Bad traffic forced me to take a back route to work today and that means passing by the original home of the Taber-Chuckle. I didn't have time to snap a photo but have recreated the sign with one of those handy meme generators. Enjoy.
From Penn Jillette's book, God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales:
There is no god and that's the simple truth. If every trace of any single religion died out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.
(via DaringFireball)
While I was out doing my morning constitutional, I was turning over in my head the idea of contacting tech support for the company that provides a storage service at work to see if they have any improvements that would greatly benefit me. In particular, this service is very slow on my machine because the file system method they use is a nightmare when using the normal standard to access it and they do not have a Macintosh client for it. Anyway, I was thinking of describing it as "slower than the arrival of Christmas in a godless country".
Uh, oh. Now I take off on a tangent.
Maybe I should say, "slower than Christmas in the Roman Empire". No, better yet: "slower than a colonial times Yule festival". Yeah. As much as the fucking Republicans love to harp on and on about the Founding Fathers and Christmas, why not bring back the Yule festival, a wonderful drunken debauch that would last for days. At least, they will have tradition to allow their private vices.
No, they'd never go along with that. Just like their vision of American Christianity, they like to cherry pick this and that, never the whole concept, much less in context. Their vision is nothing more than a Frankenstein monster. If only we could jump to the end where The Monster destroys its creator.
I smiled and finished my walk in record time.
Who would dare support anti-defamation of religion? 1) It's subjective. 2) Laughing at retards is fun!
After all, at one point, especially with religion, any discussion about a new faith was dangerous. You could be killed for it. Hypocrites. Their take is defamation is intolerance. I say anti-defamation is intolerance.
It's the same side of the same coin.
Source: Pharyngula
The blogs that keep tabs on the religious nut jobs have plenty of quotes from their mouthings off that make it clear, though not always explicit, that these bozos would like nothing more than to live in an American theocracy. I have some thoughts on that.
There are few true theocracies in the world because they require one hundred percent commitment from the populace. Most of them, to obtain that amazing support, require such control and capitulation of the will and individuality of the populace that the very thought of it gives a rational, free individual a WTF moment.
Perhaps these evangelical lunatics should consider this: evangelicalism exists because it does not like the way the mainstream version of the cult works. Their crap is derived from Protestantism, which exists because they did not like the rules of Catholicism. Even evangelicalism has splinter groups who interpret things different from the other dangerous cults. So here is the question: whose rules are law? What about people who do not agree? Do they form a subcult? Are they afforded the same privileges? Of course not. One thing that religions is completely against is options. So that should tell them, if their rules are so awesome, why is it that some people do not like them?
It happened before and it will happen again: one person will be to differ with the ideals of the mainline faith and cause it to splinter. Will that be treated as a civil war? Considering how rabid some people in this country are about their faith, armed conflict is inevitable.
To offset this, they ruling cult will probably opt for a least-common-demoninator for of the rules. Keep it simple enough that everyone is happy. The problem with that, is that no religion works that way.
For a contemporary perspective, look at the goings-on in Iran. That is an example of an extreme cult running a theocracy and what happens when some people don't have their head up their ass. Eventually it will happen. There is no way that a system can maintain that kind of tension. Humans adapt and change. Humans that do not are dead anyway.
Source: blog.au.org
I read this article on the toilet this morning, strangely appropriate.
The gist of it is that the former Bozo of the House was speaking to the Republican Senate-House Dinner about, as described in the article, the importance of religion in American political life and public policy.
AU does their usual, wonderful job talking about this and how vile and inappropriate his words were. Beyond this, however, there are a few items that rub me the wrong way. Specifically, it involves the quotes from Gingrich that were delivered at a separate conference.
Specifically, this quote drives me nuts: Reignite in people an understanding that the heart of your life is subordination to God! The heart of your life is seeking God’s will, and that all of us are weak and vulnerable, all of us make mistakes, but that all are welcomed by a loving God.
Foremost, the language used here is rather sad. It is self-demeaning and pitiful. How could such a person have come to a position of leadership with he is, as he says in his own words, "weak and vulnerable?"
Secondly and just a disturbing is the fact that this is Gingrich's own, pathetic interpretation of his jebus cult cell. It is not everyone's opinion. What makes him think that others feel as pathetic as he does? Probably more do that I would hope. However, one thing that is systemic of the jebus cult-and other general cults-is the game of one-upsmanship that goes on where one cultist tries to show that it is more devout than the others. This act makes for a dangerous game that results in extremism. Extremism of any kind is not good-it's evil.
The other thing about his quote is exemplified by "subordinate" and "weak and vulnerable." What is this? What is usually weak, vulnerable, and subordinate? A child. Is this man not an adult? Stupid question. There are a variety of reasons why someone would act this way but I believe that it is mostly about shirking individual responsibility or culpability. When the cultist does something stupid that makes other livid, they have their imaginary friend to run to, who will like them and say nice things to them when everyone else calls them an asshole.
I told myself that I was not going to comment on the vicious, hypocritical murder of Dr. Tillman, the late-term abortion doctor in some flat part of the country.
Considering how much gawd-lovers scream about abortion and children, do they not realize that children and reproduction technically are their gawd's curse to women and punishment to both men and women? Of course it is. To be funny, one could say that it was paradise because you could walk around the house naked all day. However, there is nothing to indicate that A&E were copulating prior to acquiring knowledge, prior to which they were as dumb as the moss on a stone. They did not have offspring in the garden. Ah! Maybe they could not because they were not sexually mature. That would be interesting in light of religious figures and children.
One thing that does bother me about religious justice is that a mundane instrument is required at all. There were a number of jerk-offs who said that their gawd would not want this murder victim to live. Obvious IT did because IT had not killed it before then. After all, IT is omniscient and omnipotent, but more importantly, IT is obviously lazy. Maybe IT decided to test IT's cultists with the existence of the murder victim. By committing the murder, the cultists are telling IT that they do not like that test. Well, isn't that convenient. If you tell your teacher that you don't want to take their stupid test, they say No problem. Here's your F. This shit does not jive with love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek, probably because it's inconvenient and isn't compatible with their burning intolerance. I wish they would follow the turn the other cheek line. More children from the insane cultists need to be aborted, as late-term as possible. Gas it right after the live birth.
There have also been a number of cultists who have publicly endorsed this murder. They should be rounded up and executed, young and old, rich and poor, cultists and cult leaders. They are all criminally insane. Now, we will not give them lethal injection, or electrocute them, or decapitate them, or shoot them, or hang them. Let's use their own favorite: burn them alive. All the others kill more quickly than burning but that is not the real reason to use it. We use it for the blood-curdling screams one hears coming from the flames. Real, protracted pain and suffering. They deserve only the best.
No matter which way I turn when I leave, I have to pass by a church. When I do, it starts my mind to race and my blood to heat. Today was no different. What popped into my head today was the phrase, "my personal relationship with <your brand of pasta here>..." I then responded, "yes, it is a personal relationship. Mine is different. Howdy Doody's is different. Why are you talking to me?"
As I have said in the past, a cultist's faith is unique to them and solely for that individual's benefit. Of course, they may tell you that they want to share their joy with their faith. Why does that individual think that anyone else cares? Does the mad cultist share every time it is overcome with joy, say, from Blue Bell® Dutch Chocolate ice cream? How about when it wins the temporal, financial lottery? I've never seen it. I want some ice cream, too. Then, I am happy to chat with it, but only about ice cream.
Next time a cultist approaches you, wanting to share their faith, steer the conversation this way...
I was driving in to work one morning when I saw this little ditty stuck on the back of a SUV. Worse still, it was one of those magnetic ribbons that I see, usually ordering me to support the military. Even more recently, I saw one that ordered me to pray for the troops. Heh. There also is a ribbon ordering me to save the boobies...Major General Mictlantecuhtli reporting, sir!
This message takes the cake and it is not the first time my dessert has been snatched away because, if anything, these cultists are definitely inventive in ways that set to boil my anger and disgust with a side of classic you-poor-bastard head-smacking.
There is no reason to tell people to do this. Does it make a difference? No. The sad part is that they cannot see it. If faith is publicly banished, you, the cultist, still have it. The cultists would not have a label to stick on their group for fear of reprisals but you, the cultist, have faith. That, realistically, is faith - the singular interaction of a couple of neurons in that mass of grey jello in your skull. It is not a group-think. The only thing that the group has is a label for the faith, which has the same depth as calling a mixed group of bovines "cows."
Why? Because, while they definitely are all cows, they are not the same sub-species. This one is brown, this one has eight horns...you see the pattern here. Cultists within a single cult are the same way. They have the same basic tenets but they interpret and express them in different ways. Next time you are in your cult center, look at the zombie-bozo next to you. Do they feel exactly the same way about certain aspects of the tenets of the cult as you do? Are they as vehement about the same things as you? Probably not.
They may lean that direction, but is it the same amount? Maybe they lean the other way. All of those differences make up that person's faith, just as those same opinions make up yours. That is your faith. They are not the same. Maybe the zombie-bozo next to you would like nothing more than for some tenet that you hold dear to be kicked to the curb by the cult. You are both still members of your cult with a fundamental disagreement.
Think it's bullshit? I'll make it simple: abortion. Do you think you disagree with some of your fellow cultists over abortion? Are those reasons mundane or theological, not that it really matters for the sake of the argument - of course, it would be best if the assessment was that it was theological. It is a difference and that makes one person's faith different from another.
It is up to an individual cultist to defend their own faith because they define their faith.
So by defending your faith, which, arguably, will contain tenets and ideas that are antithetical to advancement and human progress, what this imperative is really saying is: "Defend your ignorance."
That is much clearer to me.
What the hell does this mean?
gawd already takes things, and from what I hear others saying, he takes the stuff they want: "gawd took my mother," "gawd took my leg." For a thing that is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, it sure it needy. Sounds more like a bully who needs his kneecaps busted. The only thing that I would let it take is the burning bag of doody I let go of on its porch.
Then there is the language of the statement. Like all good religious inspirationals, these are imperatives - commands. Let it go is understandable but the second sentence: let gawd take it is more deplorable. When you read it correctly, you can hear your mother yelling at you to share with your other sibling: Share your He-Man toy with your brother. Except, in their mental fantasy, gawd, the bully, will take it anyway. "Gimme, gimme, gimme" is the mantra of these people so it only makes sense that the giving has to come from somewhere.
This now makes me grin when I hear some dope bleat out the excuse: the lord will provide, or some variant thereof. Now you know why your leg was healed and where the resources for the miracle of life originated. Recycled from some other slob, who just then, is crying because someone took their He-Man toy.
Back to let it go. Why let it go? It is yours. You can have it so long as you want. People dying from old age, self-inflicted liberation, accidents, or doing something stupid is just that.
Just as its cultists are needy and walk around with their hands out, so does that cult's fantasy figure because, as the Mediterraneans correctly thought, gods are just like them, only powerful. As man is a drunkard who loves sex, so does his gods.
Ding dong! Someone's at the door.
Link: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04232009/news/regionalnews/tamper_with_marriage__were_in_big_troubl_165728.htm
Enough about marriage, already. It is a contrived burden, just like religion. A tiny percentage, depending on whom you ask, of animal species are monogamous - about 3 - 5% by some estimates. If marriage is so awesome, why do so few animals do it? Gawhd obviously likes animals more than humans since they were made first - not as an afterthought - so why do they not practice it more? Because they are dumb animals?
Maybe it is a punishment. After all, adam and eve were companions until they decided to try knowledge. Then they were shackled together. That is not real marriage. It is an arranged marriage, maybe even a shotgun wedding. We all know how revolting those are.
Oh, wait, I answered my own question there.
Hmm. Why was woman made? Because man was lonely or because gawhd was tired of adam humping his leg?
As I've said before, if you care enough for someone and can tolerate them being around, you can coexist without some mumbo-jumbo magical contract.
At one point, the bishop rattles off some crap about morality and marriage being programmed in our DNA. I am not sure what he means by morality, and it does not matter because morality is subjective. Marriage, however, is more determinable. The concept of marriage is not in our DNA, pair bonding is. The two are not the same.
Something else in our DNA - fear, the real cause of religion.
The mindset of a fanatic is a head-scratcher. When observed as an individual, they are less than pitiful. Put them in a group and then it is a religion and acceptable. That is another head-scratcher.
Why do people hate being free?
Related link: Christopher Hitchens on the defamation of religion (the same U.N. resolution).
Link: Wired:Science
Link: From Pharyngula
Original source: Kansascity.com
There have been many times that I was ready to knock this one out and would not. Finally, it takes a death close to home to help one find the strength to take keyboard under hand and let it all out.
Overview: Marriage is a redundant, antiquated, superfluous, unnecessary, bogus institution that has no place in an intelligent, modern society.
Much is made of the institution of marriage by people with a vested interest in its perpetuation: theo-factional group leaders. You hear volumes of rhetoric about marriage is a sacred institution and marriage is between a man and a woman. Those two bites, right there, are the worst. If you examine the language used – matrimony, (joyful) bonds of matrimony, wedlock, conjugal – much of it has roots which are demeaning to a free-thinking, free-willed individual. I will come to that momentarily.
Marriage is sacred?!! What a load of crap. Pagans had marriage long, long before the psychotic cultist turds of today came along. Going back to pre-xian Roman times, it was partly to ensure legitimacy of offspring. Yes, it worked just as well then as now. If marriage is so awesome, why do couples have paternity tests?
Marriage is between a man and a woman? Here is another bovine with diarrhea. Matrimony is between a man and a woman. The word comes from Latin and is translatable as "to lead or guide into motherhood." You do not hear matrimony used as much now. After all, an elderly couple who marry cannot have matrimony. What about a couple who do not intend or are unable to have children? What about a couple who already have kids from prior situations and need/want absolutely no more? No matrimony there either. That's probably why marriage is heard more today. It covers more of the bases.
With that out of the way, is it really between just a man and a woman? Who cares? Considering how infinitely personal religion is, this is nothing more than an individual's religion – an individual's particular hangups – insinuating itself into someone else's business. What despicable arrogance. Originally, matrimony was not a religious ceremony. It was social. Superstitious peoples involved their gods in the ceremony for good luck. Today, the cultists are forced to adopt (now that is a funny word choice) a new term: marriage. Without asking anyone else, the new term now has to take on the same reverence as the displaced word.
Some people are married to their work. Is their job their partner? Does it complete that person? Too bad if that is the case. One might go so far as to think that this person is a bit deranged. Why this person and not the members of a couple...or the cultists doing the screaming? It's a double standard. As it has been said before: if two people love and care for each other, let them be together.
Something else that comes up when discussing marriage is that it is a sacred contract, a covenant, between two people. This is the part that I loathe the most. Two people do not need a contract—a set of rules and stipulations—to live together, have fun together, produce offspring, and finally grow old together. Two rational, sane, intelligent people do not need it because they will simply do it anyway. Another term that relates to marriage is conjugal. This is another word from Latin that literally mean "yolked together" - as in cattle. Does that sound like something intelligent people do? Intelligent people can easily work together to make a happy life for themselves. Dumb animals have to be tied to one another and have a driver whip them to go in the right direction—okay, just "a direction." Who is that driver? Take your pick: religion, society, tradition, guilt or any other members of the Anti-Progressive Club.
Between having to use a new term and the mainstreaming of the gay culture starting in the Eighties, the cultists have felt pushed into a corner. Many things in society that used to belong to them have been whittled away in the name of equality. There is very little left to them - thank the spaghetti for that! They deserve nothing special in an age of enlightenment. If anything, their behavior only highlights their hatred and bigotry. You cannot really blame them since their guide is a book that is confusing, anachronistic, and self-contradictory. One thing that is somewhat clear is that their supposed deity said "love thy neighbor as thyself." Pretty embarrassing, if you ask me. If they are so full of self-loathing, maybe they should kill themselves and leave the planet to people who do not have hang-ups, who have compassion, who can tolerate others and have it not impact their lives. How can I help them on their way? I know, let's eliminate all marriage-related benefits. That is equality and they hate it.
Die, hypocritical bastards, die, and take your bullshit institution with you.
For Karl.
This post was originally conceived: 2008-Jun-02
Today, I drove past by my Taber-chuckle source. Reading the current sign again, my mind raced away with something like the following:
What I fixated on from this sign is the sleeping xian tidbit. As before, my first thought is WAKE UP! Get your ass out of bed and get to work. There are things to do, not just for your community and the world but also yourself.
Sleeping in a metaphor in this case but I find it is more realistic than not. The main thing that is dormant in these people is their curiosity. How can anyone look the cosmos, the planet, or even their front yard and not be interested in something? I cannot remember the exact quote but I believe it was Einstein who observed, roughly paraphrased, that he could not believe that a deity would create something as powerful as the human brain for it to just sit there idle and dormant (my embellishment). Considering that emphatic xians are so keen to earn daddy's favor, should not they do something to make it proud? Would not the creativity of the human mind be just the ticket?
What do these people think will make their daddy proud? Singing? Praying? Kissing its ass? Those seem to be the main avenues to the afterlife. No one wants to be subjected to such crap, except really old, senile people, or Alzheimer's patients. Those people are draining. They are tired of life, but will not admit it. They have nothing more to give, nothing to contribute. Instead, they focus on the glory days, when people cared who they were, when they had power and influence, when they meant something and had significance in the world. No more. Now they just sit there, drooling and loading up a diaper. To these people, daddy is omnipotent and omniscience but to me, it sounds a bit omnistultant. Only an idiot would not appreciate the creative potential of the human being.
Rather than doing something for the world, the people spend their lives groveling, crying, pleading, begging, crawling to daddy to take them up after death. Then what? Do you get to stand on two feet? Of course not. Daddy likes you on your knees in front of him. Keep doing it. Keep crawling like a worm. After a lifetime of practice, they only just suck at it.
What makes them think they can stand up and use opposable thumbs? Daddy is an old daddy. Its thinking is old-time thinking. Its loud-mouthed cheerleaders tell us this all the time. So why do they expect to suddenly find a progressive afterlife experience? Since no other aspect of their perception of daddyland is different from the same concept of those sheep herders who invented it after a week of huffing raw methane, why should this part be any different. There is nothing to do except what daddy wants. Even these people move out of their parents' house because they want their independence and freedom. When they die, they want to move right back in to Slavery Central.
Hmmm. Sounds like hell to me.
Link: Original story at Examiner.Com
Found at BoingBoing.Net
Posts
All Comments
