New entry = July 12, 2008
*******ASK EDNA, NOW!!********
Hi. My name is Edna and I am here at the request of my husband Elmo, who is rather indisposed at this time. He asked me to apologize for his absence, and the disappearance of his Web page, ASK ELMO, at atheiststation.org. He is so upset by what he perceives to be nefarious conspiratorial and abject political influences that he now speaks to me in half sentences and has even disdained sipping his alphabet soup, I suppose from a condition he constantly mutters: "burned out."
Recently I had to have him fitted for a straight jacket for he gets so infuriated at the sight of politicians appearing on the nightly news (but I can't get him to allow me to turn the tube off because of his addiction to watching good looking news reporters). He does froth at the mouth though, when he sees Richard Cheney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich -- and it worries me so. He thinks one of them is the president -- oblivious of the fact that Laura Bush is the First Lady-- whilst thinking that Checkers is still the First Dog.
I love my husband dearly and still see in him the robust figure of a man that I first met on Tristan da Cunha during the Cold War. There, I was raised as a young fisher of lobster and octopus, eventually rising to the position of island Councilwoman. He swept me off my feet with his thrilling soliloquy of his anthropological studies on how those islands were first populated. Unknown to many, he had earned a doctorate with his two page thesis on "Nomadic Peoples of the South Atlantic." I was enthralled with the fact he was perhaps the most enlightened anthropologist between Patagonia and Cape Town, and south of St Helena. It was a whirlwind romance, then marriage, and our honeymoon on Green Mountain at Ascension Island where he first showed me the intricacies of grass lacing -- first produced by ship wrecked sailors on that desolate island who later starved to death.
We were a childless couple, ever mindful of the burgeoning population explosion everywhere else on the planet. But we adopted two Cockatoos that filled our lives with raucous chattering -- so much so that in our early years we had no need for television. That was good, for in that part of the world there were no television signals. Eventually we were admonished for our infertility (the island hardly had 300 inhabitants), so we moved out into the fray of the crumbling world).
My beloved Elmo was a very sensitive man, extremely interested in the progress of civilization, which many of his internet colleagues thought had come to a standstill. Always the optimist, and while trying to become a good Christian, became atheist. He was just too honest and found that worshipping the gender sensitive, always jealous Judeo-Christian God was hypocritical (how could an omnipotent god be so insecure?). A review of all the other religions revealed similar shortcomings, even though each claimed to be the "one true religion" I had to agree with his logic and joined with him in total immersion into natural materialism.
Unfettered by the strings that bind one to ecclesiastical dogma and circumstance, Elmo absorbed the knowledge of the Cosmos, which was becoming more and more available on the Internet. Coupled with his books and scientific background he soon became the philosophic mentor of princes and presidents, finally achieving his most recent position here at Atheist Station, in America -- where now he is borderline bonkers. That is why he has allowed me, at the request of Atheist Station principals, to stand in his place dispensing much clamored for advice on nearly everything having to do with the perpetuation of civilization. I welcome this challenge to carry his mission on into the twenty-first century, hopefully with the zeal he has shown on his late Web Page. Although he and I can only communicate within an ever-changing verbal code that he modifies daily -- between newscasts when his blood pressure recedes. I know his body language and facial expressions so well that his gibber . . . I mean special messages are as clear as emulsified oil or, shall I say, sparkling burgundy. Oh well, what follows on this page are my thoughts as I know he would agree with me -- we know each other so well! (Stop that Elmo, or I will have to remove your feeding tube!)
Ahem, I'm looking forward to fielding any questions you might have out there in cyberspace. Life is a hoot . . . and we give a hoot!
ASK EDNA, NOW!!!
July 12, 2008
LULU BOTTOMVIEW of TEN FLYS, New Jersey, asks: WHY IS IT THAT ATHEISTS ARE NOT AS PATRIOTIC AS CHRISTIANS? YOU GUYS SURE WEREN'T VERY VISIBLE THIS FOURTH OF JULY!
ANSWER:
Why Lulu, nothing could be further from the truth! From one gal to another let me add that you are one dumb banana -- and probably a loser to boot. But be that what you seem to be proud of, let me point out some facts that have escaped your less than pin-hole vision: <p>
First and foremost, Atheists have an abiding interest in maintaining our nation's Constitution, more so than you God-fearing sheep that mouth platitudes of America being the shining produce of God's shedding grace. America was, indeed, divine-like in its gemstone setting among the rubble of the world's other nations -- at least into the twentieth century. Then religionists began to prattle and whine that 'God is not dead,' but lives in our country's history as told by David Barton. Well, a thorough study of the past will reveal that religion played little part in our forefathers very liberal effort to divorce themselves from England (the Tories were the conservatives of that revolutionary period).<p>
The weakness of your argument, Lulu, is that you put God way above our Constitution; whereas, we Atheists find no higher plane than the Constitution -- that all-encompassing umbrella which protects us from you, and you and other religions from yourselves. You have no farther to look than at Iraq and Iran for examples of what I am saying. Even here at home, you wallow in the example of leadership that people like you voted into office because he "talked with God," then turned around and called the document he swore to protect -- our Constitution -- "a dead piece of paper." He squeezed votes from dunderheads that actually believed his wearing of religion on his sleeve and the flag on his lapel meant he was a 'good man.' How many of even the blind have that same perception today?
<p>
Your ilk rasps that there are no atheists in foxholes -- that is a lie because I know many veterans who were, and are still! If we're not afraid of your god's supposed eternal punishment for our apostasy, why would we be afraid to die for our country and its noble mission? In the Fourth of July issue of TIME, there is a wonderful article on patriotism that I bet you didn't read. It talks of patriotism practiced by conservatives (a clinging to the past, tradition, and to heritage), and the patriotism of liberals (our past noble ideas can be improved upon or its rhetoric more effected as real policy). It is another front of the age-old battle between 'fear-of-change' and 'stepping-forward' toward a better way. Unfortunately, your type clings to the Archie Bunker "my country -- right or wrong." But consider the fact that our present leadership is, by a 5 to 1 popular consensus, "going the wrong way." Ann Coulter has made a lot of money telling her minions that liberals hate America. That is also far from the truth; we only hate it when America goes off in the wrong direction! Lulu, I hope you will join with us in the next election and get our country progressing the other way -- toward a better future. Vote your hopes and not your fears -- if you're not totally pissed at me.
EDNA (in memory of freedom loving ELMO)
June 1, 2008
QUESTION FROM Helouise Klingenchidt from Great Dismal Swamp, Virginia: IF YOU ATHEISTS DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD, WHAT GIVES YOU PURPOSE TO LIVE?
ANSWER:
Golly Jeez, Helouise, life is just one big wonderful game! Don't you like to play games? Why does anybody play a game -- to have fun, right? One doesn't have to believe in a god to play a game -- or to enjoy life for that matter. Mixing god-fear in with playing a game is hardly conducive to having a good time. Elmo and I have always wondered why religious people limit themselves in the enjoyment of all the good things that life has to offer.
Are you related to that Chaplain, Captain Klingenschmitt, who got his arse in a teakettle hobnobbing with defrocked judge Roy Moore at political and religious rallies while in uniform? But then, I guess, there probably are a lot of Klingenschmitts, or Klingenchidts around. However, to keep on a positive note, please understand that we atheists and agnostics thrive quite well and are very much satisfied with our lives on this comfortable little planet near the edge of the great Milky Way Galaxy.
If one required a more serious reason for our life's existence, I like to think we are privileged to be the grandest of Mother Nature's experiments. We are, indeed, the ultimate culmination of her life forms -- cognizant and in control of our existence. What does it all mean? Does it really have to mean anything? Of course, religion's answer to these questions are 'God praise be to thy existence, and for giving us ours.' If that is truly the case, then a good bit of time should be dedicated to giving thanks for our existence. Indeed, overtly religious people think: the more praise-time the better -- resulting in less time for enjoying life, which is one of the fundamentalists' motives for praising god (the other being FEAR) in the first place! Do you see the disparity here? More time spent in worshipful faith allows less time for enjoying what you are giving praise for -- it's a kind of oxymoron that really makes no sense.
So you see, one's life pleasures can be enjoyed without having some guilt-driven forgiveness program in mind. Even if a game is played to win a monetary reward, money is only a medium to purchase ephemeral happiness. Achievement of happiness is (or should be) everyone's goal. If praising some unseen deity for your serendipitous existence brings you pleasure (more like bringing relief from guilt) then by all means indulge yourself. You can bring a date to a party but you can't make him dance!
Wonderfully comfortable in her apostasy, Edna
(May 3, 2008)
QUESTION FROM: Jean DeGassleveur of Pinchausc, Quebec, asks: DO YOU OR ELMO EVER FRET THAT THE SAVIOUR
WILL PLACE A CURSE ON YOU LIKE HE DID THE WANDERING JEW?
ANSWER: I take it you are referring to the thirteenth century legend that describes Christ answering the annoying Jewish resident's insistence: "Remove thyself from my curb, move on," when Jesus had stopped to rest while on his cross-carrying trip to Calvary. Supposedly He answered: "Move on yourself, until the end days." And, of course, this Jew found he could not die, but wandered through two millennia without rest.
Jean, overly religious people like you should take heed that such a possible condition awaits you, too, as you suffer an eternity walking among the clouds from worship service to hymnal praise, forever, with little variation. You might even tire of watching your earthly acquaintances suffering in the lake of fire, and then, what will you do? Sorry, Mahjong, and Go Fish, I think, will not hold eternal interest.
But, perhaps the Wandering Jew is now employed down here -- someplace where his death-defying attribute is used well to advantage, like: trekking in and out of nuclear contaminated enclaves of Chernobyl; infiltrating the Pakistani-Afghan frontier mountains In search of bin-Laden; an intrepid high-rise fire search-and-rescue daredevil; a volunteer for cutting-edge pharmaceutical experimentation.
Such satisfying service to fellow humans would more than compensate for the insipid drudgery you suggest (that is, if he recognized the lesson pronounced upon him -- the legend doesn't go that far). Compared with lounging in heavenly acquiescence, living forever on earth could meet with satisfying consummation! After all, how many pilgrims would trade their lives today, opting for death and supposed deliverance to the upper rooms for a carefree eternity? No, not many but those in other faiths find martyrdom attractive and desirous in the consummation of their own 'One True Faith.'
As ever, affectionately yours, you a__hole!
Edna
-------------------------------------------------------------
(3-30-2008)
PRISTINA PENNYBRIGHT of Drab, Pennsylvania, asks:
IS THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MOVEMENT DEAD?
My dear Pristina, those considered to be associated with or members of the Religious Right were NEVER ALIVE !!! Sure, there has been a forty year peristaltic movement to float the deadheads (similar to coffins and vaults floating in a water-saturated cemetery) to some modicum of social and political prominence, but with the deaths of Jerry Falwell and William F. Buckley (and even before) their influence has been waning.
Both Falwell and Buckley, who can be charitably described as automobiles with too many cylinders and not enough wheels (I'm not talking about Carl Sagan's W.F.B. taxi cab driver in his "Demon Haunted World"), were guiding smog among the nation's peripatetic pious patheticals. But their juggernots (appropriate corruption of juggernauts) were hardly anti-regressive as they complemented and steered the nay-sayers to revive the 'Know-Nothing' party back into vogue.
Anyway you cut it, Pristina (by the way, I researched the name of your town to see if it was real, and was not surprised to learn that it is situated among clay banks and ore pits that were mined out during the nineteenth century -- lucky you), this country, indeed the world, is made up of two kinds of people: the living; and the dead. The living enjoy the here and now, assisting one another to experience happiness. The dead, like Gary Bauer, George Bush the Lesser, and Pat Robertson do still move around a little when prodded with a Darwin Stick. The former represents optimism and hope while the latter promulgates fear and reeks of fish (Jefferson, the Roosevelts, and Kennedy as opposed to pope Urban II, Torquemada, and Mussolini).
Even as they fade there remain wondrous examples of how regressive these dullards can be. For instance, there is the ministry of DEW who preach 'Antinomianism.' This is the belief that because of grace, right conduct is unnecessary for salvation. Lucky for us we live in a nation that has secular laws! I don't know what DEW means but if you call Ernest Wachter at (814) 944-9015, he can probably tell you.
According to Nobel Laureate and economist, Robert Fogel, we are at the end of America's 'fourth great awakening.' An 'awakening' has three phases it goes through: 1. Revival, when cultural stresses produce religious revitalization movements; 2. Reform, when activists persuade governments to adopt moral improvement programs; and 3. Resistance, when religious fervor wanes and the forces of moralization encounter stiffened cultural opposition [April 2008 reason magazine,Vol. 39, No 11, Art. The New Age of Reason, pg-34]. If the Republicans are turned out of the Congress and the White House this year, as should be, the third phase will have been completed. It began in 2006 with the ouster of Bible thumpers Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), and Representatives John Hostetler (R-Ind.), Jim Ryun (R-Kan), and J. D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.). Many evangelical projects have failed or are failing, and more reasonable fundamentalists are beginning to turn their attention to the environment as their hopes for Jesus' second coming begins its third millenium.
Affectionately as ever, Edna
ASK EDNA (2-10-2008)
Kevin Sandalsniffer from Louse Crossing, Louisiana, asks:
WHAT IS THE GRAVEST DANGER AMERICA FACES TODAY?
ANSWER:
With the multi-ring circus of the 2008 campaign for the presidency of the United States underway, that's an easy question! THE BIGGEST THREAT TO AMERICA TODAY ARE THE UNBORN FETUSES! "Surely you jest," you might say. I'll do my best to be serious Mr. . . . er, Sniffer: it is an undeniable fact that most, if not all, Republicans running for Commander-in-Chief today deem the survival of the human fetus in its mother's womb to be more important than the national debt (nearing $10,000,000,000,000.00); the balance of trade payments (about $450,000,000,000.00); the trashing of three of the first ten amendments of our Constitution; or the lack of a sensible energy policy. Morally, womb-patrol of other women is even more important than the unbelievably stupid war in Iraq, which has taken the lives of 4,000 of hitherto EXISTING young people, maiming another 28,000 -- not to mention the hundreds of thousands of killed and displaced Iraqi citizens.
Myopically, they consider the undeveloped, numb fetus more important than rehabilitating PAIN-FEELING sick and disabled Americans with the produce of stem cell research; giving our developed children adequate health insurance; or giving our war-torn veterans proper treatment after they have sacrificed their limbs and minds in the service of this administration's debacle in Messypotamia. These wooly nabobs of Neanderthalism insist on their fetal fetish in the face of burgeoning and starving populations, as if we are an endangered species; in the face of mothers who would maintain their right to decide what is best for themselves and their families; in the face of the fact of their self-imposing, unnecessary limitation of their OWN freedom. Whether the mother wants to have a baby or not, these needle-nosed religious-right politicians would be their decider -- even though no holy tome requires such limiting proscription! "This is what Jesus would do", they cackle -- though Jesus never preached anything about the subject.
To them, right-wing womb-patrol is more important than the economy; more important than the environment; in short, even more important than the suffering people ALREADY on this planet. It is no mystery that America is being outstripped by nations having more reasonable priorities. As we remain mired in Iraq, printing more and more money, and resigning into George Bush's preppy perception of what is 'right'-is-white and 'wrong'-is-black -- with no shades in between -- it is no wonder that we are sinking on a crash-landing path of becoming a second rate theocracy.
Affectionately as ever, Edna
ASK EDNA (1-02-2008)
Question from Horace Handfelter of Big Bone Lick, Kentucky: IS THERE NARY A GOD IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE ?
A: Horace, the Universe is a very, very big place -- As big (and maybe even bigger) than ten WAL*MART Super Centers side-by-side, front-to-back, stacked ten high, more or less. In all that expanse, God could not get to that recent Colorado church shooting in time to save those four victims -- though he arrived just in time to assist the church guard in "taking him down" (at least that's what she said: "I couldn't have done it without God's help"). So, if we are to believe her story, there must be a God -- which raises another question: Is the Universe too large for just one God to be everywhere at once? Obviously it is 'cause He came on late in the Colorado game only to get credit for an assist after four outs.
Of course, many of my readers don't think for a minute that that guard's testimony (they have security guards in churches now?) is true. I have trouble believing it myself. Like most fundamentalists, she's probably just as deluded as the next one. But supposing her dream-assist wasn't all wet, consider for a moment, Horace, what a better universe it would be if the politicians and ecclesiastics brought back polytheism. There would then be (or could be) a god in every other aisle, just around the corner from a dastardly deed. Of course, that's only a theory and not a fact.
On the other hand, one could deduct that there is no God (or gods) out there beyond that last WAL*MART. If there was, Larry Craig and Chuck Norris bobble head-dolls wouldn't be so highly priced, traffic wouldn't be so bad, and politicians would be more honest and less self-serving (especially the born-again ones).
If there was a god in every other aisle of every WAL*MART, then maybe there would be less kidnapping of little girls and boys into the slave trade; less victims to life ending and debilitating diseases; Better and clearer advice to world leaders like Bush and Ahmadinejad so that they might hear and understand each other (although Bush purportedly converses with Jesus on war issues, he has difficulty in deciphering the Almighty's warnings concerning city-destroying hurricanes, devastating tsunamis, and droughts and wild fires of the far corners of the South.
But then, Jesus can't even get into a classroom these days! Doesn't anyone question this omnipotence thing anymore?
Edna
---------------------------------------------------------------
11-11-'07
ASK EDNA
Question from Darla Dancingwolf of Brigaloon, British Columbia:
SINCE FAITH IS ANATHEMA TO YOUR SECULAR STANCE, DO YOU THINK IT CAN BE CONSOLIDATED OR DOWNSIZED AS A STEP TOWARD ITS DEMISE?
A: Dear Darla,
The short answer to your question is relevant to one of Mark Twain's quotes: "There is no sadder sight than a young pessimist, except an old optimist." Judging from your question (and considering Twain's definition) you must be between eight and twelve years of age -- or you think I'm that old.
There is no long-winded answer, but allow me to speculate on such consolidation of faith with a few thoughts of my own. In a world of true reason, I could visualize such downsizing of faith to include a church that combines sin and the offer of redemption under one roof. An all-in-one park and shop, true perversion opportunity and spiritual forgiveness without having to drive across town.
Perhaps this could be effected within the confines of some of the newer mega-churches wherein one can actually get lost without a GPS navigator. Imagine, if you will, a place, a tavern, a brothel in the basement of such an eclectic institution where one can indulge in one's favorite licentiousness knowing full well he or she doesn't have to risk a DUI to quickly cleanse their sinning away! This could include an XXX-rated movie, or Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ' in the basement theater to sober up with; and, of course, a visit to a state-of-the art lavatory replete with Larry Craig Republican-wide stalls having ceiling mirrors, in order to gargle that bad breath away.
Then, one could ascend to the upper level for proper spiritual renewal, choosing from a menu of services deemed appropriate by the Southern Baptist Convention for your area. Jews, Muslims, and the Eastern sects will probably have to go elsewhere, or be politely asked to leave the country, depending on the level of xenophobia that might be measured on a newly developed piety/passion meter. Of course, all the above services could be ministered non-hypocritically by many of today's clergy, with the acquisition of just a few courses such as hotel management, bar-tending and pornographic arts. Some clergy already qualify.
Darla, the above scenario is merely a suggestion; religionists will probably not consider implementing it (though a lot of their constituency may daydream about it). However, it can be said with little doubt, the churches' bottom lines could be substantially increased by such a progressive move (what with exorbitant prices on cigarettes, booze, and other amenities too gross to say -- not to mention motorcycle-blessing fees and parking meter revenue).
Edna
_________________________
September 17, 2007
So many questions, so little time! Ben Bunion from Lonesome Buzzard, Idaho asks:
IF MEN'S ROOM STALLS ARE SO NARROW AT MINNEAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, WHY DOESN'T SENATOR LARRY CRAIG CHANGE PLANES AT KANSAS CITY WHERE STALLS ARE WIDER (TO ACCOMMODATE TEXANS)?
Edna's note: I chose to cover this question over the one about Mother Teresa's problems of faith, which I'll put off 'til next time.
My dear Ben, this was a very difficult question for me to investigate since I am a woman and normally barred from entering men's rooms. I don't travel much anymore anyway, so I had to rely heavily on first hand experience from other mid-western senators. I sent out questionnaires to twenty-four senators of which only five were returned (two were smeared with sheep dip (I wonder what that means?).
At first blush, I was astounded by the pictures that were sent back, along with the partially filled out queries. I would have never guessed at the depths of depravity that occur in America's heartland public restrooms (My own personal experience is limited to scenes from Planes, Trains, and Automobiles). My guess is, these righteous politicians from the Bible-belt are not washing their ears before attending Sunday school or church -- for their Bible warns against such behavior.
I extended my investigation to interview the renowned psychologist, Dr. Fred Fingerflicker of the Kansas State Normal Hospital in Sourmilk Falls. It is his belief that politicians, and other men as well, suffer an affinity for other men while denying their craving, because their wives have denied them access-in-the-boudoir, also known as AITB (Ass-In-The-Boudoir). Dr. Fingerflicker says this is most prevalent among Republican men whose wives are unsure of what sex drive is all about. It seems that these women (having very, very clean ears) are influenced by what they are taught in church and Sunday school.
So you see, B.B. of Lonesome Buzard, this is a very complex conundrum about Congressmen and the Kosher use of condoms in close quarters -- concomitant capers contingent on culinary, as well as, cufflink-quality condition. In other words, unsavory sex sucks. Of course, this condition can be significantly mitigated by landing at airports at or near the East or West Coasts where most politicians put the make on persons of the opposite sex in larger public spaces, much to the disgust of Republicans of any gender -- just ask Bill Clinton.
In closing, I can only say that the GOP has a problem, the root of which is in their family life being way out of focus.
__________________________________
ASK EDNA
August 26, 2007
Dear Edna:
ARE THERE ALIENS AMONG US? (My religious friends insist this is so.)
Eilene of Parsons Butte, Utah
YES, Eilene, THERE ARE ALIENS LIVING AMONGST US! Though my late, dear Elmo, would disagree. I offer the following as proof:
* They exist in Magnetic Resonance imaging (MRI) machines.
* Home Land Security has an ongoing project, partially funded by the Templeton Foundation, where aliens are being rounded up, even as we speak. They are then sequestered in Magnetic Resonance Imaging machines (the only known medium that will contain these little devils until the government can find where to ship them back to -- who says we have no need for large government bureaucracies?).
The popular television program, The X files, was right-on about these disturbing, uninvited darlings infiltrating our space. But the producers of that show were fearful to specifically expose their whereabouts, presumably to avoid pandemonium among the program's devoted sponsors. But it is a fact, according to my contact at HLS, they are with us on America's highways in significant numbers.
You may scoff -- and perhaps rightly so -- but hear me out for this is important information, especially as you may be traveling the Interstate motorways this summer. HLS has set up screening devices along most of the Interstates -- you're probably familiar with the orange and white striped cylinders that seem to be everywhere, blocking at least one lane of traffic. They are there for good reason, though not the reason HLS -- working with the various DOTs around the country -- want you to believe! It has been discovered that the ubiquitous orange and white cylinders, set at a certain distance apart, cause aliens' vision to strobe causing much confusion as to their orientation. They eventually drift onto the median area where alert HLS officials wearing DOT hardhats and vests capture them for internment at the nearest MRI. Proof of this is attested by the fact there are so many abandoned vehicles sitting in the median area of screened highways, and, of course, the gross shortage of MRIs.
You may wonder how I know all this. I must tell you I let no grass grow in my mind (though I do smoke some once in a while). It is by my pure deduction, my dear P. Butt. The horrible and chaotic noises one hears when in an MRI are the voices of captured and disgruntled aliens -- pure and simple. And elsewhere, in a pilot program in the Canadian Maritime Provinces, their recorded screams are being amplified as fog warnings on those rocky coastlines. The latter I know from a dream I had two weeks ago, where I was privy to overhearing Michael Chertoff and Dick Cheney in conversation about our Canadian cousins (such language!).
Lastly (and Elmo would have a fit if he heard me say this), there are UFOs! I recently viewed a documentary cinema entitled Mars Attacks. If only 1% of the flying saucers portrayed in that revelation exist, I would have to say there are UFOs out there -- evidently bringing to Earth aliens every month, if not every week -- I kid you not! No, I never read any of L. Ron Hubbard's work -- I don't believe his shit!
Dear Edna:
(June 25, 2007)
Since prayers come from religious people all over the world, and from many different cultures, it seems to me that they would realize that prayers offered from one location might counter those offered from distant locations, especially during times of war.
DON'T RELIGIOUS PEOPLE KNOW THAT THEIR PRAYERS MIGHT COLLIDE IN SPACE?
Toby Treewater
Upper Twit, Wales, UK
Dear T. T., of U. Twit,
The short answer is yes and no! (I was a corporate attorney in a previous life)
The long answer is highly complex. First of all, one needs a doctorate in theology to understand the path of prayer (POP). Theologically, prayers rise to a place just below heaven where a clearinghouse of sorts exists. There, angels (and one or two demons on TAD) review them and match them up with those other offerings rising along the path of opposing prayer (POOP). Confused? You haven't seen the half of it, yet!
The POOP is coming from foreign places and nations that are alien to Judeo-Christian POP. I'm sure you see the disparity when these prayers are compared by angels and the token demon -- the prayers from both pathways are nearly always in opposition, each asking that their heretic enemy be killed, castrated, maimed, disemboweled or some other pastoral beseeching. The prayers collide, canceling each other out because most prayers offered in a multi-theological venue are hateful, vindictive, disgusting, self-preserving, and pious. Because one POP cancels out one POOP, most prayers are never answered. Sounds simple, doesn't it?
At first blush, yes, it is very simple. Too simple! In the Dark Ages, the Renaissance, and the first two centuries of the Enlightenment, this was the way prayers were answered (not answered). However, with the advent of the Internet, E-mail was devised which has a similar and/or parallel pathway to that of POP and POOP. Because of Bill Gates, Al Gore and their developmental predecessors: V. Bush, N. Wiener, M. McLuhan and J.C.R. Licklider, there exists between the above-mentioned Clearinghouse and Heaven, a place called Cyberspace. There, other forms of prayer called SPAM (Silly, Pithy, Annoying Memos) are intercepted and multi-directed to in-boxes everywhere but Bill Gates' and God's.
Be assured that the short answer is also explained above -- somewhere. So, you see, Toby, U. Twit, there's more than meets the eye. Prayers are never answered unless, of course they were E-mailed; then they are sprayed all over the Internet to everyone not requesting them. I just know this will enlighten your understanding of the pathways of prayer.
Edna (Elmo's widow)
ASK EDNA
May 20, 2007
Dear Edna:
I am grievously concerned about the overwhelming amount of DOGMA in the world today. As a cat lover, I wonder why there doesn't seem to be any CATMA? Was there ever any CATMA? Will there ever be any CATMA?
Greatly offended,
Larynxville, Rhode Island
Dear G. O. of Larynxville,
You have every right to be offended. I, too, am a cat lover, and I've worried about just what you are asking for many, many years -- some might say "too many." I have looked into this lopsided, xenophobic concentration of dogmatites and found it dominated by dog lovers everywhere. It is a condition akin to a religion among dog lovers that have successfully throttled cat lovers everywhere. Why? Because DOG spelled backwards is GOD, duh. That is so unfair!
First, one must understand that DOGS rule! (or, at least they think they do). Their bark is their mantra which is usually a threatening message saying "Abide in me" and "Do as I say" or "Worship me and I won't bite." And, finally, "Back up to me, bitch, for thine is my chattel." This is beastly, and misogynist, to say the least, and should be countered by a revolution toward instituting CATMA.
To answer your three questions (unlike my poor, departed, loving Elmo, I have no problem with multiple questions (he had a one-track mind and viewed two or more questions as being that number of trains on the same track, usually running in different directions. He was loving, but weird), I can do so with one fell swoop: THE KING OF THE ANIMALS IS THE LION -- one of the great CATS. DOG lovers should be apprised: their God is not king, therefor DOGMA should be relegated to the dustbin of history as so many gods before Him have been so disposed.
DOGMA has long been pushed onto us by god, er, dog lovers through the ages, but reached dizzying heights by the CATholics in Rome. Now, this is interesting because it seems a position of denial that CATholics (get it: CAT - holics) are pushing the antithesis of CATMA among GOD and DOG fearing constituents. But this condition of denial is not unusual to them; indeed, it is rampant, in that they deny so much of everything: from the worldliness of the world, to nuances of natural selection.
CATMA, if instituted properly, could change the metaphysical protocol to one of more REASON -- one would hope. It would give self-confident and soft-spoken cats their due, especially if their reverse spelling allowed for the added letter "T" to make backward spelling TAC-T. TACT, instead of GOD, would then rule the psyche of mankind, and civilization might then progress.
Finally, everyone knows really that DOGS obey their masters -- us. And cats know that they are really our masters!
HIZBULLAH or HERZBULLAH (3-19-2007)
Either way, it's a lot of BULL.
All kidding aside -- well, maybe a little tongue-in-cheek -- since the official inception of Hizbullah in 1985, the world has been exposed to this Islamic masculine gender's insistence on the way things shall be in the Middle East (and the World, if given the opportunity). Jihad this, fatwah that, it just hasn't been a pretty picture concerning relations between two cultural communities bent on destroying each other. Hizbullah has taken the initiative quite well, to bring chaos to a place some call the 'Holy Land.' This 'Holy Land' is located about 500 miles from another chaotic place which is known as the 'birthplace of civilization,' the area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers now known as Iraq. One has to wonder if in 6,000 years this is the kind of progress to expect of mankind, given its cerebral emergence and spiritual arousal of the peoples of this area. For our sake, I hope other alien civilizations aren't watching us from somewhere 'out there.'
Mankind, for the most part, abandoned this weird part of the world, and went off to other places to make a name for itself -- establishing secular law, building a scientific understanding of Nature, and bridging cultural differences through intelligent commerce and exchange of ideas. Once they left, they found that pork wasn't as dangerous to eat if properly cooked, alcoholic beverages were okay if consumed in moderation, and that women actually had a brain as well as an attractive figure to view on the public streets.
Alas, some stayed behind in worshipful obedience to imams, mullahs, priests and other ecclesiastical throwbacks in order to remain near the dawn of consciousness.
Christians are maybe several notches up the evolutionary tree, in that they have disdained suicide bombing and do not exhibit their butt cracks five times a day bowing toward Mecca. Still, the machismo is there -- putting women in their place as last in the protocol of Faith: God, Archangel, Pope, Saint, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Man, sheep, then Woman and child. One wonders if Mother Nature insisted on her own way, there might be no symbolic phallic policies, but only the milk of maternal wisdom.
Christians have less holy cities too (but they make up for that with their more numerous places of worship). One wonders: were Elmo still living, would he allow even me, his wife, to criticize the present status quo? What would Mother Nature Do? Well, I think she's dissed at this whole worship of unknowns; religious types disdaining her universal efforts to provide a wonderful, nurturing habitat for all mankind (and womankind (since they are at the producing end of the begatting process). Her entire realm is populated by macho types insisting that their God is a male.
I would not be surprised if She is rethinking the paradigm. Actually, all She has to do is wait a couple score of years and the machos will pretty much have killed off each other in maintenance of their individual God(s). Really, the culprits in today's internecine bickering are predominantly one god worshippers, also known as monotheists. For some reason monotheists have taken hold of the notion that monotheism is the ultimate in rational religion (rr is a copy-writed oxymoron). But they show their true intellectual colors by truncating the arithmetic progression: If smaller numbers of gods are better, then no gods is best (if they're going to leave Mother Nature out of the mix).
So if we gotta have a hizbullah, why not a herzbullah?
IS GOD PULLING OUR LEG? (9-10-2006)
You atheists r so loopy! Yur always hintin that if God exists He must be playin wth us. Y is thet? (Comited to Christ, from Confluence, Indiana)
ANSWER: There seems to be many inequities in this world -- of the human condition, that is. Most everything else in Nature seems spoken for, and subject to the whims of physical and chemical law, and are accepted. But the human condition is vulnerable to the essence of its delicate mental plane that is sensitive to what scientists and philosophers call consciousness. It is an awareness that allows us to appreciate our existence, and the ability to communicate and comparatively evaluate that awareness. Those who look at consciousness from another, and mystic, viewpoint label that human mental condition as being a "soul" and its resultant spirit.
Thus we have the two sides of the human cultural coin: science's secular consciousness and religions' spiritual soul. The first is increasingly, but never, sure of its self, while the latter is didactically always sure of itself. Science and scientists are, more and more, answering the questions we of the human condition ask, but those questions have always been smugly, confidently, and shamelessly answered by the shamans through antiquity up to this day -- right or wrong! (and, if you don't like their answer, try another offered by a competitive religion).
Which brings me to the title of this essay: Is God Pulling Our Leg? Of course not! Is the short answer, because God doesn't exist -- at least in any form promulgated by any of the world's many religions. The existence or non-existence of God or Gods cannot be proven -- or can it? (More on this later). But, for the sake of giving the religionists the benefit of the doubt (which is very dangerous and will not be allowed beyond this humble analysis), let's assume that the Catholic God exists in all of his universal omnipotence (The other religions defaulting to the Catholics because none of them proclaim universality in their name -- a flaw that has not stopped them from proliferating).
Christianity had sprung from its roots in the Jewish Old Testament. Prophecy in those early books declared the coming of a messiah, and early Christians asserted that a certain charismatic teacher named Jesus Christ was that messiah. He was purported to be able to walk on water and raise the dead, but gave us precious little guidance in living our lives or advancing science and medicine (which we were left to ferret out for ourselves). Maybe Jesus was just playing with us (understand that none of his miracles were immediately noted by the scribes or learned of the day -- for at least a period of thirty-five years beyond his death and miraculous resurrection). Oh, he taught goodness and charity, but nothing really new that wasn't already in existence from earlier cultures around the planet (see Confucius or other codes like that of Hammurabi).
Christianity's Catholicism muddles the concept of monotheism which was supposed to herald the evolution of man's spiritual needs into one common God. However, Jesus had his dialogue with Satan, a devil having God-like powers. And then the Catholics have an untoward reverence for Jesus' mother, Mary, to the point of assuming she has God-like powers as the "Mother of God." Now there are several schools of thought that pick and choose from a trinity -- instead of asserting just one: the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost. Is God playing with us? Then, of course, there are the Saints -- some having significant supernatural power (please note that men and women who have in reality advanced the comfort and welfare of humanity but not the church seem to have been excluded from Sainthood). Have the Papacy been playing with us?
Leaving Catholicism, Abraham descended from the line of David, conceiving Isaac in wedlock (father of Judaism), but not before conceiving Ishmael out of wedlock. Ishmael is the forerunner of Islam -- what was God thinking? Presently, these two religions are at each other's throats. Through Abraham's strange family values and/or shenanigans, it makes one wonder; is God playing with us?
We have the diversity of the races from all over the planet, which has exacerbated bigotry and xenophobia. Blacks and whites are suspicious of each other, and the history of the mixing of the two has been rife with violence and abuse -- but both are children of God, in many cases the same God! Is He playing with us? Many atheists have come to their opinion of the non-existence of God by simply trying to lead a moral life. Many atheists feel they live by a standard that exceeds the immature level of a jealous and vindictive God. Others, myself included, refuse to bare false witness in recognizing, with awe, a God who would condemn his children to eternal hell for simply using their brain and talents to progress the human condition, disdaining nor begging his mercurial assistance. Allowing this state of mind to evolve among His constituents, Is He playing with us?
The Biblical Psalm 14:1 states: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God' Such are corrupt; they do abominable deeds; there is not one that does good." Those so described as foolish and abominable include no less than Madam Curie, Katharine Hepburn, Mark Twain, Gene Roddenbury, Arthur C. Clark, Isaac Asimov, Albert Einstein, Colonel Robert Ingersoll, etc., etc. Is God pulling our leg? There appears to be many examples of Christians' misdeeds to counter that Psalm, like the Catholic Hitler, the child sexual abuse scandals of Catholic priests, Charles Manson's cult murders, Jim Jone's mass suicides, the Heavens Gate self mutilation/suicides, David Koresh, and on and on ad nauseum. Could some of the clergy be playing with our minds, as well as our children?
In the foregoing examples, a philosophic proof exists that the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God does not exist because how can a thinking person subscribe to a God whose moral character is less than his critical and doubting children? How can a God claim to be omnipotent when many religions, each claiming to be the true word of God, abound across the planet -- many of them at each others throats? I don't think a truly compassionate, life-giving God would devilishly play around with us -- therefore there is no God (certainly not one requiring worship and conditions attached to the gift of life)!
ASK EDNA (7-10-2006)
Hi Edna. I hope Elmo is getting along better. My question is: What is there about the Bible that you and Elmo dislike? - Wanda of False-Hope, Texas
Wanda, that book, (or books) is a mishmash of old men's ideas mixing metaphor with wishful thinking of earlier years wasted in their pursuit of folly. Those old men, contriving with the relatively newly conceived ability to put thoughts down in writing, and having a lot of time on their hands, conjured up a cornucopia of cacophony to scare the new generation of idolators into fearful submission to an almighty, vengeful and jealous God. That was better than playing checkers, hanging out on park benches, or drinking whatever at Burger King-like kiosks at seniors' prices.
Wanda, there is no Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy, and the author(s) of the Bible is not the creator of the universe. Imagine this world as created by the above mentioned old men: Genesis was a good stab at it verbally, 4,000 years ago, but the ensuing biblical stories gave their amateurism away. That Old Testament was in such disarray that a later generation of history adulterers sought to amend same with more pastoral books and gospels that sought to put to rest some of the inconsistencies and violence that permeated the older tome. Now, consider this: the world and the universe are older than both the Old and the New Testament, correct? If you don't agree, we shouldn't be having this conversation.
The world's existence is unchanged and intact, and has always been fully under the influence of the uniform and regular laws of Nature. If the world and the universe had been created by the author(s) of the Bible, and got the Cosmos sooooo right the first time, how did He/She/they manage to screw up something as simple as the first edition (Old Testament) which was written with the intention of guiding the poor likes of early, vulnerable mankind? But of course most people back then could not read, so what did that matter so long as the pious clergy were there to interpret everything for them. (And now, in this late age, an updated 2nd edition of the 'New' Testament has been revealed to Joseph Smith by the angel Moron(sic)i -- will the absurdity ever end?)
Inconsistencies and juvenile vengeance are one thing, but outright lies are another -- and lies are contained within the Bible. "Oh," you might say, "that is the sour grapes opinion of an atheist!" but remember, I was born an atheist, then brainwashed to be a fearful religionist, and then throwing it off because it didn't stick with me, I returned to my first born persona, a free-thinking atheist. One blatant lie that kindles my fire is contained in Psalms 14.1:3
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
Such are corrupt; they do abominable deeds;
there is not one who does good.
The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
to see if there is one who is wise and seeks God.
All alike have gone astray; they have become perverse;
there is not one who does good, not even one.
One of the reasons I threw off the yoke of Christianity was the fact that not all that many I knew pursued good 'Christian' values. In my early twenties I had come to know half a dozen atheists -- and they were exemplary, leading quite good lives compared to most x-tians. Consider this: Scandinavian countries have the lowest church attendance in the world, yet have the least crime. Ireland, the Phillipines, and USA have some of the strongest church attendance found on the planet, yet have the highest crime rates. Atheists make up an insignificant few incarcerated prisoners in our jails while Christians make up the vast bulk. I would trust almost all atheists I know with my life and valuables -- as I would to only a few Christians that remain my friends. Psalm 14 is untruthful -- an insult to my, and my friends' intelligence, and is plainly an out and out lie! So much for biblical inerrancy!
ASK EDNA (5-1-2006)
Wow! If only my dear Elmo had possession of his mind! I asked for questions and I have been inundated with them. Where to begin? Where does one begin in caricaturing religion? Or Bush Administration politics? Here is a sampling, received just this past week:
1. How far to the right will the pendulum swing before it gravitates back toward center?
2. Has the Southern Confederacy finally won the American Civil War?
3. How will George W. Bush rectify his low approval rate and rally his party to win mid- term elections?
4. Will that election be up and up?
5. If the Democrats take over the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, will Bush and Cheney be impeached one by one, or together, for their involvement in the Valerie Plame security leaks?
6. Will Richard Cheney ever become forthright in his secret testimony concerning energy abuse investigations?
7. Will the Southern Baptist Convention wash Cheney's mouth out with soap for his use of the "F" word to Pat Leahy on the Senate floor?
8. Will the United States ever return to its position as credible leader of the civilized portion of the globe?
9. Had the Confederacy succeeded in splitting the American Union, would it have been inevitable that the South would have become a theocracy?
10. Was the American Civil War a religious war?
11. Are all the wars raging in the Middle East today religious wars?
12. Who gets to label what a declared war is all about: the attacker, defender, or historian?
13. Is the rapture still imminent?
14. What length of time will the "War on Terror" continue?
15. Will conventional wisdom hold that only Republicans can protect us from terrorism?
16. When will the average American become smart enough to see through the current administration's use of "wedge" tactics, like gay marriage or flag desecration as opposed to issues of lessening take home pay while experiencing growing numbers of poor, incarcerated, and health uninsured people?
17. Will government ever recognize science again?
18. Will real lives be valued over undeveloped fetuses ever again?
19. Why did Bill Clinton talk about his affair with Monica Lewinsky?
20. Isn't global warming / greenhouse effect a fuzzy, vague notion?
FOLLOWING ARE ANSWERS THAT CAN BRIEFLY BE GIVEN.
1. Through the adjoining wall! That is . . . the wall separating church and state!
2. Yes! Everything is now being southernized -- from music to the stars & bars on license plates and pickup truck back window screens. The Norfolk Southern now rolls over the old Pennsy system and the Southern Baptists are converting fearful souls north of the Mason - Dixon line.
3. By seizing the Middle East oil fields while He still can (No matter that this would cause World War III, involving nuclear exchanges with Russia, China, India and Pakistan -- the rapture will occur any day now).
4. Maybe. It'll be a landslide, with Jesusland all abuzz and the rapture occurring soon!
5. I'll answer that later . . . if the Internet is still in existence.
6. Dreamer!
7. Ditto!
8. Oh, sure.
9. Is the Pope Catholic?
10. Probably.
11. Well, maybe not the Izaack Hatfelds and the Muhammet MqQoys.
12. The Attacker -- for clarity's sake (are you listening, George? . . . Nah, I didn't think so).
13. Any day now (like they said around the camp fires during the Third Crusade).
14. Until at least the rapture -- maybe beyond!
15. There is no more conventional wisdom (or wisdom of any kind).
16. As an optimist, I say that it might be too late.
17. Why? The rapture will soon be upon us! Who needs science when all that is unreal will soon be real!
18. Sob!
19. Sob!
20. Sob!
Now, until you visit again, I refer you to our buttonless Web page, THE SERIOUS SIDE, following below:
THE SERIOUS SIDE
No, Atheist Station is not about pornography, deviant sex or evil in general, as so many of religion's clergy like to say. Although we are happy to have piqued your interest, please understand that we are a small but universal group dedicated to encouraging a view of our life's experience within a framework of reason and natural law.
Though religion's emergence and cultivation through the millennia was inevitable, to curb gross temptation and disorder, Atheist Station feels civilization has progressed to where sectarian and parochial convention and dogma is:
1. too confining to allow a broader view; and,
2. is clashing, and insists on encroaching onto each other with little respect for the other's piety (or lack thereof).
Following are articles that will highlight thoughts and inspirations that point toward a more understanding world. This will require an ability to read, or want to read, serious commentary of issues that are today plaguing us, such as why 9/11 happened and why "faith" and "prayer" is (or is not) the panacea for world peace.
Serious commentary is welcome, but may only be represented at the discretion of the Atheist Station editor. Send inquiries or opinions to:
The Serious Side Editor
ATHEIST STATION
P.O. Box 1623
Altoona, PA 16603
serious@atheiststation.org
(September 18, 2005)
DIVINE COMMUNICATION
by Ron Stauffer
Having a Heavenly Father to talk to in a crisis is wonderful. George W. Bush has driven home that fact time after time. He's got the Republican know nothings "and proud of it" oohin' and a aahing about his conversation with his father -- the Heavenly Father, that is. His real father would have advised him differently, but that's another story, among so many just as dysfunctional coming from the White House.
I question the quality of this heavenly conversation. Is George listening, or is he running at the mouth? Just what was God saying to him about the impending hurricane called "Katrina," if in fact He gave Georgy a
heads up on it at all? How did George misinterpret his "Father's" sage advice to keep a wary eye out on the 320 mile long system of levees. But George did not get it right and thought He meant: "Watch the Democrats in FEMA clothing trying to raise the tax levy on his rich friends."
Or was George lying to us. Surely he wouldn't lie to us -- would he? I s'pose he did lie to us in his 2000 campaign for president when he said "there would be no nation building on my watch." And that fundamental connection of Iraq and el-Qaeda -- but wait, there WAS a connection: there is a "Q" in Iraq as there is a "Q" in el-Qaeda, silly me! And when he says that government cannot put hope in people's hearts, well, I guess that means Roosevelt's New Deal, Social Security and all the other work programs set in motion during the darkest days of the Great Depression never gave anyone "hope." Of course, his and Laura Bush's idea of hope are weirdly skewed -- her coining the phrase "false hope" in giving a speech on something she's an expert on: the folly of stem cell research. Only the Bushes can differentiate between what is hope and what is false hope -- they are that intelligent!
Back to George's conversation with the Almighty. Is it really the Almighty he is accepting advice from, or is it the Devil -- or maybe Dick Cheny speaking to him through a voice tube hidden in the headboard of his
bed as he slumbers. And if the Great Lord of Everything has revealed His presence to the oaf of the oval office, He must be greatly dissed at George for Him to allow the Katrina catastrophe to happen. Hey George, you must
have done something really dumb to get the Big Guy's ire up to that level of retribution. Could it have been the war in Iraq? Or just the way your administration snubs battle scarred veterans and the poverty stricken?
Personally, I think George is in a delusionary cloud, or a very good liar. Lying for what he thinks is the good of the country is
Machiavellian, but then this administration subscribes to that way of thinking: "The end justify the means." Someone once
said that, if nothing else, religion is really good at keeping the masses within the politician's control. Welcome to the new nation of Republicana.
(July 2, 2005)
> THE NEW REFORMATION
> By Ronald P. Stauffer
>
WHEREAS religion has outlived its usefulness, causing:
1. division among cultures;
2. lies and fabrications intending to mislead and preserve their existence;
3. relative disbelief in science and history;
4. abnormal consternation about reality;
5. promotion of mysticism;
6. promotion of superstition;
7. promotion of fear;
8. promotion of confusion and mental conflict;
9. promotion of naivete;
10. promotion of vulnerability
11. anger toward other sects;
12. enhancement of jealousy;
13. instability among nations;
14. lack of rationalization;
15. the subordination of the Cosmos;
16. lack of responsibility;
17. guilt of conscience;
18. subordination of conscience;
19. subordination of the self;
20 subordination of personal security;
21. subordination of human understanding;
22. subordination of curiosity;
23. subordination of inquiry;
24. subordination of human tolerance;
25. differentiation of charity;
26. disdain for one's own body;
27. sense of persecution;
28. anxiety of the future;
29. anxiety due to the realization that one can never have enough faith;
30. nonacceptance, in varying degrees, of the life/death cycle;
31. nonacceptance, in varying degrees, of life's enjoyment;
32. nonacceptance, in varying degrees, of the world we live in;
33. nonacceptance, in varying degrees, of learning;
34. abnormal enhancement of displeasure;
35. subordination of objective thinking, rather than subjective;
36. exclusiveness;
37. a "holier than thou" pecking order, or caste system of righteousness;
38. starvation of newborns in 3rd world nations deprived of birth control information;
39. stagnation of life:
a. by placing limits on achievement,
b. by de-facto sanctification of ignorance,
c. by giving back hard won freedoms,
d. by enhancing and promoting nationalism, and,
e. by promoting the First Commandment to the detriment of our Constitution's First Amendment;
40. the path toward a lockstep robotic lifestyle, over that of the individual.
41. a tax burden on the Commonwealth's non-religious citizens, and unduly limiting the municipalitys' budget.
>
> NOW, be it considered that religion should be relegated officially to that of the individual's own personal conscience, negating forever its direct influence on the Government. Its contributions to morality and charity have and will always be duly and sentimentally noted -- but it is time to move on. It is time for Civilization to advance beyond the mysteriously dark psyche that has impeded progress for at least one millennium, if not more.
> This is not to say religion should be outlawed, but it should never attain the full measure it strives to become today without subjecting its mores to the same rigorous example as reality. Any way you cut it, faith
is not fact! Faith is at most a personal or collective opinion, non-provable and vulnerable to falsification -- the antithesis of Science
and Mathematics, whose axioms can be proven again and again.
> Like Martin Luther's Reformation in protest of the greedy Catholic Church and its system of paid-for indulgences, the above is a protest of the mindless lockstep of religious tradition performed in the name of heritage without giving thought to its eventual consequences listed above. We can drown in religion's unyielding orthodoxy and fundamentalism, or we can soar from the quagmire, free as our winged cousins, to view a world that beckons to be appreciatively cultivated.
(March 12, 2005)
AN UNWINNABLE BATTLE (help me here, I'm feeling a bit discouraged)
Atheist recognition/acceptance is the last frontier! We will be denied first class citizenry 'cause the masses will not try to achieve even a modicum of intellectual level that would enable them to understand our disregard for religion. It is not that they have not the cranial capacity to see things the way we do, but they have had embedded in their psyche the feel good, eternal preservation, propaganda instilled within them from birth by their well intentioned but naive parents. As in any mode of mind influencing indoctrination, to lift one from such a rut initiated at birth, has to come from within, and that is the rub--change from the feel good, eternity scenario is near impossible to effect.
There are certain special reasons that cause Atheists to question the pie in the sky scenario, and they are not common to the masses' acquiescence to delusion. Those special reasons could be any number of psyche-jolting experiences that are somehow unique to the individual. I guess It's not fair to condemn those who led a less rocky journey into adulthood and question less their heritage--though, it is difficult to find patience with those less than courteous, proselytizing sheep that are always telling us we are going straight to hell.
Aliens with two heads from the planet Tatooinni have a better chance at being accepted into society than an out-of-the-closet Atheist (that is assuming the alien brought along his/her/its baggage of god or gods). What does that say about general open mindedness? Not much hope there, I assure you. Being nice (and we are very nice people for the most part) to religionists just doesn't cut it, for they still tell us right to our face that we are going to burn forever in hell. I would just as soon cut them up with satire, using their own words, and their Bible, against them, as it can so easily be done. It seems that they love to be persecuted but hate to be made fun of! But for the short term fun one has, the long-term problem of little empathy and non-acceptance remains. The religionists eat their cake and want more, and the media, unlike the Constitution, refills their plate again and again, afraid of treating them other than as a sacred cow. Now, the Constitution is under attack and it is being eroded on many fronts; it is our last line of defense against the withering cacophony of bleating nonsense. What more can a reasonable person do but go back into the closet--and then genuflect before the appropriate icon as will certainly, in the not too distant future, be required!
Ron Stauffer
WHAT DOES GOD MEAN TO PEOPLE?
A:> Assuming there are 6,380,000,000 people on this earth, there are about that many opinions of what God is. Of course, this large sum can be divided into several large religions, and those religions can be further subdivided into many denominations. The denominations can be reduced further to embrace many, many sects, which can in turn be subdivided into individual churches, mosques, temples and meeting houses. Some sects have even spawned off cults that are more or less on the fringe of sanity (at least that is what entrenched religions define cults as).
There are many who don't believe there is a God, but hold out hope that maybe one exists in deist form who keeps account of all behavior (a serendipitous wish that the assholes of the world get their just desserts when all is over). Other atheists cynically, or stoically, accept the condition of life and its fruits or despair as the result of fate, content to make their own luck steering themselves toward favorable destinies.
Since no two minds are exactly alike, the definition of God in each mind is necessarily different. Why "faith" and "non-faith" exist side-by-side all over this planet can only be attributed to something called conscience. The strength of one's convictions is maintained by one's conscience. A rabid Fundamentalist or a determined Atheist has come about his convictions through life's experience. The former may have been more successfully indoctrinated by their parents and church at an early age, while the latter probably by more self-education and curiosity. At any rate, it is really "freedom of conscience" that should be protected by the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Religion is a matter of conscience, some might say, but John A. Henderson, M.D., in his new book , GOD.COM, convincingly differs. He writes that religion is a person's relationship with God -- not necessarily with his fellow man. Morality, he says, is a person's relationship with other people.
The term "conscience" covers both religion and morality. Perhaps the establishment clause should read: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ESTABLISHING A RELIGION, NOR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, NOR INFRINGE UPON MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE. Had William Penn been present at the adoption of the Constitution, he might have lobbied hard for that inclusion. Penn was an ardent proponent of the individual's freedom of conscience. Such an inclusion would have unconditionally protected those who conscientiously oppose supernatural religion but feel strongly about man's support of his fellow man.
Ron Stauffer (10-24-03)
--I WONDER-- (9-10-03)
So much is said in support of religion. And some things are said against religion. I do believe the former holds sway. Why is that? Most would say that it is because of heritage -- 2,000 years (or more) of it. Others would say: "It is good!" Still others would point out emphatically that you probably will burn for eternity in hell if you don't join their sect of evangelistic fervor.
Is this what cognizant life is all about? An heritage which is almost certainly a super abundance of mythological observances from an uninformed if not innocent age; goodness as opposed to the reality of survival -- not a pretty choice when starvation is on one's heels. And then we come to the fear factor: will one burn in hell if she or he is reluctant to sign on to " . . .dumb is where it's at" evangelism.
I wonder what life would be like without the panicky cry of FEAR emanating from the fear factories of fundamentalism. Could we survive the night without incessant prayer? Could life be livable without continual obeisance to the almighty illusion?
I dare say: "Let's give it a try." I have, and found a certain positive result: that the sky has not fallen on me. I have found that others like-minded thrive in their independence from the mystical gods and demons of the mind. I have found that I can make my own good fortune by simply making intelligent choices. Essentially, it is the banishment of fear that has supplanted the need for external assurance in living a full, productive life. Resulting self-confidence supplants the void of hapless bewilderment that comes from the ceaseless conflicts of scripture and dogma.
I wonder what life could be to live in a world of John Lennon's IMAGINE. Consider for a moment: NO RELIGION. Impossible, you say? I give you that, for it seems ingrained in every person as a sort of default. It IS our heritage -- not born that way, mind you, but certainly indoctrinated to it at a very, very early age. I ask again, over-ride the default and consider: NO RELIGION! I then ask the following:
Would there be an Isreali-Palestinian problem?
Would there be a Northern Ireland problem between Christian factions?
Would there be a Cultural War?
Would there be less wars?
Would there be less (or any) concern over gay and lesbian relationships?
Would there be less hypocrisy?
Would there be more freedom and understanding for women?
Would there be a Muslim -- Judeo/Christian conflict that threatens humanity's continuance on this planet
Would there be better mental health
Would science become unfettered to find new and exciting knowledge?
Would population control become a possibility?
Would medicine become unfettered in finding better ways to combat disease?
Would governing councils become free from wasting valuable time and resources in placating demands of the clergy?
Would fanatical zealotry be curbed?
Would there be a war on drugs?
Would property taxes be less?
Would starvation and genocide be lessened?
Would universal and OBJECTIVE education become possible?
Would management of environmental resources be better effected?
Would universal understanding and empathy be made possible?
Would there be a dissolving of parochial antipathy?
Would nationalistic fervor and flag waving be lessened?
Would more happiness / less hate occur?
The conservative view-point unknowingly exasperates progress toward alleviating many of the above mentioned problems. I suggest it is because of primordial fear of total freedom. Indeed, not everyone in society can handle total freedom, and the conservatives recognize that fact perhaps more than liberals do. At any rate, it is probably too late for John Lennon's dream to take place.
If religion is not thriving, it is certainly surviving the throes of some of the abuse it has administered. And, though it is continually rearranging its spots on its coat, its followers are not about to let loose that cradle to grave security blanket it offers. Better the devil you know than the one you don't know (which, incidentally, doesn't exist).
Ron Stauffer
QUALITY TRUMPS QUANTITY (3-23-2003)
I know you have heard the expression "quality is preferred over quantity." At least that is what I was taught, and I always understood: that it was better to have a few good friends rather than a whole slew of so-so friends; that a dozen of wonderfully whole tomatoes is better than having three dozen of tomatoes with blemishes and worms--I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the picture.
Several weeks ago, the talk show host on our local conservative radio talk show program asked me to name ten reasons why I should prefer atheism over belief in God. Offhand, I could name only the following: 1. that it frees up one day out of the week; 2. that it allows me to pursue more avenues toward happiness, like reading, or seeing videos of whatever I want; 3. making love to my wife in any way we both enjoy, oblivious to the limitations that good church folk proscribe; and 4. ability to appreciate good people for who they are regardless of their religion, sexual preference or color. At any rate, his question was quantitative, and my come back should have been that my philosophical bent was more qualitative than anything else.
Atheism and freethought are a result of qualitative study of all aspects of life, nature and the cosmos. It is about the disgust with Christian hypocrisy and self-serving obeisance grounded in fear of a miserably hot eternity. It is about the eventual brightening of the dark areas we still don't know about (take note that the church only grudgingly accepted the indifferent dictates of science and the necessities of medicine, i.e. anesthesia for women in childbirth, etc.). It is about giving up attempting to interpret the Bible and all of those mealy-mouthed but intimidating fundamentalist ministers with their backwater twang. It is about trying to understand that each of thousands of religious sects claim theirs is the only true way to God or the Gods. It is trying to understand that polytheism has been reduced to monotheism (the true sign of civilization. . . with the wondrous exception of the trinity, somehow)--one wonders why, if one God is better than many, is there a problem worshipping zero gods if a mathematical progression (or regression in this case) is to be respected.
In regards to mathematical progression and models of the cosmos, I recently read a book by Charles Seife entitled "ZERO: An Abstract of a Dangerous Idea." Therein is a tongue-in-cheek proof that God exists. It is an elaboration on Pascal's Wager which, in short, states that given all of the mathematical possibilities, it is unwise to say there is no God. The choice is between nothingness and eternal bliss or Hell. Pascal was a Christian and a mathematician. He was an early innovator in the field of statistics, to better assist his wealthy friends who were into betting. Later in life he left mathematics to become a theologian, promoting his theological "Wager." He insisted that it was better to believe in (the Christian) God rather than risk the probability of burning in Hell as a heretic. Notice that his rationale is predicated on his God's construction of Hell--all the other religions without that construct are, of course, considered heretical.
Pascal's Wager is quantitative and lacks the QUALITY of additional study of history, philosophy, and other anthropological experience. Besides, mathematical concepts as numbers approach zero or infinity have been found to be troublesome and flawed as Charles Seife explains time after time. As a mathematician, he was obviously intrigued with the mysteriousness of infinity, like so many other mathematicians. It is a number too difficult to comprehend, just like infinitesimal is a number approaching zero that can always be halved but never reach zero. Is not the conscious and unconscious mind another realm of infinity and infinitesimal that will never be fully comprehended ? But it can be said that the mind IS a qualitative arena rather than quantitative.
Pascal's numerical proof is humbled when the mind's conscience is brought into play. Each mind is a veritable universe--unmeasurable.
His probable wager is challenged by the intrepidity of human learning, thinking and experience. Intelligent digestion of real facts diffuses the mysticism of the unknown, enlightening the mind and questioning the validity of information that is unable to be proven. To what degree, and in what direction, one's intelligence is channeled decide the eventual value of how we perceive and react to future stimuli. How many of us are able to predict what another's path might be in the face of any given stimuli? There are just too many variables that differ from that of the observer.
Values such as veracity, natural observation, real experience, reading experience, and consistency of action will collide with fear, hypocrisy, isolation and dogmatic ritual that date from primordial eras. This clash is a root cause of the clogging of the universal mind, and is commonly known as neurosis (which and can lead to psychosis). The untroubled, universal mind may or may not find Pascal's Wager comforting--depending on how well conditioned their psyche is with their philosophical outlook. A religious person whose philosophical base extends unquestioningly from birth to the present might find the "Wager" an affirmation of their faith. On the other side of the coin, where a person has studied the above mentioned cultural clash and derived a totally different philosophical outlet that does not require paying homage to a god, Pascal's Wager is viewed as a base attempt to appease a monstrous god (understanding that an omniscient God would know full well the content of that person's conscience). Conscience, in this or any case, is the infinite frontier of the mind. Numbers can't change the setting of the conscience--only values can! It makes no difference which values are adopted or maintained, Pascal's dance with infinity and zero is hardly comparable to the dictates and convictions of the mind.
Ron Stauffer
PLEASE, NO MORE LIES !! (2-09-2003)
Last November's GODLESS AMERICANS MARCH ON WASHINGTON produced some very inspiring and artful speech concerning the predicament we unbelievers (that is, non-believers in spooks and fear of unlighted passageways) are challenged with on a daily if not hourly basis. None of which were more inspiring than Ed Buckner's exhortation of "NO MORE LIES!" (go to www.secularhumanism.org).
The lies that he refers to are seven distinct points of how Christians say Atheists do not measure up to anything more than sub-human self-centeredness. Mostly, the negativism attributed to us emanates from the fundamentalists and orthodox of all faiths--not just Christian; but the fundamentalist Christians are close at hand and seem to suffer our existence the most. Pity them that we should be so confident to think for ourselves, to do for ourselves, and even provide for our own happiness without bothering some supernatural entity that surely must be by now disgusted with all the whining, beseeching, and tearful begging which seems to be the lot of the religious fanatic. Maybe that's why He left and became an Absentee Father.
The one consistent aspect of fundamentalism is their ability to always be INCONSISTENT. They are even inconsistent with each other, always, to the point where the inconsistency overflows; they then START ANOTHER CHURCH rather than try to understand each other's interpretation of that chaotic and confusing tome (after all, a church is biblically defined where two or three are gathered together--to ostensibly debate the inconsistency of others, and even between themselves). The highlight of their inconsistency is their ability to betray two of the 'hallowed' Ten Commandments, most notably: THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS and THOU SHALT NOT KILL. If you want to stifle a fundamentalist fanatic's proselytism, just ask him: Does 'Thou shalt not kill' mean not killing those of your own church, or any of other human beings? Do likewise with 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' and watch them squirm!
Ed Buckner's speech revealed seven commonly repeated lies by the followers of the supposed "Good Book." They are:
1. "The United States is a Christian Nation." Fundamentalists repeat this lie without bothering to study American History and our Constitution.
2. "Being patriotic means being religious." I have talked to many fundamentalists who put their God above our nation's soverereignty. On the contrary, Atheists have 0% respect for the former and 100% the latter--for America's secular democracy is our last best hope of achieving civilization.
3. "There are no Atheists in foxholes." As an ex-Marine who volunteered to defend this country, I, and many other volunteer service men and women, take exception to such nonsense! My family physician of a while back, once told me and a friend: "I lost my religion between Normandy and Czechoslovakia."
4. "It's a miracle," when one or a number are saved from "certain" death. Like Mr. Buckner says, God MUST then take credit for those who are destroyed during a routine and confident life. Of course, it is useless to blame or credit any supernatural dream with ANY such claim.
5. "Religious ideas and 'sacred' texts are above criticism." This is nothing but a cop-out--an elevation and propagation of ignorance at the expense of intelligent, diligent study.
6. "Dissent is un-American." Religionists are only hurting themselves when they, in effect, give up their own right to question authority.
7. "To be irreligious is to be immoral." This is ignorance at its worst! Any one who utters such a lie has met few, if any, Atheists. One of the reasons that I became skeptical of religion was my exposure at a young age to several Atheists. I was very much impressed with the quality of their life and morality as opposed to too many whining and scheming "good" people. To this day, I am in awe at the quality of likeminded, unpretentious, neurosis free individuals--like those I met in Washington D.C., on November 2, 2002.
Catholics like to canonize their very good people, but does anyone notice the infrequency, if ever, that the REAL contributors to better life and civilization on this planet are recognized by that "One True" faith? Why is there not a Saint Galileo or Kepler? A Saint Euclid or Jonas Salk? Saint Albert Einstien or Saint Isaac Newton or Saint Marie Curie, you never hear about. Sagan, Asimov, Clark, Roddenberry and Twain I can understand, 'cause they were, gasp, humanists. I could go on, but you get the idea: WE LIVE IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE ! One universe is called REALITY, and the other, MAKE BELIEVE! Those who find reality too much of an ordeal, pine for a better place and an imaginable, all-good, Maker, who, unbelievably, listens to their constant begging for a better, and--get this--bonus for eternal, life. Almost sounds like Publisher's Clearinghouse calling.
Which brings me around to mention the Absentee Father scenario. This 'Father' has talked on occasion to several handfuls of people (maybe more--who's counting, beside the Vatican?) among which are the canonized saints (no, not the New Orleans Saints, who REALLY do need divine assistance). Now, absentee fathers are not usually worshipped as such, but rather disdained and forgotten. They are the rubbish of familial [I'm sorry, you fundies will just have to use a dictionary] life, never to be mentioned in polite conversation. YET, there is the cosmic? exception of a father who has been gone nearly 2,000 years (or a son--I may be confused here) who is remembered, let me see . . . umm, two or three times a year by my civil calendar and dozens of times a year by the 'One True' church's Calendar.
Yes, it seems our priorities are indeed scrambled. Dysfunctional heads of family along with unwed teen mothers -- both very mistake prone humans that could use some help (humans like you and me) are conveniently relegated to the trash heap. But then, irrationally, an absentee father of omniscient portent , and his son of questionable paternity, are worshipped and beseeched by untold millions on a daily, sometimes hourly, sometimes on a more frequent basis, to allay their fears, hates and more fears of the pain known and experienced as LIFE.
L.C.
OUR PROBLEM - OUR MISSION (10-21-02)
Fire ant fundamentalists are still not satisfied though they have gotten a foot in the door toward making the United States a theocracy. Like spoilt children insist, they now eat their cake and still have it too. They are proceeding to divide our country so that it can no longer be known as 'indivisible.' 'E. Pluribus Unum' has been replaced with 'In God We Trust.' The fact that this transition, and others like it, were done in moments of our nation's weakness and fear--rips in the fabric of our history--makes no difference to the blubbering children as they carry their Cross (to eventually be raised to the top of every court house in the land).
These people are clueless as to what life is all about, and they find themselves on a collision course with cultures just like themselves (only worshipping different gods) as the planet continues to shrink. It is not a pretty picture to see confused minions of one mindset encountering equally befuddled and disconcerted pawns of foreign source--each wanting to convert the other to their way of thinking . . or else! Their "pursuit of happiness" is disdained by their clergy as they progress like pilgrims to a loftier state of faith and grace.
Because of the above assault on reason and the mixing of inanity with my government, I feel, as an atheist, I am hardly more than a second class citizen in the country of my birth. I am weird because I recognize none of the gods of record--will not pick one of the many (any one will do--to qualify as an adherent to some moral order). But even as a 'weird' person, was I not included under the notion of 'One Nation Indivisible?' If I can't pick a god that I like, revere and I want to worship, from the allotment available--choosing rather to wait for a creator that is worthy of my love to show her/his/its face--I am asked to leave the land in which I was born, raised and educated, and would have willingly defended.
To these fundies who find my atheism so despicable, I wish them a good day, because most of their days are sad, morose affairs, bogged down with the constant measuring of their faith, and the constant bickering with their comrades in Christ! The fundies are a bunch of losers who can only find happiness sticking their long noses (boy, are their noses long) in others' business. Happiness to them is mostly achieved at the expense of the privacy of others, and at the expense of the environment. Their freedom is limited to what their religion allows (Jerry Falwell's Liberty Baptist University would be more appropriately named 'Baptist Parochial College').
Any freedoms outside the confines of their faith are not important and can be rescinded, even at the expense of others who may still cherish them (e.g. reproductive freedom and freedom from religion). The fundamentalists (an oxymoronic name that hardly denotes fun, let alone mentality) believe in ghosts and spirits and that the Bible is THE literal truth. It can be plainly seen why they are most always so glum. Gaining a foothold in our government is seen by some of them as becoming a target for the dissatisfactions toward the government itself. And maybe they even sense the real clawing and backbiting that will come as the eternal religious pecking order is tried, tried, and tried again, here in America.
If they think they can institute heaven here on Earth, they have another thought coming. The mixing of religion and government will commence a litany of never ending conflict over the degree of morality (piety) shown by the individual legislators--to an end that cannot be seen. And the playing field of policy construction will metamorphose from that of reason to that of faith.
Though religion is culturally confining, there seems to be no limit to the amount of faith one can strive for. Is the ability to move a mountain the ultimate sign of faith? To deny one's children proper medical care in lieu of prayer, the ultimate faith? In both instances, no one has seen faith strong enough to effect the mountain's traverse or the child's improvement. (Indeed, in our city of Altoona, Pennsylvania, USA, two children have been sacrificed because of dependence on faith/prayer instead of simple, elementary medication).
It is very sad -- but it's fun too, to poke fun at the irretrievable zealot. Because of their terrible ignorance and fear, they think us disciples of the devil that can call upon them all sorts of bad things. For us to deny these supposed powers would be useless for several reasons: 1. We can't be trusted to say the truth; 2. Their clergy have told them otherwise; 3. Our consummate happiness and contentment is the "false happiness" we have been given by the devil in exchange for our souls; and, 4. It provides a measure of protection because of our "evil powers," at least until they start burning us at the stake.
In closing, I want to assert to the fundamentalists that our mission at ATHEIST STATION is to expose their rampant hypocrisy and to redeem the word 'atheist' from their very limited vocabulary to its lustrous position as one of philosophy's most positive attitudes. To be an atheist is an effort of honesty, usually of integrity and certainly of courageous honor. Soviet Communism tried to legislate it at the expense of religion--they were obviously wrong. Those that fear the night (and their shadow) must be free, in a free world, to indulge their delusion. Atheists, an intelligent few, should rest assured, remembering what Mark Twain once said: "only two in ten thousand have a brain."
L.C.
WARNING: The liberties that are emphasized in this column are not for everybody, but only for those responsible enough to appreciate freedom without abusing others!
