far as being unattractive - I know a lot of fuck-ugly straight folks, too.
The term Dennett thinks will describe his fellow unbelievers and himself is "bright."
*wipes coffee off monitor* After an assertion like that, the -last- thing I'd call Mr. Dennett is "bright." Danny boy, you sound like a fucking idiot, trying to co-opt a perfectly serviceable term from normal use to push your agenda. Sorry, thanks for playing, you don't get to come back tomorrow, you don't even get a lousy copy of our home game.
But is it really descriptive of people who not only refuse to believe in a Creator, but refuse to look at any evidence that might lead to belief in such a Creator?
When "evidence" consists of the testimonials of faith that established practitioners recount, then, no, that's really not worth looking at. I'm amused by the bumper stickers that read "Jesus, save me from your followers," because, on the off chance that you, as Christians are -right,- a lot of you are being real assholes about it without any substantial evidence to back you up.
The burden of proof is solidly with those who assert a thing to be true. "I've got a million dollars" (show me the bank statement). "My wife is a Playboy model" (whip out the issue). "God created the universe" (did he keep the receipts for materials?) There's no way to prove that, is there? There are some pretty strong scientific theories that go a long way towards explaining where the universe came from, and they're subjected to rigorous peer review and objective testing, but faith. . . ahh, that's a personal belief, subjective in the extreme. You'll have to pardon my skepticism that your faith, whether it works for you or not, will stand up in the cold light of day for -everyone-.
"Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like 'gay'," says Richard Dawkins, another "bright" light of atheism.
Apparently, Mr. Dawkins needs to get out of his office more often. I would strongly recommend a weekend spent playing video games, consuming mind-altering substances, and enjoying the company of a professional escort - there's some damn fine enjoyment to be had when you're not hell-bent on being an obsteporous dork. We don't need a word any more than Michael Jordan needs another pair of sneakers.
A simple lack of animosity from folks like Ms. Pavek is plenty good, thanks.
Atheists, by their own choice, are believers in a negative.
Note the word "choice." I'd be interested in seeing the statistics of how many people choose to eschew religion after being raised with it compared to those who choose to pursue it after being raised without. I'd quibble with the semantics of Christians' belief in something that doesn't exist [vis a vis, the proof of God's existence] as being essentially the same thing.
Maybe I should pursue an agenda of militant agnosticism - "I don't know if God exists, and neither do you." Nahhh, that's proseltyzing, and that's too much like work.
[to be continued]
no subject
What guidelines are these? I don't go to church because I'm lazy, don't like getting dressed up that early on Sunday morning, and like to watch football. . . oh yeah, and I never really got anything out of it when I -was- going every week [to a Lutheran church with a very nice Pastor, who has since retired].
They are both condescending and scornful of anything that smacks of religious faith. Both are fervent "evangelists" for their beliefs, but, of course, they belive in nothing but what they see. Whatever pleasure they take in their stance is derived from mockery and smug self-satisfaction.
They're hardly the first twits to look like buffoons in the name of their chosen cause. Name your agenda, and there's probably an asshole getting a lot of attention espousing it - Al Sharpton to Rush Limbaugh to all those pedophile priests - that make everyone else who agrees, in general, with the agenda in question cringe to be associated with these bozos.
Then again, there's plenty of condescention and scorn being directed at atheists by folks who hew to some faith, too. Not that I'd go so far as to suggest Liz is doing anything of the kind in her column, of course. . .
To me, those of the "gay" persuasion will always be lost, pathetic, self-destructive, and insecure. Just applying a happy word to a negative behavior isn't necessarily going to produce that quality in the people who co-opt it for their descriptive title.
"Faithful" makes me think of a well-behaved Golden Retriever, or Old Yeller. The fact that it covers religious persons of every stripe, from Wiccans to Methodists to Buddists to followers of Islam doesn't change that.
The fact that the word "religious" in my mind, conjures up the self-same litany ["lost, pathetic, self-destructive, and insecure"]. . . hardly a compelling argument in favor of one stance over the other, now, is it?
The atheists I've known always struck me as a joyless and ill-humored bunch.
Only when it comes to arguments about religion. Try talking to me about hockey or my cats. ;-)
They have to be cranky and out of sorts all the time.
Says who? Is there something intrinsically wrong with living in the moment without the burden of worrying about the Divine Mystery of creation, or, worse, the oppressive concern over not wanting to Fuck Up Our Ticket To Heaven?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Pascal was a pussy. I'll not hamstring a pleasant life I'm absolutely guaranteed to experience [that'd be this one] by being all pious and joyless on the -chance- that there's some kind of afterlife that I -might- qualify for. And, frankly, if there -is- a Christian Hell, I'm quite certain that my attitude will have me driving the Short Bus to it. . . but it'll be packed with my friends.
They're required to be irked and disappointed.
Irked? Only by pious busybodies who are hell-bent on telling us how we're all doing the wrong thing by making a decision that works for us. My only disappointment is seeing so many otherwise bright and clueful people, folks whose mental acuity I normally respect, blindly adhere to a notion of faith and belief that's as alien to me as the thought process behind creating a symphony, or being an octopus.
no subject
Also an apt description of my hardcore Southern Baptist relatives. And the Republican Party, for that matter. I'll take atheists for a good time over those groups any day!
(One of the nicest things a religious person ever said to me -- a former co-worker who was a devout Christian -- was that I was such fun to talk about religion with. Many mornings, we had long, involved conversations over coffee about the Bible & how to interpret it. No proselytizing, just observation & personal opinions. We disagreed on faith but agreed a lot about how ppl thruout time have fucked up some nice ideas in the Bible.)
no subject
she likes talking to me, because i don't agree with her religious choice, and serve as a reminder both that people who disagree with her exist, and that it's perfectly possible to be a great guy and -not- christian in the extreme. plus, she gets off on praying for me and stuff *laugh* i enjoy making her question and evaluate her faith. . .
. . . though there's the whole matter of her having married an idiot, which we both agree not to talk about. heh.
no subject
I'd be happy if we'd just be thought of in non-negative ones. That'd be great, thanks.
Like a pathetic old homosexual, as they get older they realize they don't want to die without ever having experienced real joy.
I want to meet this person who decides what "real joy" is and give him a wedgie. . . because I bet I'd get some real joy out of the experience, Deity Not Included.
"Listen, folks - happiness is a two-second orgasm, or a chocolate chip cookie, or a cigarette. You have the orgasm, you smoke the butt, you eat the cookie, you get up and go to work. END OF F*CKING LIST." - Denis Leary
They know that whatever they mistook for that condition was nothing but a sham, and they feel their sad lives slipping away without having known what it feels like to experience real peace.
Wow, so the love of my family and friends, the thrill of creation, some really mind-blowing sex. . . all of that is meaningless, because it didn't have the underlying endorsement of some mythical dude? Wow, I'm crushed.
No, wait, that was because I had decaf this morning. Management Apologizes for the Inconvenience.
I wonder how many of them have danced in a downpour, run through a summer meadow full of wildflowers and floating butterflies, or held a newborn son or daughter in their arms and realized what a miracle birth is.
I'd say that, other than the whole childbirth thing, all of us. You don't need Divine Intervention to appreciate the pleasant things in life.
I've often wondered what homosexuals and atheists look forward to after they die.
The rest. [Incidentally, I love how Liz keeps harping on "homosexuals and atheists," like there aren't any gay Jews, or something, and how there's that little Christian tenet that says "Uh, you know, if you don't worship our way, you're going to hell."]
People who choose a lifestyle or belief system that attempts to negate the established norm of historical morals are self-absorbed sorts who take themselves too seriously.
"Historical Morals" - this, from a religion that's existed for, by my watch, about 8% of the history of the human race.
they could easily be bright and gay if they would simply acknowledge what the rest of us have taken for granted since mankind first looked at the stars and wondered how they got up there: That life is a joy, in spite of tears and sorrow and the rest of the travails that make real joy and peace such a precious condition.
Deity Not Included.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
i liked the original byline best - "Not just another vanity site, the world's most pretentious vanity site!"
no subject