Tag Archives: religion


I’m going to preface this post by writing that a lot of people, some I know, some I might not know, will probably disagree with this post, perhaps even vociferously.  Just remember to keep it civil.

I recently received a letter from Senator Rand Paul that infuriated me.  Maybe you have, too.  And maybe it pissed you off as much as it did me.  This letter, this mass communique, this junk mail, this solicitation, whichever category you feel it fits into,  is about repealing Roe v Wade.  Clearly I disagree with this idea, mostly because I’m a liberal baby-killing monster, but also because I enjoy giving people, like, you know, women, options.  At least I do when it comes to my peers, not specifically on this topic, but any topic.

But the part I don’t understand about this is why abortion is so demonized.  Because we’re killing things that may or may not be alive yet depending on the study you choose to site based on which point you’re trying to make?  Or is it because you read in a book somewhere that every life is sacred (after God told people to crusade like crazy, fucked with Job and spake to Abraham that he should kill his son Isaac, even though he was joking on that last one ’cause Big G is a cut up) and you can’t make your own decisions?  Though I understand it, the thought of killing another person is a weighty beast no matter what their age, but I’d rather someone just terminate someone than have the little creature suffer for a lifetime.

There are many people I know that have worked in homes for troubled children and have had to hear their stories, like the child that had a mother who allowed grown men to rape him so she could score drugs, and sometimes I wonder if that’s the reality that some of these people are trying to create for these chilluns.  I don’t see abortion so much as a solution to a problem as I see it as a preventative measure to avoid having children be brought up in hellish conditions or neglected or abused and then causing more problems in society because people raised in broken homes ofttimes don’t turn out to be the most well-adjusted adults.  It happens, but it’s not a great shot.

I think back to the wonderful Greg Proops who often says that people denying abortions are pro-life but also anti-woman.  There’s a contingency of these pro-lifers who don’t care if a woman was raped or if a pregnancy is caused by incest because it’s an unborn fetus and it should have a right to life.  I get the last part, but why should we care so much for the unborn and not the person who will have to live with the fact that their child was created from rape and the memories of that situation, but let’s say that someone took out part of your liver and then mounted it on your wall, it might open up some mental wounds of when some jerk barged into your life and tore an organ out of your body every time you see it.  But you’re not allowed to take your removed, desiccated organ off the wall because that’s against what someone interpreted in, like, The Tripod Series by John Christopher.  Wouldn’t that get a little overwhelming and nerve wracking?

That’s what you have to think about.  That child is going to be a memory of that moment, no matter what they turn out to be.  And there might be that unconditional love for some people, but more often than not there’s going to be resentment, and do you really want someone to be put through that?  Thanks, people that aren’t the child bearer of that tiny human!

It doesn’t surprise me that it’s mostly men that harp on this stuff, but it honestly surprises me when women don’t want the choice to even be available.  That they want to be locked into a decision that’s being made for them by some dude they don’t know.  But then shit like this happens, where a woman says that rape babies are blessings and I just totally lose my mind.  I don’t understand the kind of mental state someone has to be in, except for total ignorance, to even state something that heinously wrong and horrible.  Like their mind has been twisted by what someone told them when they were growing up so much that they lose all grasp of reality.  I don’t think religion is an awful thing, it can be useful and there are people who practice it that are genuinely good people and they should be respected.  But it’s the nutballs like Sharon Barnes that give spiritual people a bad name who should be ashamed of themselves for doing such a thing.

And then this mess that I came across while doing research for this entry.  Yes, the children in that picture look identical.  Who gives a shit?  It’s not the end, it’s the means of the situation that matters.  What caused the result matters more to some women than the parasitic entity that is growing inside them.  That’s all there is to it and that’s my opinion, but don’t worry, I’m not going to gin up numbers or try to conjure facts to stand by my beliefs to get others to agree with me, either you do or you don’t.  That’s your business.  From what I can see, this whole thing is just an agenda against women that has been going on forever, and trying to shock me or put me into a guilt trip isn’t going to work, pro-lifers, because I’m from the internet and there isn’t a damn thing you can show me that I can’t best with a quick Google search.

I didn’t even get into the insanity where pro-life fundamentalists go out and kill doctors that offer late term abortions, picket family planning clinics and defame, debase or destroy anyone with any power that disagrees with them, because that’s ground tread far too often.  The duality of some people’s morals is just baffling to me.  You can’t kill a baby but killing someone who does a service for the people that are just looking for the option being drawn and quartered is A-OK!  That notion doesn’t make any sense, no matter how you slice it.

Look, I’m not saying that abortion is always the best option, hell, it shouldn’t even be at the top of the list when you don’t think you can provide for the child, at least seriously consider adoption first, and then consider it again and again.  But if the mother cannot bring this child to term or there are medical complications that will lead to the mother dying, then abortion should always be a choice.  It’s a last resort, and that’s all it is.  Don’t let these politicians, zealots, or anyone else take away your choices, because that’s what it is, another attempt to put a clamp on the collective genitals of the American people.


Something That Was Keeping Me Up

Now, I’m going to preface this by declaring that I don’t purposefully set out to target atheists but I have the most questions about them because a lot of their world seems to be so far askew of logic, yet they seem to revel in believing themselves superior of intellect of those that are religious in some way, often combatively so.  I don’t care if you are religious or not, honestly.  Do whatever makes you happy.  Yes, both camps can decide their hyperbole, be it about abuse or rape or whatever disgusting, dark place your mind decides it wants to go to and get back to me later.  I’m here to ask the atheists a question that wouldn’t leave my brain, and I’m asking them because they seem more willing to give answers that aren’t simply some hand wave of a Jedi mind trick.  So, without further ado, here is that question:

Are hope and prayer not the same thing?

On the surface, this question seems a bit aping, trite and silly.  Well, one might say, hoping is a bit more realistic because it gives way for failure whereas prayer is putting one’s stringent, unswaying belief in a munificent being.  But I’m not sure anyone can honestly be so foolish to assume that if you believe in something it will happen at all costs.  There is always room for failure.  But you have to dig a bit deeper, and to do that you have to begin at the surface.  At what the words themselves mean.

Wish.  Pray.  Hope.  These words, all three of them, mean the exact same thing.  They are all synonyms of each other, thus, they convey the same idea.  But only the one in the middle.  The one with some sort of ridiculous religious connotation would be considered taboo among the most steadfast of the non-religious sect.  And I can’t wrap my head around why, mostly because those that don’t hold a faith still wish and hope for things.  Most of the time they wish and hope for things they can’t control, which is what a religious person might pray for: That a sickness be healed, that a couple has a healthy child, that someone passes their class of choice.  You can hope or pray for these things, but only one will get you lambasted or defamed in certain sects of the public.  Is it really okay to be afraid of a word that holds the same merits and ideas as two others you may deem totally acceptable just because someone chose to align it with something you disagree with?  And yes, I know that we can run the parallel with other words that discredit an entire race, or sex, or anything else.  That’s what I’m trying to do, I’m trying to figure out the offense because I don’t understand.  I’m not trying to raise hell or condemn or whatever else you may think from these words, I simply wish to hear why someone would be taken aback by something that is meant to be positive on your behalf.

I know quite a few atheists that hinge their entire being on the solidarity of science.  But I also know that they hope and wish for things because they are human.  They want to have good things happen to people.  They want good things to happen to them and try to imagine them and want them and that’s fine.  But the issue at hand is that none of those ideas are scientifically sound.  When science deals with uncertainties it does so with theories and hypothesis and does so with pretty exacting language.  “This will work because such a reaction occurs.” or however else you wish to run your idea.  If you were working with the certainties of science while dealing with the desires of humanity, by logic you would either have to say that you will or won’t succeed and there is no gray area to it.  If dealing with certainties there is no try, only do.

Those three ideas are dealing with the uncertainties of the future, the unpredictable things that happen to all of us, and our desire to want to get out of those situations.  Wanting the positive, idealistic possibilities within the sphere of outcomes that is the future is, by definition, hopeful.  To be optimistic you have to wish for the best.  You have to.  There isn’t a second road to optimism.  To be optimistic you have to believe in something, be it a bearded man flying around on a cloud, to believing in someone close to you, to believing in a second chance at life, to just believing in yourself.

We are all the same.  All of us.  We are not right, nor are we wrong, we are all just being.  We all believe in something, so why does the method in which we do so cause such rifts between us?  Why should any of us cause contention or disorder and bring ire to other people that are just like us because they think something different?

Everyone:  It’s time to grow up!  Accept that there are some people out there that don’t agree with us, that will never agree with us, and accept that as a fact and move on.  Don’t dwell on the negatives.  Don’t stop at the differences.  Find the similarities and build upon that.  It’s time for us to stop defeating ourselves and others with paranoia, with delusions of grandeur, with superiority, with castes and segregation and gentry.  We can change.  We can make things better.

We can improve the world for those that come after us, learn from our mistakes and nurture their successes.  We need to believe again.

We need to believe in each other.


So, I came up with an interesting theory just out of boredom and insanity.  Not too long ago the wife and I had ventured to the Yucatan Peninsula.  I forget why, but what’s important is that we went there.  And the fifth reason people go there is for the Mayan stuff.  Mayan stuff clearly follows alcohol, naked women, alcohol and, of course, alcohol.  But we learned an interesting thing from our lovely guide at Chichen Itza (Farewell Felipe… wherever you are…).  We learned the legend of Quetzalcoatl.

Quetzalcoatl is basically a mystical feathered serpent who will manifest itself as a glowing, white, blond bearded mangod.  They Mayans first believed that when Hernán Cortés first appeared on their shores that he was Quetzalcoatl come again, as he was a white, bearded man and he wore metal armor that shone in the sun.  He was revered and treated as the king of kings until he conquered them and helped begin the forming Mexico as it is today.  But I don’t think this is entirely the case.

The temple at Chichen Itza is where the Mayans once prayed to and revered the God Quetzalcoatl.  In fact, if you go to the temple at the vernal and autumnal equinoxes there are shadows that appear along the stairways that resemble a serpent.  And it is said that the catastrophe that will occur in 2012 will begin at the temple.

With all that out of the way, I can get to where I was going in the first place:

It is my firm belief that Stefani Germanotta, or as the mortals have rendered her ‘Lady Gaga’  is Quetzalcoatl come again, rather than Cortés.  And will bring about our doom in about a year’s time.

Why do I think this?  Let’s see if I can convey this in words.  She has a following of millions of people for producing and manufacturing bland, idiotic technopop that people believe contains meanings.  So, if other idiots feel like that can do that, I can, too.  She tries to pull the bait and switch in the song “Alejandro” in which she states:

I’m not your babe, Fernando.

Something I learned is that the names Hernán, Hernando and Fernando are all the same name in Spanish, more or less.  So she is trying to get you to believe that she is not the same as Hernán Corés.  She wants us to believe that she is benevolent and will not cause a terrible, apocalyptic event that will end the whole of humanity.

Okay, so you’re probably thinking, ‘Jeez, that’s really, really dumb and a bit of a reach.’  Granted, yes, it probably is.  So what other bits of information could I give?  The timeframe of her genesis seems to be rather serendipitous, especially considering the aforementioned awful product she’s cranking out.  Also, the blond hair and Caucasian appearance is also one of the things mentioned about Quetzalcoatl when he will appear as a human and change the world.

Yes, I understand that there was a beard mentioned, but who knows when she’s going to pull off a beard in a costume?  How do we know it was actually a natural beard?  Perhaps it was misinterpreted and the legend just referring to something that is hanging off someone’s chin?  Only time will tell.  How is she on the edge of glory?  Is something amazing about to happen to her?  An ascension to a higher plane of existence?

If it is true, it will end us all.

And you are all to blame for bringing the end of the world to us.


There are many ways to broach the subject of Certainties and the understandings thereof: Agnosticism, Belief, Fatalism, so on and so forth.  Myself?  I choose to put my stock mostly into Fatalism, but I also have options in Belief and Skepticism in equal quantities.  But what does all of this actually mean?  If you just see the words, then they don’t really do much for you.  So, what do you do?  You learn about them and decide which one reverberates with you the most.

Now, most people would identify themselves with Belief.  They might be more reticent if they weren’t to understand what it actually was.  It’s not just a belief in a single entity.  It’s more like a belief that there’s something there, some higher power.  Kind of like, as Wikipedia puts it, belief-ins, which that part could be considered an existential belief.  But many people think that, although educated people often put their educated beliefs to task and stand by them, more people should keep their ideas open, so as to think rationally about all things.  If you stick to a simple belief with a white knuckled grip, you’ll lose sight of the openness of reality.  Let’s look at it this way.  If people know the Bible well enough, they’ll conclude that I might be referring to it with the title of this entry.  Not so.  Nineveh is still a place in Iraq, though now it’s referred to as Mosul.  I’m merely invoking the name as it seems unique, nothing more, nothing less.  Not everything is some kind of reference to something.

Usually, people consider Agnosticism the antithesis of Belief, because, for whatever reason, folks seem to love applying laws of physics to the metaphysical and the mental.  If something exists it has to have some kind of opposite, some kind of negative element has to surround it because, I don’t know, for some reason we have this strange duality of life and death constantly in our lives.  And as much as I like juxtaposition and contrast, almost to a distressingly obsessive degree, I just don’t think that qualities of Certainty or the subsets of that can really work against each other.

Agnosticism, I used to subscribe to this, in that I didn’t think anything so incredibly vast and impressive as a higher being or whatever sorts of analogous creatures could be proven or unproven, so it really shouldn’t be attempted.  Now, with my ideals set into Fatalism, I just don’t bother with that sort of thinking.

Fatalism, some people might consider it really defeatist, mostly because it’s widely accepted that Fatalists deign that everything is beyond our control.  But there are three different ideas present on the Wiki page for Fatalism.  One is an example of a similarity to Predeterminism.  The second is more of a Combative Predeterminism, which is the one that I agree with the most.  The final, and the one I don’t really feel is correct in the least is the one that exemplifies Defeatism.

I don’t want to waste my time considering everything is just going along and there’s nothing we can do about it.  That’s not only depressing, but it’s also very counterproductive.  And if there’s one thing I am loath to participate in, it’s a lack of productivity.  But why do I think that the Combative Predeterministic branch is more ideal?

Because I know that we’re all going to end, regardless of how it happens, it will happen, and there’s no point in fighting it off, because it’s an exercise in futility.  But we can choose what we’ll do up to that point.  There are certain key spots in our lives where the decisions we make are important, but they’re all working up toward the same goals.  The same end.  We can control it to a certain point, but when that key spot comes up, that’s what’s happened and that’s what was meant to happen then.

Do I finish writing that book by December of 2012?  Was I meant to?  If not, then it’s not going to happen.  Maybe it will happen later, but not when I want it to.

I’m working as hard as I can, though, because it’s what I want to do, because it’s entertaining to me right now and I want to make people happy, when they read what I write, or listen to my music, or podcast, whatever happens.  When they consume my media, I want them to be happy.  And just like how I can’t control the actions of the end user, I cannot control whether it will become anything larger than it is, because the deck has been shuffled and the cards are being played.  If I’m lucky, things will turn out like I want them to.

Though, I can always try believing in the heart of the cards.

Lexical Meanderings and the Women Who Love Them

So, I got obscurely linked to this piece of crap: http://depressingfacts.tumblr.com/Countering

And it got me to think… Who gives a fuck?  Why does everything have to be a counter to something else?  Why does everything related to religion or science have to become a giant fucking verbal fistfight?  Why does this shit matter?  Why do you (general) make it matter?  Why is this even a big deal?

I’ve written it before, I’ll write it some more, if you choose to believe in science to give you all the answers, congratulations on being a realist, or whatever, but the simple fact is that science is your god.  You have one, albeit, one bound in reality.  But some people consider reality to be awful, and find ways to escape.  And religion is that crutch, that escape, and that tool for them to use when nothing else seems to be working out for them.  They’ll place their ring finger upon an ever-binding belief structure, and come Hell (sometimes literally) or high water (sometimes figuratively) that’s what works for them.

I’ve written it before, I’ll write it some more, if you choose to believe in God to give you all the answers, congratulations on retaining some whimsy, or whatever, but the simple fact is that God is your science.  You believe in magic above all others, and that’s fine, because everyone needs something incorporeal to believe in, because otherwise they’ll become self-involved, unmovable, humorless douchebags.  And that’s terrible.  But the people that believe mostly in science, even those that don’t hold a higher being to their heart and latch to every papal decree or the indoctrinated words of a preacher doesn’t mean they’re terrible, awful people.

Look at that last word of the previous sentence for a second. I’ll get back to both of you while you ponder on that shit.

People.  We’re all people, regardless of the proliferation of your creed or the grade you got in AP Bio.  You can harp and nag about how the crazy religious whosafudges are ruining the world with their intolerance, and you can do the same with how the godless sciencey whatchamacallits are destroying society because they don’t fear some dude that may or may not exist.  Neither of you are wrong, is the thing.  This debate has no right and wrong because this is all opinion.  So exchanging coarse words, what exactly is that doing but creating more ire and disparity and separating everyone even more?  That’s the last thing we need right now.

Neither of you are doing us any better by making more strife and fissures.  So shut up.

And Hear The Lamentation Of Their Women

Now, people may think that I pick on the Atheists a little bit more than any religious body.  It’s probably true, but that’s only because I was around really militant ones more often in my formative years, and I can see that they are just as ridiculous in their desire to be ignorant to different ideas as the objects of their rage.

Both groups have segments that do the same thing, they are opposing sides to the messed up coin that doesn’t get accepted by vending machines.  Dime thin in their differences with nickel thick skulls.

The part that disturbs me the most is that both are so exclusionary.  Either you are a full Atheist or a full Theist, or you need to get out of their clubhouse and not come back.  Should we give you separate drinking fountains, too?

Where religious people think highly of themselves because they believe some random book and a loud person speaking to them once every week gives them a more pointed moral compass and puts them on a right path, the non-religious put themselves on pedestals of math, science and the so-called absolute.  Why think yourself higher than anyone else, anyway?  That’s the exact behavior that got atheists to revile the bible beaters!  Why would your practice it?

The more insanely vocal members of these factions nearly explode if someone disagrees with the faith choices that they have adhered to.

“How is your relationship with the lord?”

“I don’t believe in something like that.”



“That’s so stupid, people going to church every Sunday to pray to some invisible person.”

“Something’s up there, we don’t know what it is, but I think there has to be something higher than us.”

“Tch, you’re retarded.”

Like, really, are either of these things a socially responsible thing to do?  Is it so hard to take someone’s ideas for what they are, or do they have to conform to your ridiculous standards?  Do you think about what you say in relation to someone else’s belief structure, be they for or against a deity, or does your mouth just burst into a fervent, frothing river of intolerance?

Both groups are equally annoying, and I’d really wish they’d stop it.

See Them Driven Before You

Nothing irritates me more than religious persecution.  I can’t stand it when bible beaters try to press their ideologies onto others through a threat of eternal pain and suffering if one doesn’t repent and accept Jesus as the be all, end all.  Castigation isn’t really a good way of enlightening people to your cause, and ofttimes even a worse method of overall conversion.  If someone doesn’t have anything to answer for, no amount of threats or fear mongering will make them beg forgiveness.

It’s equally shitty for someone who doesn’t believe in whatever divine being happens to be around to get all pissy and smash the hopes of the faithful.  What right do you have to talk down to someone if they so much as mention a deity?  You don’t like it when they do it to you, so why do it to them?  You’re just going to create a conflict that no one can win because belief is a very powerful thing.  There are the classic arguments that don’t make any sense when you realize how ridiculous everything about them is.  Let me demonstrate.

There’s the creation paradox, short version, someone asks what created Earth and the heavens and whatever, and the religious whoever is supposed to answer “God”, and the other is supposed to ask “Then, what created God?” and, OOPS!  They don’t have an answer and the heathen is the victor.

Let me turn it around a bit, as this is the most basic one and I can’t really say anything about religious fundamentalists that hasn’t been said already.  They revel in a fantasy world, and this question is more based in the world of flesh and blood that we live in.

How do you make water?  Combining two Hydrogen to one Oxygen.

What are these elements?  Atoms, clearly, right?

What makes up an atom?  Leptons.

What are leptons?  Those are the most basic form of matter.  But how were they made?  They had to be created by something if God had to be created by something.  They couldn’t have just appeared out of thin air, there has to be something that made these building blocks of matter, but we don’t know what exactly happened.

If you put your entire faith in the sciences, you have to answer to the same basic rules that you put forth upon the other if you expect fairness.  It may have more basis in reality, but the Bible isn’t reality.  And not every religious person treats it as such.

Debasing an entire section of the population on the poor habits of a select few is such a terrible thing, anyway.  The least you could do is learn about what they think and, instead of hurling insults at each other, actually have a conversation.  Disregard the ones that are shitty to everybody else and just pay attention to the ones that have a willing ear.