(Credit to James Orchard Halliwell-Phillips and Joseph Jacobs as the creators/developers of the original story.)
Once upon a time, there was a mother pig. She had three little pigs, who were getting far too big for the pig house, and she said to them, "Children! There is something I must tell you. Now that you are old enough, you can make your own way in the world, there is not enough room for you all."
The first little pig cried "Why, mummy? It's scary out there!"
Mother pig said "You're big enough to take care of yourselves now. I have told you about the ways of the world and it is time for you to be part of it."
The second little pig said "You told us about the wolf, the Big Bad Wolf, how will we be safe, mummy?"
Mother pig replied "You will build houses all of your own, then you will be safe and sound."
The third little pig said "But he will gobble us all up!"
And Mother pig replied "This is what wolves do, but as long as you think carefully about what you're doing, you will be fine!"
The next day, the three little pigs set out, ready to take on the world. They thought long and hard about what mummy had told them. Soon, they came to a junction in the road, and the little pigs all went their separate ways. The first pig went left, the second pig went right, and the third pig went straight on.
Along the way, the first pig met a farmer carrying some straw, and he thought "I could use straw to build my house, that will keep me warm!", so he asked the farmer. "I would like some straw to build a house with, please!", the first little pig said, and the farmer kindly gave him some straw. The first pig went away and built himself a house with the straw and said proudly, "I feel all safe and cosy here, now the wolf won't get me!"
Down the other path, the second pig met a woman carrying some sticks. They were a bit heavy! The second pig asked the woman, "Please, madam, could I have some sticks to build a house with?", and the woman gave the little pig some sticks. "Thank you!" said the little pig, who went away to build a fine stick house. This was a stronger house than the house of straw, and the little pig said "This house is nice and sturdy, I will be safe from the wolf here!"
Further along the last path, the third little pig met a man with a donkey. The man looked puzzled and worried, his donkey could not stand up, as the bricks she was carrying were too heavy. The third pig asked "Please could I have some of your bricks to build a house with?" and the man was happy to give the third pig some of his bricks. It took a while to build, but when it was built, it was a very strong house! The little pig went inside and said "It took some time, but this house is good. The wolf surely cannot get to me here!"
The next day, the Big Bad Wolf was on the prowl. He looked around and saw the first little pig sowing corn and he said to himself, "I see a pig to the east, I see a tasty feast!" and he ran after the little pig. The little pig saw him and ran as fast as he could into the house.
The Big Bad Wolf pounded up to the door, knocked three times and said "Little pig, little pig! Let me in!"
"Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin!" said the little pig.
And the Big Bad Wolf shouted, "Well then.", and looked at the house, "I will huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house in!"
And so the wolf huffed, and he puffed and a big blow, he blew down the house of straw. And he gobbled up the first little pig.
The next day, the Big Bad Wolf was walking about, feeling a bit hungry, when he saw the second little pig hanging out wet clothes. The wolf said to himself, "I see a pig to the west, this pig looks the best!" and ran after the second pig. The pig saw him and darted into the stick house.
The Big Bad Wolf pounded up to the door, knocked three times and said "Little pig, little pig! Let me in!"
"Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin!" said the little pig.
And the Big Bad Wolf shouted, "Well then.", and looked at the house, "I will huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house in!"
And so the wolf huffed, and he puffed and an even bigger blow, he blew down the house of sticks! And he gobbled up the second little pig.
On the next day, the Big Bad Wolf was out again, rubbing his belly and looking for a tasty meal when he saw the third little pig sitting outside, reading a book in the sunshine. The wolf said, "I see a pig to the south, I want it in my mouth!". The wolf began to pound across to the third little pig, who saw him and got into his house in time.
The Big Bad Wolf pounded up to the door, knocked three times and said "Little pig, little pig! Let me in!"
"Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin!" said the little pig.
And the Big Bad Wolf shouted, "Well then.", and looked at the house, "I will huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house in!"
And so the wolf huffed, and he puffed and with a very big blow...
Nothing happened.
The third little pig shouted from the window, "Are you done yet?"
And the Big Bad Wolf took the biggest huff he could do, and the most massive puff he could do, but still nothing happened.
And the third little pig shouted from inside, "Looks like you're out of puff, Mr Wolf, you can't get me!"
And so the Wolf went away, and the little pig felt safe.
The next morning, the little pig heard a rat-a-tat on his door, so he looked through his window and saw a strange looking man with a hard hat and clipboard. Curiously, he opened the door.
"Hello little pig in this brick house, I hail from the Council planning department!", said the man in the yellow hard hat.
"What is going on? How can I help? I hope I haven't done anything wrong!", the pig enquired.
"This brick pig house shall be decommissioned, for you didn't get planning permission!", replied the man in the hat.
"Oh me, oh my, you will knock down this house! You can't do that, no you shan't do that!", the little pig squealed.
A big vehicle arrived, and it had a wrecking ball. And it swung, and it crashed, and it knocked the house down!
The pig pleaded, "I have nowhere to live! The Big Bad Wolf will eat me, I have nothing to give!"
And the man said, "Pray, do not worry about that!"
Then the man took off his hat, then he took off his mask and there before him was the Big Bad Wolf! And he laughed, and he howled, and he gobbled up the third little pig!
And then the wolf died. And everybody died.
THE END
Tuesday, 4 November 2014
Wednesday, 29 October 2014
5 Reasons Why I'm An Atheist
Hi there. As an introduction, I am an Atheist and anti-religion. I do not believe that there is a God (or Gods), whether that God is an entity either separate or part of the Universe (or the whole of the Universe itself), that creates, regulates and destroys, or think that the framework of existence requires there to be an initial creator - as in before creation, there was nothing apart from the creator. I'm putting the whole God thing on trial; not only do we Atheists debate the existence of God as a creator, we debate the relevance of God in our lives. Not only do we not believe in God's existence, we do not believe that we need a God to exist at all. Anyway, let's explore some stuff.
1) The believers can't agree on what model of existence is correct.
Where you have conflicting evidence from the prosecution, the case is more than likely to be thrown out of court, with the defendant walking free. The believers can't agree on who or what created the Universe, how long it took, or which God actually did the creating. Not all religions agree whether existence was created at all, it does not exist in Buddhism, Baha'i or other religions. If there was a creator God who made everything, and supposedly promulgated this news to all sentient life, you'd think the story would be exactly the same all across the world.
Apparently, as science is still in the progress of finding out more and more of the truth, but hasn't got a definite answer yet, believers feel that it is OK to write off science. But science can provide what evidence it has so far, as in evidence regarding the true age of the Universe, how the Universe came into its current form (i.e. the Big Bang theory, and other theories challenging this), different theories regarding the size of the Universe, the structure of matter and energy and interactions between them, how life began, how it evolved from primordial soup to the lifeforms of now. Unlike religion, science is happy to be proved wrong, and can readily adapt to the facts, to become correct again. Religious text is virtually immutable, the texts can be translated and summarised, but the message cannot be changed; every time errors are pointed out, we're told we've read the text wrong, or that facts have to be bended to suit scripture. Even if really, it should be the other way round.
2) The purpose of religion is not what we think
Religious texts to me serve a now obsolete purpose. They document the historical viewpoints of numerous authors, scientific observations and conclusions from a limited understanding of the world around us, interactions with various entities and predictions for the future, which could happen at any time (apparently). They are stories, dissertations, compilations of correspondence, codes of conduct for living, but society has moved on from those ancient times, and is still trying to move on. We should be out there amongst the stars right now, sending starships to distant solar systems, instead we're fighting wars over which ideology controls the world's oil, sending missionaries to convert people, and apparently trying to set up a new Caliphate in the Middle East is a really good idea, as well as a new crusade from the West trying to stop it (some say the West deliberately created Islamic State) - anyway, totally non-progressive, and a sheer waste of resources. And we say, oh look at Pope Francis, oh look at the Dalai Lama, aren't they nice guys, don't they have a lot of nice things to say, rather than looking at the religion they represent.
Religion is an antiquated form of control. It is not a method of explaining the true nature of existence or to teach you all the ways of living a good life, it is to keep you obedient. It is about being equal under God, and that some of us are more equal than others, i.e. those who play by the rules, those who voluntarily chain themselves up by their beliefs, those who were chained as children but refuse to try to break free, those who chain others, all because of a belief that they are being constantly watched 24/7 by a higher being waiting to pass judgement on them. Like a religious version of "1984". It makes us prostrate ourselves in worship, pray rather than directly help others, deny rights to certain people (e.g. homosexuals or members of other religions), persecute groups of people, complain about being persecuted as a group, self harm (flagellation), mutilate baby boys' penises, deny scientific evidence, promote murder, dictate diets and dress, and to teach others to accept statements as fact without proof. Religion is a hindrance to the political rights of all to democracy, to personal freedom, happiness, health, equality, friendships and good cooperation, and controls people through fear, guilt and dependency. It is so old a method of control that even the top people who represent those religions appear to have no idea that this is what religion is for, and may be just as much a group of pawns as the people they dominate.
There are two religions which come to mind, which were created in the 20th Century, which show the whole of religion what it is.
Firstly, Scientology. This was a religion set up by L. Ron Hubbard blatantly for the purposes of making a lot of money, by making up a new religion based on L. Ron's own Sci Fi novels. Blatantly fictional, blatantly there to rope people in to free them of any cash they have, controlling them via a system of rewards, and have a secretive inner circle and team of lawyers ready to sue people who threaten them. To me, in my own opinion, it is a very corporate style of religion, where the only product sold is the religion. Look it up yourself.
Secondly, the Church of Satan, set up by Anton Szandor LaVey, is an interesting religion, only that while they do engage in ritual behaviour, the rituals themselves are symbolic as being the opposite of what goes on in other religions. The rituals themselves are not compulsory either. Again, on the theme of opposites, their symbols are inverted pentagrams and crosses, and promote the more carnal side of our nature. Contrary to popular belief, LaVeyan Satanists are not required to believe in God. They are also not bothered that much about who you are, and out of all the well-known religions, the Church of Satan is extremely relaxed regarding homosexuality. I once read a print-off of the Satanic Bible the once, and elements of it read like Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. I'm not even sure I should be referring to the Church of Satan as a religion, they could be seen as an anti-religion. Again, see for yourself.
One other thing that really gets me about religion is that while we are all born Atheist, the indoctrination begins early. Religion exists to play on the fears of children, to dominate and break their spirits, to limit their creativity and inquisitiveness; children will believe what they're told, as they suck up everything. Ideally, children should be told that there are religions, that they do not have to choose one but they are free to learn, and parents and other peers should afford them this right, as well as to protect them from religious influences. When they are older, then they can choose (free from peer pressure), and they are free to leave their religion at any time (as in no punishment for apostasy). If believers believe their religion is robust enough to let children choose when they are older, then surely they can allow me this indulgence. Let children be children.
3) Personal spiritual experiences are no excuse
Some believers use their personal spiritual experiences as an excuse for staying with their religion, something that has happened to them, and only them, where proof has been delivered personally of a deity's existence. I can't give an exhaustive list, but these are things like communicating with God, hearing God's voice, out of body experiences, feeling the presence of "some unknown force", speaking in tongues and all that stuff. To an extreme, you have things like stigmata (which conveniently shift position when people disagree on whether Jesus was nailed through the hands or wrists).
Anyway, I was 17 at the time, interested in exploring religion. I'd read a free copy of a Gideon's Bible (as handed out in school back then), and not so long ago, an Islamic group came to the school to give a presentation on Islam, not selling it that well either (I remember them talking about the pains that women should endure, including childbirth, how men and women should dress and present themselves. I was probably only one of few paying any real attention). I tried speaking to God, whether he was Jehovah or Allah or otherwise, and tried to sense his voice. I tried to connect, to commune with either deity, but I had no response. I even tried seeing whether there was a Satan, but in the end it wasn't any of these figures that contacted me.
I was now speaking with an entity that explained that all of the old gods had been cast aside, silenced, and that a new God would be taking control. His name was Alman, and he explained that he was taking over. He did not present himself as malevolent, and I was never sure of what his motives were, but we spoke for days, that the old gods were no more and that all the religions of the world were wrong. Alman explained that this was a new age, but was battling against all the old gods to maintain power. I still wanted to know what Alman's plans were, but they were unknown to me. I was told in time I would, once the other gods were dealt with.
Unlike other prophets, I began to test Alman, to test his omnipotence, i.e. whether Alman was actually a figment of my own imagination. Whether I could make him say what I wanted him to say, and whether he knew anything I did not. I can't remember what I actually asked, but I could manipulate a God, and I also made him stumble on certain questions. We all have limits to our own creativity, and any entities we do create have their own restrictions, they only know what we know, and only presume what we can presume, all qualities which are totally against what a God is, limitless and unbounded.
What happened here was that I created God, and I did not believe in him. Needless to say, Alman soon became silent, trapped in my own brain to die. As for other Gods, they escaped the prison of their creators' brains, who failed to question and examine them adequately; these prophets told others, persuaded them to believe, the idea spreading like a virus, widespread and hard to kill.
I know that by writing about Alman now, I'm telling other people about him, but there is no testament, no rules to live by, no doctrine of worship, and certainly no will of mine to start a religion of Almanites. This is merely an Obituary.
I also searched for references of anyone else mentioning the name Alman when referring to a deity (just in case he told anyone else), but nothing turned up. I'm all ears though.
So, yes, your own personal spiritual experiences, your prayers and your attempts to communicate. Resist the temptation to take it as face value. Examine it, cross-examine it, poke it and prod it - you may not want it to be something mundane and insignificant, you may dream of it being something fantastical, but you will never know for certain until you put your God on trial to prove whether or not he is real.
4) This thing about being incomplete without God
This is the concept of the body and mind being a shell, or a cup, and that we need to allow God in to fill it, that our lives are purposeless and without direction if God is not present in our lives. Also, that we are somehow inherently evil and need God in our lives in order to be good people.
So let's look at the life of successful evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins, he is someone who obviously has no meaning and direction for his life. One must assume, behind the scenes, behind the brave front, scientific reasoning and logical analysis, that Richard is crying inside and that despite what he says, in his heart, he needs God and he wants God. And that this is the same for all Atheists, that despite what we say and what we think, we aren't somehow addressing how we feel.
Well, I can say that how I feel is important to me, and spiritually, I am complete. My open mind allows me to do this; I am willing to entertain that there are things out there that we can't fully explain yet (which is why we scrutinise and analyse), the majesty of the Universe is ASTOUNDING and that we are free to make our own path. There are plenty of things out there to satisfy my curiosity.
There are also the good things that people do, out of a willingness to help people, rather than to earn points to redeem in the afterlife. These are good deeds outside of the financial system also. Truly selfless actions. I see it in children (you even see it in animals); they sometimes act in a selfless way to make others feel better, there may be some encouragement, but they do not act out of fear or in any other way to placate a deity, they do it to make people happy, they do it for love. And if Love can exist without God, which in this case it does, it makes the need for God redundant in that aspect.
5) Magic and the supernatural does not prove the existence of God
Magic and the supernatural are interesting terminologies. There are people who claim to have special powers, healing, telepathy, all that. Abilities beyond that of ordinary beings of flesh. Being able to tap into energies beyond that in the current scope of science. There are hoaxes and quite rightly, they should be treated with derision, such as so-called psychics employing "cold reading" in a way to commune with the dead. It does not mean that they all are - each example should be tested thoroughly.
I've experimented with magic. I've had a go at manipulating magic (which felt like there was some success), but I have always treated it as if I'm testing it. I do not believe magic exists, I know I have experienced a feeling of other energies and merely want to understand more, what it is I'm feeling (and resisting the temptation to write it off as nothing). There is also the wishing element, to try to make a beneficial event happen through magic, explaining why to invisible forces why it is justified. In some ways, it is similar to prayer, in terms of an almost Theurgistic ritual to unite with the divine to ask a favour.
The success of such can be attributed to a) a form of self-coaching to work out how to do things better, and so be successful, b) sheer coincidence or c) changing the game with a projection of energy (of course, only IF this actually happens). But all in all, these are actions of the self, or of the surrounding environment. Just because your prayer was answered didn't mean you had no hand in the success yourself. So give yourself the credit. Or just count yourself lucky.
Connecting with other energies to explore them is a science in itself. It may not be in the realms of traditional science, and to write it off as "there is no such thing as magic, ghosts and all that malarkey" aren't being very scientific at all. And that includes other Atheists. Just because something doesn't fit your model of existence, doesn't mean it isn't there. And I know a God-fearing reader reading this could immediately jump out and say "Just because something doesn't fit your model of existence, doesn't mean it isn't there, that's an argument I'd use to say God is real etc", but it doesn't. Because you are also jumping to conclusions - just because you are bored of waiting for the answer, doesn't mean you can't join in and enjoy looking for the truth.
My magical powers don't dwell in the realm of hadoukens, Jedi powers and all that. I've had times when people are talking to me, and I know what they're about to say before they've said it (and weirded myself out when they actually say it), resurrected a dead bumblebee and never been stung by other bees since, feel like I can "see" other energies (e.g. when looking at thunderous sky, I can see more than the colours), being able to tap into an inner voice to give me guidance, and other things. I see this sort of stuff as more things to explore and understand that it somehow proving the existence of a deity. I do not believe any of these things are real, I am obligated to test them - it would be sweet if they were, but I expect nothing.
Anyway, this is five reasons why I'm an Atheist. I can give more, I would like to give more - reasons why I am this way and how I can put God on trial in other ways, with catchy headings such as "God is just a name we gave for things we don't understand, but we now do", "I was born this way" (not in any way affiliated with Lady Gaga), and "How they got the kangaroos aboard the Ark so that they did not go extinct". I am, of course, very interested in feedback on this and happy to discuss anything, even if you think I shouldn't be an Atheist and want to convert me - it is entertaining to see people try.
1) The believers can't agree on what model of existence is correct.
Where you have conflicting evidence from the prosecution, the case is more than likely to be thrown out of court, with the defendant walking free. The believers can't agree on who or what created the Universe, how long it took, or which God actually did the creating. Not all religions agree whether existence was created at all, it does not exist in Buddhism, Baha'i or other religions. If there was a creator God who made everything, and supposedly promulgated this news to all sentient life, you'd think the story would be exactly the same all across the world.
Apparently, as science is still in the progress of finding out more and more of the truth, but hasn't got a definite answer yet, believers feel that it is OK to write off science. But science can provide what evidence it has so far, as in evidence regarding the true age of the Universe, how the Universe came into its current form (i.e. the Big Bang theory, and other theories challenging this), different theories regarding the size of the Universe, the structure of matter and energy and interactions between them, how life began, how it evolved from primordial soup to the lifeforms of now. Unlike religion, science is happy to be proved wrong, and can readily adapt to the facts, to become correct again. Religious text is virtually immutable, the texts can be translated and summarised, but the message cannot be changed; every time errors are pointed out, we're told we've read the text wrong, or that facts have to be bended to suit scripture. Even if really, it should be the other way round.
2) The purpose of religion is not what we think
Religious texts to me serve a now obsolete purpose. They document the historical viewpoints of numerous authors, scientific observations and conclusions from a limited understanding of the world around us, interactions with various entities and predictions for the future, which could happen at any time (apparently). They are stories, dissertations, compilations of correspondence, codes of conduct for living, but society has moved on from those ancient times, and is still trying to move on. We should be out there amongst the stars right now, sending starships to distant solar systems, instead we're fighting wars over which ideology controls the world's oil, sending missionaries to convert people, and apparently trying to set up a new Caliphate in the Middle East is a really good idea, as well as a new crusade from the West trying to stop it (some say the West deliberately created Islamic State) - anyway, totally non-progressive, and a sheer waste of resources. And we say, oh look at Pope Francis, oh look at the Dalai Lama, aren't they nice guys, don't they have a lot of nice things to say, rather than looking at the religion they represent.
Religion is an antiquated form of control. It is not a method of explaining the true nature of existence or to teach you all the ways of living a good life, it is to keep you obedient. It is about being equal under God, and that some of us are more equal than others, i.e. those who play by the rules, those who voluntarily chain themselves up by their beliefs, those who were chained as children but refuse to try to break free, those who chain others, all because of a belief that they are being constantly watched 24/7 by a higher being waiting to pass judgement on them. Like a religious version of "1984". It makes us prostrate ourselves in worship, pray rather than directly help others, deny rights to certain people (e.g. homosexuals or members of other religions), persecute groups of people, complain about being persecuted as a group, self harm (flagellation), mutilate baby boys' penises, deny scientific evidence, promote murder, dictate diets and dress, and to teach others to accept statements as fact without proof. Religion is a hindrance to the political rights of all to democracy, to personal freedom, happiness, health, equality, friendships and good cooperation, and controls people through fear, guilt and dependency. It is so old a method of control that even the top people who represent those religions appear to have no idea that this is what religion is for, and may be just as much a group of pawns as the people they dominate.
There are two religions which come to mind, which were created in the 20th Century, which show the whole of religion what it is.
Firstly, Scientology. This was a religion set up by L. Ron Hubbard blatantly for the purposes of making a lot of money, by making up a new religion based on L. Ron's own Sci Fi novels. Blatantly fictional, blatantly there to rope people in to free them of any cash they have, controlling them via a system of rewards, and have a secretive inner circle and team of lawyers ready to sue people who threaten them. To me, in my own opinion, it is a very corporate style of religion, where the only product sold is the religion. Look it up yourself.
Secondly, the Church of Satan, set up by Anton Szandor LaVey, is an interesting religion, only that while they do engage in ritual behaviour, the rituals themselves are symbolic as being the opposite of what goes on in other religions. The rituals themselves are not compulsory either. Again, on the theme of opposites, their symbols are inverted pentagrams and crosses, and promote the more carnal side of our nature. Contrary to popular belief, LaVeyan Satanists are not required to believe in God. They are also not bothered that much about who you are, and out of all the well-known religions, the Church of Satan is extremely relaxed regarding homosexuality. I once read a print-off of the Satanic Bible the once, and elements of it read like Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. I'm not even sure I should be referring to the Church of Satan as a religion, they could be seen as an anti-religion. Again, see for yourself.
One other thing that really gets me about religion is that while we are all born Atheist, the indoctrination begins early. Religion exists to play on the fears of children, to dominate and break their spirits, to limit their creativity and inquisitiveness; children will believe what they're told, as they suck up everything. Ideally, children should be told that there are religions, that they do not have to choose one but they are free to learn, and parents and other peers should afford them this right, as well as to protect them from religious influences. When they are older, then they can choose (free from peer pressure), and they are free to leave their religion at any time (as in no punishment for apostasy). If believers believe their religion is robust enough to let children choose when they are older, then surely they can allow me this indulgence. Let children be children.
3) Personal spiritual experiences are no excuse
Some believers use their personal spiritual experiences as an excuse for staying with their religion, something that has happened to them, and only them, where proof has been delivered personally of a deity's existence. I can't give an exhaustive list, but these are things like communicating with God, hearing God's voice, out of body experiences, feeling the presence of "some unknown force", speaking in tongues and all that stuff. To an extreme, you have things like stigmata (which conveniently shift position when people disagree on whether Jesus was nailed through the hands or wrists).
Anyway, I was 17 at the time, interested in exploring religion. I'd read a free copy of a Gideon's Bible (as handed out in school back then), and not so long ago, an Islamic group came to the school to give a presentation on Islam, not selling it that well either (I remember them talking about the pains that women should endure, including childbirth, how men and women should dress and present themselves. I was probably only one of few paying any real attention). I tried speaking to God, whether he was Jehovah or Allah or otherwise, and tried to sense his voice. I tried to connect, to commune with either deity, but I had no response. I even tried seeing whether there was a Satan, but in the end it wasn't any of these figures that contacted me.
I was now speaking with an entity that explained that all of the old gods had been cast aside, silenced, and that a new God would be taking control. His name was Alman, and he explained that he was taking over. He did not present himself as malevolent, and I was never sure of what his motives were, but we spoke for days, that the old gods were no more and that all the religions of the world were wrong. Alman explained that this was a new age, but was battling against all the old gods to maintain power. I still wanted to know what Alman's plans were, but they were unknown to me. I was told in time I would, once the other gods were dealt with.
Unlike other prophets, I began to test Alman, to test his omnipotence, i.e. whether Alman was actually a figment of my own imagination. Whether I could make him say what I wanted him to say, and whether he knew anything I did not. I can't remember what I actually asked, but I could manipulate a God, and I also made him stumble on certain questions. We all have limits to our own creativity, and any entities we do create have their own restrictions, they only know what we know, and only presume what we can presume, all qualities which are totally against what a God is, limitless and unbounded.
What happened here was that I created God, and I did not believe in him. Needless to say, Alman soon became silent, trapped in my own brain to die. As for other Gods, they escaped the prison of their creators' brains, who failed to question and examine them adequately; these prophets told others, persuaded them to believe, the idea spreading like a virus, widespread and hard to kill.
I know that by writing about Alman now, I'm telling other people about him, but there is no testament, no rules to live by, no doctrine of worship, and certainly no will of mine to start a religion of Almanites. This is merely an Obituary.
I also searched for references of anyone else mentioning the name Alman when referring to a deity (just in case he told anyone else), but nothing turned up. I'm all ears though.
So, yes, your own personal spiritual experiences, your prayers and your attempts to communicate. Resist the temptation to take it as face value. Examine it, cross-examine it, poke it and prod it - you may not want it to be something mundane and insignificant, you may dream of it being something fantastical, but you will never know for certain until you put your God on trial to prove whether or not he is real.
4) This thing about being incomplete without God
This is the concept of the body and mind being a shell, or a cup, and that we need to allow God in to fill it, that our lives are purposeless and without direction if God is not present in our lives. Also, that we are somehow inherently evil and need God in our lives in order to be good people.
So let's look at the life of successful evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins, he is someone who obviously has no meaning and direction for his life. One must assume, behind the scenes, behind the brave front, scientific reasoning and logical analysis, that Richard is crying inside and that despite what he says, in his heart, he needs God and he wants God. And that this is the same for all Atheists, that despite what we say and what we think, we aren't somehow addressing how we feel.
Well, I can say that how I feel is important to me, and spiritually, I am complete. My open mind allows me to do this; I am willing to entertain that there are things out there that we can't fully explain yet (which is why we scrutinise and analyse), the majesty of the Universe is ASTOUNDING and that we are free to make our own path. There are plenty of things out there to satisfy my curiosity.
There are also the good things that people do, out of a willingness to help people, rather than to earn points to redeem in the afterlife. These are good deeds outside of the financial system also. Truly selfless actions. I see it in children (you even see it in animals); they sometimes act in a selfless way to make others feel better, there may be some encouragement, but they do not act out of fear or in any other way to placate a deity, they do it to make people happy, they do it for love. And if Love can exist without God, which in this case it does, it makes the need for God redundant in that aspect.
5) Magic and the supernatural does not prove the existence of God
Magic and the supernatural are interesting terminologies. There are people who claim to have special powers, healing, telepathy, all that. Abilities beyond that of ordinary beings of flesh. Being able to tap into energies beyond that in the current scope of science. There are hoaxes and quite rightly, they should be treated with derision, such as so-called psychics employing "cold reading" in a way to commune with the dead. It does not mean that they all are - each example should be tested thoroughly.
I've experimented with magic. I've had a go at manipulating magic (which felt like there was some success), but I have always treated it as if I'm testing it. I do not believe magic exists, I know I have experienced a feeling of other energies and merely want to understand more, what it is I'm feeling (and resisting the temptation to write it off as nothing). There is also the wishing element, to try to make a beneficial event happen through magic, explaining why to invisible forces why it is justified. In some ways, it is similar to prayer, in terms of an almost Theurgistic ritual to unite with the divine to ask a favour.
The success of such can be attributed to a) a form of self-coaching to work out how to do things better, and so be successful, b) sheer coincidence or c) changing the game with a projection of energy (of course, only IF this actually happens). But all in all, these are actions of the self, or of the surrounding environment. Just because your prayer was answered didn't mean you had no hand in the success yourself. So give yourself the credit. Or just count yourself lucky.
Connecting with other energies to explore them is a science in itself. It may not be in the realms of traditional science, and to write it off as "there is no such thing as magic, ghosts and all that malarkey" aren't being very scientific at all. And that includes other Atheists. Just because something doesn't fit your model of existence, doesn't mean it isn't there. And I know a God-fearing reader reading this could immediately jump out and say "Just because something doesn't fit your model of existence, doesn't mean it isn't there, that's an argument I'd use to say God is real etc", but it doesn't. Because you are also jumping to conclusions - just because you are bored of waiting for the answer, doesn't mean you can't join in and enjoy looking for the truth.
My magical powers don't dwell in the realm of hadoukens, Jedi powers and all that. I've had times when people are talking to me, and I know what they're about to say before they've said it (and weirded myself out when they actually say it), resurrected a dead bumblebee and never been stung by other bees since, feel like I can "see" other energies (e.g. when looking at thunderous sky, I can see more than the colours), being able to tap into an inner voice to give me guidance, and other things. I see this sort of stuff as more things to explore and understand that it somehow proving the existence of a deity. I do not believe any of these things are real, I am obligated to test them - it would be sweet if they were, but I expect nothing.
Anyway, this is five reasons why I'm an Atheist. I can give more, I would like to give more - reasons why I am this way and how I can put God on trial in other ways, with catchy headings such as "God is just a name we gave for things we don't understand, but we now do", "I was born this way" (not in any way affiliated with Lady Gaga), and "How they got the kangaroos aboard the Ark so that they did not go extinct". I am, of course, very interested in feedback on this and happy to discuss anything, even if you think I shouldn't be an Atheist and want to convert me - it is entertaining to see people try.
Monday, 6 October 2014
The world of Non-News
I'm looking at the theme of visibility again, and here, I'm going to delve a little into non-news. I'm defining non-news as events that grab people's attention much more, and for much longer, than they should. Events that the public end up obsessing about rather than leaving them alone.
I could talk about endless articles about Kim Kardashian, her arse and her kid with Kanye East or whatever, celebrities who have articles because they wore a dress, or bought a coffee or whatever; this is non-news we are familiar with and accept, and complain even though we know it wouldn't be so popular if people weren't interested. You only need to open up the Daily Mail website and scroll down the links on the left hand side to see stuff like that.
Also on there, and other news sites, is a story about a woman found dead in a hotel room after being confronted by a journalist over tweets she made on Twitter. This was @sweepyface aka Brenda Leyland, who was recently confronted by Martin Brunt over her trolling of the McCanns, who (if you did not know already) are Gerry and Kate, parents of Madeline McCann, who has been missing for several years. Those of you familiar with the story know that there have been many news stories about this case, and nobody has reported that either she has been found, or a body has been found.
I cannot comprehend the daily grief that the McCanns have to endure. I have a four year old daughter myself, she's blonde haired, beautiful and sometimes she is a pain in the arse, but if she went missing I would not stop looking for her, I could not rest until she was found. No, I personally would not have left her without parental supervision even on holiday, but then again I am not the perfect parent either, he without sin cast the first stone etc. What I don't understand though is the unbalanced level of attention given to this case; many people go missing daily, including kids, and even those who have been missing for a while don't get this much attention.
News articles generate discussion, they do, whether down at the pub, at work, at home, or online, it goes on. And as well as informed and lively debate, we have unsavoury comments from people, who may feel they have to "tell it like it is" or genuinely want the recipient to feel hurt, basically lacking tact when it should have been needed. We call it Trolling. If you are unhappy with a politician's actions in government, a celebrity has been racist or whatever, please do feel free to be creative with your insults to those who really cross the line. But when it is aimed at parents who have lost their child, it is sick and it is unwarranted.
@sweepyface wasn't the worst troll, but the invasion of her privacy is ironic and the level of unwelcome attention moreso. But I don't believe in "an eye for an eye" level of justice, and perhaps this case should have been left to the authorities rather than Martin Brunt. I'm hoping the authorities are taking it seriously about the other ones who have been threatening violence etc against the family, as while it may seem fun, an audience of people threatening violence against me on a daily basis isn't something I particularly want.
I'm fed up of writing this now, so I'll finish. I'm hoping there'll be less news articles on the whole McCann affair, as it heaps more attention on the parents and does little to assist the case. I wish the ongoing investigation my best and that in the end, she is found alive and well, and that there is no body found, or there is no trace whatsoever.
Haters, stop hating. You are not making things better. If you have anything worthwhile to add to the investigation, and have the appropriate evidence, forward it to the authorities. Seriously, stop talking like idiots on Twitter and do something better instead.
And finally, and with complete irony, this article shouldn't even exist.
I could talk about endless articles about Kim Kardashian, her arse and her kid with Kanye East or whatever, celebrities who have articles because they wore a dress, or bought a coffee or whatever; this is non-news we are familiar with and accept, and complain even though we know it wouldn't be so popular if people weren't interested. You only need to open up the Daily Mail website and scroll down the links on the left hand side to see stuff like that.
Also on there, and other news sites, is a story about a woman found dead in a hotel room after being confronted by a journalist over tweets she made on Twitter. This was @sweepyface aka Brenda Leyland, who was recently confronted by Martin Brunt over her trolling of the McCanns, who (if you did not know already) are Gerry and Kate, parents of Madeline McCann, who has been missing for several years. Those of you familiar with the story know that there have been many news stories about this case, and nobody has reported that either she has been found, or a body has been found.
I cannot comprehend the daily grief that the McCanns have to endure. I have a four year old daughter myself, she's blonde haired, beautiful and sometimes she is a pain in the arse, but if she went missing I would not stop looking for her, I could not rest until she was found. No, I personally would not have left her without parental supervision even on holiday, but then again I am not the perfect parent either, he without sin cast the first stone etc. What I don't understand though is the unbalanced level of attention given to this case; many people go missing daily, including kids, and even those who have been missing for a while don't get this much attention.
News articles generate discussion, they do, whether down at the pub, at work, at home, or online, it goes on. And as well as informed and lively debate, we have unsavoury comments from people, who may feel they have to "tell it like it is" or genuinely want the recipient to feel hurt, basically lacking tact when it should have been needed. We call it Trolling. If you are unhappy with a politician's actions in government, a celebrity has been racist or whatever, please do feel free to be creative with your insults to those who really cross the line. But when it is aimed at parents who have lost their child, it is sick and it is unwarranted.
@sweepyface wasn't the worst troll, but the invasion of her privacy is ironic and the level of unwelcome attention moreso. But I don't believe in "an eye for an eye" level of justice, and perhaps this case should have been left to the authorities rather than Martin Brunt. I'm hoping the authorities are taking it seriously about the other ones who have been threatening violence etc against the family, as while it may seem fun, an audience of people threatening violence against me on a daily basis isn't something I particularly want.
I'm fed up of writing this now, so I'll finish. I'm hoping there'll be less news articles on the whole McCann affair, as it heaps more attention on the parents and does little to assist the case. I wish the ongoing investigation my best and that in the end, she is found alive and well, and that there is no body found, or there is no trace whatsoever.
Haters, stop hating. You are not making things better. If you have anything worthwhile to add to the investigation, and have the appropriate evidence, forward it to the authorities. Seriously, stop talking like idiots on Twitter and do something better instead.
And finally, and with complete irony, this article shouldn't even exist.
Tuesday, 30 September 2014
Visibility
Are you one of these people who sometimes desires to be invisible to others, and it appears that way, but when you want to be visible again, it feels as if nobody can focus on you, nobody takes notice of you even though you want to be seen. You make a fuss like other people do, but it's as if you're not there.
With this new blog, I want to experiment with visibility; how I can get other people to notice me and what I'm doing, try to blog more regularly and try to talk about interesting things.
Anyway, how do I feel invisible? Well, it's as if you're on public transport, being surrounded by people who see you, but as just some guy. They don't want to interact with you because you're not someone they know. But it's like all...the...time, even when you're in a social environment. I discount workplaces from this, since they are environments where people are forced to interact with others. If they're a friend from work, but don't talk to you outside of work, are they really a friend?
Social environments, like going to the pub or a restaurant with people you know, are tricky. I generally like being around people, but when I'm with a group of people at a table, the following thing happens. I try to sit in the centre so I can be involved, and try to get involved with conversations, but two distinct groups happen either side of me, sometimes they turn so I find it difficult to find out what's going on. I'll try to listen and get in on the discussion, but they look at me as if I don't belong, drown me out by butting in and talking over me (I sometimes have a bad stutter, and I'm conditioned to shut up if , or ignore me from the flow of conversation. I end up being stuck with nobody to talk to, nobody asks me anything and it's as if there may as well be an empty seat where I'm sitting. Luckily I can't afford to go out all the time (at all, really) so this doesn't happen a lot.
This is what I like about interacting online, it's far less cliquey. I can't get interrupted when I'm trying to say something, and an online persona can't sneer if I'm typing something, if they want to type at the same time too. I can say, this is me, and this is what I think. It'll probably get ignored, but at least I can still get something across. Sometimes I do get an answer and I can have a short conversation about it. I guess this is one of the reasons why I try to be humourous sometimes, just to see if I can get someone's attention.
Anyway, let's see where this goes.
With this new blog, I want to experiment with visibility; how I can get other people to notice me and what I'm doing, try to blog more regularly and try to talk about interesting things.
Anyway, how do I feel invisible? Well, it's as if you're on public transport, being surrounded by people who see you, but as just some guy. They don't want to interact with you because you're not someone they know. But it's like all...the...time, even when you're in a social environment. I discount workplaces from this, since they are environments where people are forced to interact with others. If they're a friend from work, but don't talk to you outside of work, are they really a friend?
Social environments, like going to the pub or a restaurant with people you know, are tricky. I generally like being around people, but when I'm with a group of people at a table, the following thing happens. I try to sit in the centre so I can be involved, and try to get involved with conversations, but two distinct groups happen either side of me, sometimes they turn so I find it difficult to find out what's going on. I'll try to listen and get in on the discussion, but they look at me as if I don't belong, drown me out by butting in and talking over me (I sometimes have a bad stutter, and I'm conditioned to shut up if , or ignore me from the flow of conversation. I end up being stuck with nobody to talk to, nobody asks me anything and it's as if there may as well be an empty seat where I'm sitting. Luckily I can't afford to go out all the time (at all, really) so this doesn't happen a lot.
This is what I like about interacting online, it's far less cliquey. I can't get interrupted when I'm trying to say something, and an online persona can't sneer if I'm typing something, if they want to type at the same time too. I can say, this is me, and this is what I think. It'll probably get ignored, but at least I can still get something across. Sometimes I do get an answer and I can have a short conversation about it. I guess this is one of the reasons why I try to be humourous sometimes, just to see if I can get someone's attention.
Anyway, let's see where this goes.
New blog
I've decided to start afresh with my blogging, as my old site got clagged up with half-written drafts, wasn't updated enough and blah blah blah usual bad habits, must do better and all that. I've got to make a promise to myself to express myself more regularly and well, here we go.
If you want to, and please do, have a read of my old blog here. There are some interesting bits in there in places, so check them out. I'll sometimes refer to the best bits from this here blog here and that.
Lots of love
Luke
If you want to, and please do, have a read of my old blog here. There are some interesting bits in there in places, so check them out. I'll sometimes refer to the best bits from this here blog here and that.
Lots of love
Luke
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)