Raven Paradox

We don’t choose to be born.

We have no say in that.

Two people fornicate, and in the pinball machine that is the uterus, somehow one sperm (sometimes more than one) travel onward prior to the act of corona radiata whereby one or more happen to penetrate the ova.

From here on in, cell division takes place.

Around nine months later, nature willing, a child is born.

In an ideal world, that child, helpless and unable to fend for itself, is cared for by those who gave it life until such a time that it can make choices of its own.

Following that, it dips its toe into the cesspool of humanity and attempts to forge a path for itself.

It may last a week, it may last ninety years.

Its quality of life may be good, it may be bad.

Does any human have the right to decree that another human should suffer?

Define suffering.

For me, it comes down to quality of life.

Does this human being exist in a dignified state, one that they would wish others to remember them in?

If not, should they, or others who care for them, be able to assist them in ending their suffering in a dignified manner?

Yes.

You don’t have a choice when it comes to your conception.

You are owed a choice when it comes to your death.

It is your life, your choice.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is a cunt.

Comments(0)

I consider myself to be a reasonably tolerant, rational, calm and accepting person; but there is something that has the ability to really get under my skin – the question:

“So what star sign are you?”

My answer is always the same:

“I don’t have one”.

This answer produces a myriad of reactions – from amusement to incomprehension to indignance. If I haven’t already made up my mind about someone prior to them asking such an inane question, their response to my answer certainly seals the deal.

To some, astrology may be “fun to think about”, but to me it is a ludicrous pseudo science with the potential to cause harm in much the same way as religion if taken too seriously.

I believe that there are two types of adherents to astrology – casual newspaper readers and “sun sign” devotees. The boundaries between them can tend to blur however.

Before I forge on however, I will declare my hand.

I became an atheist at about age eight, yet I held on to astrology for some reason for another four or five years. I am not quite sure why that was, religion and astrology share so many common factors:

• neither are backed up by any form of logic, science or rationality
• both involve worship of the sun or suns (as a god or some kind of influential factor)
• both were ideas framed by superstitious peasants not fortunate enough to have access to the reasoning that science has provided us with
• both make assertions that are highly improbable and require a leap of “faith”
• both fill holes in vacuous minds
• both give “hope” to the weak and fragile

There are many more commonalities, but I think that you get the drift.

I fell into the casual newspaper reader category for a short while before exploring it further and even as a young teenager, knew that it even were one to become a devotee, the premise behind it was flawed. Why I didn’t desert it as soon as I became an atheist, I am not quite sure. I suppose that it was “nice to think about”.

The simple fact of the matter is that this pseudo science was created over 4000 years ago, prior to most of the planets and stars we now know exist having been discovered. The “charts” that are used to plot ones life path, “destiny”, future are flawed and incomplete.

Even if there was any rationality behind this trickery, the premise would be flawed for that reason, but also due the fact that the light from the stars upon which this court jestery is based comes to us from several million years past.

Withholding disbelief for a moment, say for example that astrology carries any kind of weight, are you going to tell me that simply because of where some celestial bodies were at the moment I was born, the path of my life has been preordained?

If that is the case, why on earth do we have any crime/misfortune/famine/disease/war etc etc in the world? Surely if this pseudo science had any merit, there would be teams of astrologers working away with the birth records of every one of the 200,000+ children born every single day, plotting their charts and making recommendations of infanticide to the appropriate authorities in various regions throughout the world.

You see were astrology in any way, shape or form; real – it wouldn’t suffer from the paradox of free will and omniscience/omnipotence in the same way that religion does.

Its proponents claim that based upon the date, hour and minute of your birth; your nature can be explicitly defined, with no room for error.

If you are this sign, you are stubborn, if you are that sign, you are loyal, if you are another, you are sexual… fuck me, we are human beings, each subject to completely unique experiences, born with unique abilities and moulded by our unique environments – a person with a modicum of intelligence may just give a moderate amount more weight to such things than the position of the stars and planets when one is born…

What really concerns me though, is the amount of atheists that I have met who continue to afford this charlatanry any kind of credence.

Three of the most devout devotees to astrology I have met were also devout atheists. One would think that their atheism would engender rationality. Sadly, attempting to have a discussion with them about astrology was met with the same kind of response as one would encounter when discussing relgion with a fundamentalist theist. ’twas most perplexing to me to say the least.

I know that that is hardly a scientific sample size, but to me, it illustrated humankinds irrational desire to seek a higher purpose, something other than themselves; almost as if we have an innate desire to abdicate responsibility for our own choices and the path that our life takes.

To me, this makes astrology potentially as dangerous as religion when in the wrong hands and I sincerely believe that the slippery slope principle applies equally.

The only difference is that there is no vengeful deity who will smite you, should you choose not to worship the stars.

Perhaps that is what makes it comforting for “weak” atheists – they want to believe in something, just not an angry bearded guy in the sky who will smite them if they disobey…

Comments(0)

From Wikipedia:

“Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of one’s conduct are the true basis for any judgement about the morality of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

This is something that I have only just learned about, courtesy of Peter Singer.

For a long while, I have searched for the answer to the question posed by theists: “Without god, how do we know what is morally right?”.

Consequentialism, to me, seems to be the answer.

If the result of ones actions cause harm, then said actions could be said to be morally or ethically wrong.

There is no need to read a 2000 year old work of fiction to determine the intrinsic nature of cause and effect.

Whilst the bible, and indeed evolution itself may give rise to applications that support the moral turpitude of homosexuality, consequentially, could the act be considered wrong if conducted by two consenting adults?

We may intrinsically “feel” that homosexuality is “wrong” because it, by its very design, cannot lead to the propagation of the species, however does that make it ethically or morally wrong?

With a world that is overpopulated, with many millions of people below the poverty line, many millions forced to live on below $1 a day, with many millions starving, could not the act of heterosexual procreation be considered to be an ethically and morally wrong act?

From a theistic standpoint, should homosexuality, by its very nature, be considered to be an “act of god” in that it stems the flow of the human populace, helps correct the burden that we are placing on the planet and on one another?

If the outcomes of ones actions could be considered to form the basis of ones ethics or morality, surely then, those heterosexual couples in the wealthy western world who choose to have ten or twelve children should be called to account for the selfish act of increasing the consumption of fuels and food stuff that could otherwise be used to benefit the developing countries.

If one is to base ones morality and ethics on the Christian bible, then from a consequentialist standpoint, one falls victim to hypocrisy.

A book that is full of violence and bigotry, brandished as a standard for the persecution of homosexuals, unmarried couples, the oppression of women and the denial of science; certainly has a case to answer then it comes to the outcomes of such beliefs.

Can one look at the bible, the Qu’ran and the messages contained within and honestly say to oneself “if I live by the words of this book, the world will be a better place, with less suffering”?

Comments(0)

Fred Nile is a lunatic.

Any reasonable person would certainly find this man to be beyond the realms of sanity, and in a more enlightened era, he would be committed to an institution.

Nile is a man obsessed with sex, particularly when it occurs between two consenting men or two consenting women.

He spends his evenings dreaming about homosexuality, praying for bad things to happen to homosexuals and attempting to force his own twisted views on the citizens of NSW.

He hates gays, muslims, atheists, and anyone else who doesn’t conform to said twisted views.

His latest outburst – Fred Nile links ethics classes to the advent of the next Hitler – is yet another example of why religion should never, ever have a place in politics.

Nile is attempting to blackmail the NSW Premier – Barry O’Farrell, into removing ethics classes from NSW schools.

He wants them replaced with scripture classes, claiming that ethics lead to communism and Nazi ideology.

Apparently he is serious, to quote:

“It’s relative ethics, which is the basis of secular humanism and I believe … this is the philosophy we saw during World War II with the Nazis and with the communists.

Situation ethics, as I see it, was followed by other regimes such as the Nazis and communists.

Situation ethics means nothing is right and nothing is wrong … Therefore, you can kill human beings without any embarrassment and any reservations.

It’s a very dangerous philosophy.”

Of course, secular humanism is very dangerous indeed.

Look at all the atrocities committed on a daily basis by secular humanists.

They bomb abortion clinics, gun down school children attending camps, persecute homosexuals, fly planes into buildings, build walls around land that they steal from the rightful owners…

We see it in the news daily.

Fred Nile particularly hates pornography, so much so, that his personal login on his parliamentary computer was used to “investigate” over 200,000 pornographic websites:

Fred Nile really, really, really hates porn

Of course, it was just for “research purposes”.

He just wanted to see what kind of filth that your common secular humanist reprobate got up to in their spare time so that he could save them from it.

This is a man who, every Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, prays for rain.

This is a man who wants to foist his twisted superstitious views on the fertile minds of innocent school children, yet wishes to ban traditional Islamic dress.

This is a man who is actively campaigning against pagan weddings.

This is the man who holds such power in the NSW senate that he is able to blackmail the democratically elected premier of the state into incorporating the views of the lunatic fringe minority, into removing classes from public (not Christian) schools that teach children secular ethics.

He would have them replaced with a doctrine that says that it is ok to hate homosexuals, that anyone who is different from you is evil.

This is a very, very evil man.

You can email this bigot at:

F.Nile@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Comments(1)

Religion…

I am a very angry man at this point in time.

Why is religion afforded such a special place in society?

Why is it against the law to question or probe certain aspects of that which is known as “faith”?

If a person murders/rapes/molests/assaults someone and tells a priest, it is a “confession” and precluded from any kind of legal examination. If a person does the same thing and speaks with an acquaintance about it, it is a legally admissable statement of guilt.

Both are cries for acknowledgement – why is one protected from exposure and the other is not?

Similarly, why do we tread carefully over peoples faith – why must we respect unquestioningly someones “right” to wear a headscarf, refuse to touch a pedestrian crossing button on a Saturday or insist on dunking their newborns head in a bowl of water?

The loopholes that are made available for people on “the grounds of religion” are as infinite as they are ludicrous.

Why are there so many concessions made upon the assumption that a ghostly entity exists?

That there is a god – or even a god like creature – is highly scientifically debatable. Whilst a religious person may demand that an atheist or agnostic produce proof that their god does not exist, the burden of proof actually lies squarely upon the theist or religious person.

Due to the fact that they have made the initial assertion that a supernatural entity exists, the burden falls upon them to prove the existence.

If I were to assert that a purple dreadlocked pixie who ate seahorse shit lived in my letterbox, people would want proof – much in the same way that people who wish to assert the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god should be required to.

Why then are there no requirements for measures of proof within our judicial system when it comes to “faith” or religious beliefs?

Technorati Tags: christian, islam, judaism, nile, fred nile, church, religion, god, jesus, confession, proof

Comments(0)

Richard Dawkins is probably the most important thing to have happened to the world since Einstein.

A word to the unwise – he is a gifted evolutionary biologist who is attempting to re-establish some modicum of sanity in a global society that is slowly but surely going insane.

Forget global warming and the hole in the ozone layer, we are in grave danger of being swamped by a much more sinister problem – logic melting and holes in our rationality.

The resurgence of fundamentalist religious zealotry is a truly frightening thing.

I will write some more about this incredible man in the not too distant future – in the interim, enjoy the following video:

http://richarddawkins.net/home

Technorati Tags: Richard Dawkins, religion, insanity, atheism, freedom from religion, god delusion, templeton, church

Comments(0)

… hmmm, maybe I should rethink the heading – some sects may take that literally – speaking of which, what is the difference between a religion and a cult? A couple of thousand years I would say, but I digress…

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali is a bloody idiot. It is reported that during a Ramadan sermon, he suggested that perhaps women were somehow responsible for being raped because they “sway suggestively” and wore make-up and immodest dress.

For Satan’s sake, what good is global warming if women have to cover themselves up? The one good thing about the hole in the ozone layer is the fact that it gets hotter earlier and stays so for longer… attractive women dressed appropriately for the season is one of the great things about the Australian summer – and it isn’t just good for the typical hetrosexual male and lesbian – with shirtless young men parading about, women and gay gentlemen (resplendent in flared trousers and orange cravats) also have a veritable visual feast to gorge themselves upon.

But that is the point – is is a visual feast, not a smorgasboard for rapists.

No one can deny that you see many more shirtless men in summer than you do women (which is a pity), yet how often do you hear of gangs of women raping men? You don’t – (and not because such things are considered as fantasy by many men) – but because most women are able to maintain a modicum of decorum (except on hen’s nights) and behave in a socially acceptable manner. (more…)

Comments(0)