I realize that many Christians believe in an allegorical bible, but quite a few, and you know who you are, believe the bible is the literal word of God.
It is this basis that 45% of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that evolution is a crock, because the bible says that God created the earth and universe in 6 days, and that man was created in the image of God (I still get a chuckle out of their God having an ass and having to go poop at least once a day).
So here are a couple of examples I just don't get:
Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."
From a quick search on the internet I found this for the definition of "closet": Closet
as used in the New Testament, signifies properly a storehouse (Luke 12: 24), and hence a place of privacy and retirement (Matt. 6:6; Luke 12:3).
Why do real Christians pray on TV, or on street corners, or even churches in front of others? Why do many Christians want prayer in schools and government buildings?
********************************
How about this?:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
Don't they have women preachers now? I remember seeing one on King of The Hill (Reverend Karen Stroup was voiced by Mary Tyler Moore on one episode). But I'm pretty sure that women are allowed to talk in churches.
Hey wait a second, if the bible actually uses the word churches, why did Matt and Luke use the word "closets" instead. If God really inspired those words, he didn't want anyone praying in churches.
********************************
Here is another very good contradiction. Watch this video on the Fate Of Judas:
The fake blood is a great touch, but I really like the message made by The Blind Watchmaker in the video.
For a lot more contradictions in the Bibles check out the Skeptic's Annotated Bible
God just couldn't make it easy for everyone to understand him, could he?
If I keep this up, I could reclassify myself as a biblical scholar:)
October 18, 2007
October 14, 2007
Study: Atheists Rate Lower Than Believers When It Comes To Love, Patience, & Friendship
I read an article published in the National Post. Instead of just giving an overall reaction to it, I feel the need to review it by paragraph:
Athiests put less value on love than believers: study
By Charles Lewis
National Post
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
******************************
Don't you love it, in this day and age of spell check programs, that "atheist" can still be misspelled in a national newspaper? It isn't hard to spell "theist," why is it so difficult to spell "atheist"
A new Canadian survey has found that believers are more likely than atheists to place a higher value on love, patience and friendship, in findings the researcher says could be a warning that Canadians need a religious basis to retain civility in society.
The survey of 1,600 Canadian adults, led by University of Lethbridge professor Reginald Bibby, gave a list of 12 values - from honesty to family life to politeness to generosity - and asked the participants if they found each "very important." In each case, theists ranked the values as more important than atheists.
*******************************
OK, go on.
The reason for this, suggests Prof. Bibby, a prominent sociologist, is that those who are involved with religious groups are being exposed to a whole range of values that are not being propagated well by any other major source. "To the extent that people are not involved in religious groups ... they're not being exposed to those interpersonal values and they're simply not holding them as strongly," Prof. Bibby said in an interview.
******************************
I don't think many theists go to church that often. So I think there has to be a little more to the answers given than this.
The study says: "To the extent that Canadians are saying good-bye to God, we may find that we pay a significant social price."
*******************************
Again, when I believed in God, I wasn't any differently socially than I am now. I've always tended to be a little introverted, but not believing in God didn't change me.
Now, those regular church goers who answered the study may socialize a tad more than non church goers just because they have their church friends. If the social price is interacting with less people because you are missing the interactions with church goers....who cares?
He said people who are believers are encouraged - whether by a desire to please God, or because of a fear of God - to adopt these values. "If you don't have that as a major source in the culture then what will be the source? I think that's where we've been really superficial ... we've really been underestimating the contribution religious groups can make." Prof. Bibby describes himself as a believer in God who holds many of the values that the theists in his survey value. But he has no particular religious identity beyond saying he is a Protestant and describes his own family as being secularized. He acknowledged that many non-believers still place a high value on morality and ethics. But he said some of that is a legacy from previous generations who held deeper religious views.
**********************************
Bibby is full of it. Here it is again, without religion how can we have morality and ethics??? I've answered this one before on numerous occasions. We evolved a susceptibility to appear moral and ethical, and then even if we think about doing something nasty, the law and fear of prison works just as affectively as the fear of God and hell. Bibby, why are atheists less represented in prisons?
In many families, he said, Grandma is the "symbolic saintly person in the clan."
"So valuing Grandma also means valuing many of the thing important to her. In successive generations you have a lingering effect of morality. But further down the road generations get further removed from the sources of those values. That's where it gets tricky."
************************************
I had a grandmother who was "a saint" but she hardly ever went to synagogue. Older people tend to be more conservative or at least thought of as more conservative and moral. And to my knowledge that hasn't changed because of the higher percentage of atheists and agnostics than from 30-100 years ago.
In the survey findings, there was only a five percentage-point difference between how theists and atheists valued honesty. But of all the categories, honesty is the value that is least connected to broad emotions such as love and compassion. In other words, someone can be honest and brutal.
**************************************
If someone scores low on love and compassion they are brutal? I'm starting to sense that atheists are more apt to tell the truth on surveys than theists are.
But in the realm of forgiveness, which is a core value of many major religions, particularly Christianity, the difference - 32 percentage points - is stark.
**************************************
Christians preach forgiveness, but how many actually practice it? How many Christians don't give certain friends or family presents at Christmas because the friend or family member did something the present giver didn't like?
"That's a pretty explicit value within a large number of religious communities," said Prof. Bibby.
"Look at the culture as a whole and ask yourself: to what extent do we value forgiveness against themes like zero-tolerance? We don't talk very much about what we're going to do for people who fall through the cracks. So I think forgiveness is pretty foreign to a lot of people if they're not involved in religious groups."
*****************************
I think it is pretty retarded to forgive OBL or a serial killer, but that is just me.
The study says that believers will not always translate their views into action but "at least they are inclined to hold the values" and that atheists "do not have as many explicit support groups that are committed to intentionally promoting [a] positive interpersonal life."
******************************
What exactly is positive interpersonal life? Oh, and at least Bibby is admitting that theists don't practice what they preach. Maybe their values are just a bunch of bs.
Religious philosopher and writer C.S. Lewis believed that the inner call to be good comes from a higher power that speaks to conscience. But atheists such as Richard Dawkins, author of the recent best-seller The God Delusion, rejects that idea as nonsense and looks to evolution as the author of morality. Prof. Dawkins believes morality comes through the altruism gene or the "selfish gene" and it is to everyone's benefit and survival that we behave civilly with one another. Among family members, it is a way to protect our own gene pool. "Animals tend to care for, defend, share resources with, warn of danger, or otherwise show altruism towards close kin because of the statistical likelihood that kin will share copies of the same genes," Prof. Dawkins wrote.
**************************************
Hey, isn't this what I said. And C.S. Lewis was wrong. How would he explain the altruism seen in animals? Is that from God too? Well then atheists have the same God given altruism too, and you don't need religion to have "values."
Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Ontario, a Toronto-based atheist group, thinks the problem with Prof. Bibby's survey is with the definition of values. He said the categories in the survey fit in the mould of the Ten Commandments, so a religious person's enthusiastic response to them is not surprising.
"To me, scientific thinking is a value. Critical thinking is a value. Open inquiry is my biggest value," said Mr. Trottier. "If he made those values - the way atheists would - he would have gotten different responses."
********************************
Trottier is pretty smart.
He said that people should be judged by their actions, not by how they respond to survey questions. A person can claim to be any number of things but the proof is in the pudding. He said his own group, for example, has a sobriety support group, and that many nations that are highly secular do a better job of taking care of their poor than religious ones.
*******************************
Don't forget at atheists being underrepresented in jails too.
"Religion tends to be very polarizing, so religious people always feel very passionately about those values. They always feel 'very strongly.' Religion always does this black-and-white thing. An atheist is a lot more temperate, a bit more hesitant. An atheist might be more nuanced in his or her thinking."
*******************************
Good points. In other words, an atheist is most likely to base his or her answers on personal experience: an atheist is most likely to give real honest answers. An atheist will answer a morality survey question based on what he or she really thinks, not what he or she thinks God wants us to say.
Update: Excellent piece by Ottawa Citizen's Dan Gardner on the same topic.
Athiests put less value on love than believers: study
By Charles Lewis
National Post
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
******************************
Don't you love it, in this day and age of spell check programs, that "atheist" can still be misspelled in a national newspaper? It isn't hard to spell "theist," why is it so difficult to spell "atheist"
A new Canadian survey has found that believers are more likely than atheists to place a higher value on love, patience and friendship, in findings the researcher says could be a warning that Canadians need a religious basis to retain civility in society.
The survey of 1,600 Canadian adults, led by University of Lethbridge professor Reginald Bibby, gave a list of 12 values - from honesty to family life to politeness to generosity - and asked the participants if they found each "very important." In each case, theists ranked the values as more important than atheists.
*******************************
OK, go on.
The reason for this, suggests Prof. Bibby, a prominent sociologist, is that those who are involved with religious groups are being exposed to a whole range of values that are not being propagated well by any other major source. "To the extent that people are not involved in religious groups ... they're not being exposed to those interpersonal values and they're simply not holding them as strongly," Prof. Bibby said in an interview.
******************************
I don't think many theists go to church that often. So I think there has to be a little more to the answers given than this.
The study says: "To the extent that Canadians are saying good-bye to God, we may find that we pay a significant social price."
*******************************
Again, when I believed in God, I wasn't any differently socially than I am now. I've always tended to be a little introverted, but not believing in God didn't change me.
Now, those regular church goers who answered the study may socialize a tad more than non church goers just because they have their church friends. If the social price is interacting with less people because you are missing the interactions with church goers....who cares?
He said people who are believers are encouraged - whether by a desire to please God, or because of a fear of God - to adopt these values. "If you don't have that as a major source in the culture then what will be the source? I think that's where we've been really superficial ... we've really been underestimating the contribution religious groups can make." Prof. Bibby describes himself as a believer in God who holds many of the values that the theists in his survey value. But he has no particular religious identity beyond saying he is a Protestant and describes his own family as being secularized. He acknowledged that many non-believers still place a high value on morality and ethics. But he said some of that is a legacy from previous generations who held deeper religious views.
**********************************
Bibby is full of it. Here it is again, without religion how can we have morality and ethics??? I've answered this one before on numerous occasions. We evolved a susceptibility to appear moral and ethical, and then even if we think about doing something nasty, the law and fear of prison works just as affectively as the fear of God and hell. Bibby, why are atheists less represented in prisons?
In many families, he said, Grandma is the "symbolic saintly person in the clan."
"So valuing Grandma also means valuing many of the thing important to her. In successive generations you have a lingering effect of morality. But further down the road generations get further removed from the sources of those values. That's where it gets tricky."
************************************
I had a grandmother who was "a saint" but she hardly ever went to synagogue. Older people tend to be more conservative or at least thought of as more conservative and moral. And to my knowledge that hasn't changed because of the higher percentage of atheists and agnostics than from 30-100 years ago.
In the survey findings, there was only a five percentage-point difference between how theists and atheists valued honesty. But of all the categories, honesty is the value that is least connected to broad emotions such as love and compassion. In other words, someone can be honest and brutal.
**************************************
If someone scores low on love and compassion they are brutal? I'm starting to sense that atheists are more apt to tell the truth on surveys than theists are.
But in the realm of forgiveness, which is a core value of many major religions, particularly Christianity, the difference - 32 percentage points - is stark.
**************************************
Christians preach forgiveness, but how many actually practice it? How many Christians don't give certain friends or family presents at Christmas because the friend or family member did something the present giver didn't like?
"That's a pretty explicit value within a large number of religious communities," said Prof. Bibby.
"Look at the culture as a whole and ask yourself: to what extent do we value forgiveness against themes like zero-tolerance? We don't talk very much about what we're going to do for people who fall through the cracks. So I think forgiveness is pretty foreign to a lot of people if they're not involved in religious groups."
*****************************
I think it is pretty retarded to forgive OBL or a serial killer, but that is just me.
The study says that believers will not always translate their views into action but "at least they are inclined to hold the values" and that atheists "do not have as many explicit support groups that are committed to intentionally promoting [a] positive interpersonal life."
******************************
What exactly is positive interpersonal life? Oh, and at least Bibby is admitting that theists don't practice what they preach. Maybe their values are just a bunch of bs.
Religious philosopher and writer C.S. Lewis believed that the inner call to be good comes from a higher power that speaks to conscience. But atheists such as Richard Dawkins, author of the recent best-seller The God Delusion, rejects that idea as nonsense and looks to evolution as the author of morality. Prof. Dawkins believes morality comes through the altruism gene or the "selfish gene" and it is to everyone's benefit and survival that we behave civilly with one another. Among family members, it is a way to protect our own gene pool. "Animals tend to care for, defend, share resources with, warn of danger, or otherwise show altruism towards close kin because of the statistical likelihood that kin will share copies of the same genes," Prof. Dawkins wrote.
**************************************
Hey, isn't this what I said. And C.S. Lewis was wrong. How would he explain the altruism seen in animals? Is that from God too? Well then atheists have the same God given altruism too, and you don't need religion to have "values."
Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Ontario, a Toronto-based atheist group, thinks the problem with Prof. Bibby's survey is with the definition of values. He said the categories in the survey fit in the mould of the Ten Commandments, so a religious person's enthusiastic response to them is not surprising.
"To me, scientific thinking is a value. Critical thinking is a value. Open inquiry is my biggest value," said Mr. Trottier. "If he made those values - the way atheists would - he would have gotten different responses."
********************************
Trottier is pretty smart.
He said that people should be judged by their actions, not by how they respond to survey questions. A person can claim to be any number of things but the proof is in the pudding. He said his own group, for example, has a sobriety support group, and that many nations that are highly secular do a better job of taking care of their poor than religious ones.
*******************************
Don't forget at atheists being underrepresented in jails too.
"Religion tends to be very polarizing, so religious people always feel very passionately about those values. They always feel 'very strongly.' Religion always does this black-and-white thing. An atheist is a lot more temperate, a bit more hesitant. An atheist might be more nuanced in his or her thinking."
*******************************
Good points. In other words, an atheist is most likely to base his or her answers on personal experience: an atheist is most likely to give real honest answers. An atheist will answer a morality survey question based on what he or she really thinks, not what he or she thinks God wants us to say.
Update: Excellent piece by Ottawa Citizen's Dan Gardner on the same topic.
October 11, 2007
Message To Future Canadian Politicians: Don't Try To Blur The Line That Separates Church & State
For the first time in my life I felt the need to vote. Oh, I've always voted, but this time it actually had meaning for me.
Just before 7:00 PM last night, me and the Mrs. walked into the gymnasium of a PUBLIC SCHOOL (now that is symbolic), and saw a security person and 4 people sitting behind desks. We were the only voters in the joint.
I went first, and voted for our Liberal candidate, and I also voted to keep the current system on the referendum issue.
I put my votes in the ballot box and then whispered to my wife who to vote for. She agreed with me 100% on the faith funding issue but she doesn't pay much attention to Party names. We didn't discuss the referendum issue, but I told her to check the first box on that ballot (she usually goes along with anything I say as long as it has nothing to do with sex).
When walking out of the school, even though I had a pretty good idea that the Liberals would get a majority win, and I knew my vote wouldn't matter as far as getting the Liberals to win and the PC's to lose, I actually felt proud and even a little euphoric.
I told my wife as we seated ourselves in the car that we just sent a message to future politicians to not even think about blurring the line that separates church and state.
Yes, I realize we still fund Catholics schools, but at least now it will be much easier to fade out that funding in the next 20 years perhaps. If Tory won, it would be impossible.
Every time I heard Tory say that it is a matter of fairness, my bullshit detector went ballistic. There were three options: the status quo, fund all faith based schools, or fund no faith based schools.
The majority of Ontarians felt the latter was the most fair, but Tory didn't give that as an option.
When voting for a realistic candidate (one with a chance to win), I had two choices: the status quo (the Liberals) or fund all faith based schools (the PCs). Oh, I know that Tory backed down a week ago and said he would have a free vote after a test period, but I just didn't trust him and didn't feel the need to trust him because he didn't back down on what he wanted to do which is fund all faith based schools. I didn't even want this to even be an option in the future.
I did email the PC candidate in my riding a couple of weeks ago to tell him he lost both mine and my wife's vote because of Tory. He emailed me back defending the platform...blah blah blah, bring the 53,000 kids into the public system...I replied telling him that wasn't my major concern. My main concern is separation of church and state, and I also realize that we were not talking just 53,000 kids because what would stop a large amount of kids in the near future from going to faith based schools. Yes, it would create a lot more segregation and take a lot more kids out of the secular system eventually(I don't know why this wasn't made to be a big issue by rival candidates. It makes me wonder just how smart? politicians really are not to be able to see this. Lawyer James Morton figured it out though). I didn't get another email back.
Next, we need a referendum to phase out Catholic school funding in Ontario. We are now closer to that reality.
Just before 7:00 PM last night, me and the Mrs. walked into the gymnasium of a PUBLIC SCHOOL (now that is symbolic), and saw a security person and 4 people sitting behind desks. We were the only voters in the joint.
I went first, and voted for our Liberal candidate, and I also voted to keep the current system on the referendum issue.
I put my votes in the ballot box and then whispered to my wife who to vote for. She agreed with me 100% on the faith funding issue but she doesn't pay much attention to Party names. We didn't discuss the referendum issue, but I told her to check the first box on that ballot (she usually goes along with anything I say as long as it has nothing to do with sex).
When walking out of the school, even though I had a pretty good idea that the Liberals would get a majority win, and I knew my vote wouldn't matter as far as getting the Liberals to win and the PC's to lose, I actually felt proud and even a little euphoric.
I told my wife as we seated ourselves in the car that we just sent a message to future politicians to not even think about blurring the line that separates church and state.
Yes, I realize we still fund Catholics schools, but at least now it will be much easier to fade out that funding in the next 20 years perhaps. If Tory won, it would be impossible.
Every time I heard Tory say that it is a matter of fairness, my bullshit detector went ballistic. There were three options: the status quo, fund all faith based schools, or fund no faith based schools.
The majority of Ontarians felt the latter was the most fair, but Tory didn't give that as an option.
When voting for a realistic candidate (one with a chance to win), I had two choices: the status quo (the Liberals) or fund all faith based schools (the PCs). Oh, I know that Tory backed down a week ago and said he would have a free vote after a test period, but I just didn't trust him and didn't feel the need to trust him because he didn't back down on what he wanted to do which is fund all faith based schools. I didn't even want this to even be an option in the future.
I did email the PC candidate in my riding a couple of weeks ago to tell him he lost both mine and my wife's vote because of Tory. He emailed me back defending the platform...blah blah blah, bring the 53,000 kids into the public system...I replied telling him that wasn't my major concern. My main concern is separation of church and state, and I also realize that we were not talking just 53,000 kids because what would stop a large amount of kids in the near future from going to faith based schools. Yes, it would create a lot more segregation and take a lot more kids out of the secular system eventually(I don't know why this wasn't made to be a big issue by rival candidates. It makes me wonder just how smart? politicians really are not to be able to see this. Lawyer James Morton figured it out though). I didn't get another email back.
Next, we need a referendum to phase out Catholic school funding in Ontario. We are now closer to that reality.
October 8, 2007
My 500th Post: Dawkins anti-semitic remark, Pat Condell, and Bye Jake
I can't believe this is my 500th post. This blog has been alive for just around 2 years and 9 months. Quick calculation: I make a blog post once every 2.24 days. Most posts take me around half an hour to compose, though some take 5 to 10 minutes (especially when they are about a certain Youtube video). I've had a few take over an hour to do. Those are the ones that require extra research. I try to cover as many angles and fill as many holes as I can before I post. I learn a lot when I'm doing research. Lots of trivial stuff. I probably could hold my own "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader" by now.
I figure I might as well do some odds and ends since I'm posting today.
First, I wanted to comment on Richard Dawkins recent quote in The Guardian:
*************************************
I have lots of thoughts on this issue, and I have posted most on RichardDawkins.net.
It would be denying reality if one ignored that Dawkins has become the equivalent of a Jerry Falwell for atheists, though not too many atheists including me believe that we need a spokesperson who speaks for all of us, because we all differ so much when it comes to our opinions on crime, state, politics, etc.
But when Dawkins talks, he gets attention. Unfortunately, he is not perfect, as seen by the above quote. He has swallowed the Arab and anti-semitic propaganda about the Jewish lobby. I think it is a cultural thing in Britain, and Dan Johnson agrees with me in this article, "Suppressed Scholarship."
Dawkins apologists on the Dawkins Forum point out that he meant the comment as a compliment. That a small amount Jews are organized enough to monopolize US foreign policy. The thing is that is not a fact, and comments like this have led to dead Jews in the past. That is why it is a bit disturbing that he even thinks it.
From Wikipedia:
Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, business, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance. [1][2][3] It is used most commonly by the far right, far left, and Islamists.[4]
The expression is commonly associated with antisemitic aspersions.[5] Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, an American research group that tracks right-wing extremists, writes that it combines the classic elements of anti-Semitic stereotyping and scapegoating, and is part of the discourse of conspiracism.[2]
Sometimes the term "Jewish lobby" is being used to refer to Israel lobby,[6][7][8] but according to Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), such usage "is both vague and inadequate."[9]
History
For centuries, a key element of antisemitic thought were conspiracy theories that the Jews, as a group, were plotting to control or otherwise influence the world. Vijay Prasad described The myth of the "Jewish lobby" in India's magazine Frontline:
The idea of the "Jewish lobby" is attractive because it draws upon at least a few hundred years of anti-Semitic worry about an international conspiracy operated by Jewish financiers to defraud the European and American working poor of their livelihood. The "Jew," without a country, but with a bank, had no loyalty to the nation, no solidarity with fellow citizens. The anti-Semitic document, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," is a good illustration of this idea. The Nazis stigmatized the "Jew" as the reason for poverty and exploitation, and obscured the role played by capitalism in the reproduction of grief. The six million Jews in the U.S. do not determine U.S. foreign policy; nor are they united. Jews in America, like other communities, are rent with division, not united behind one agenda.[3]
*************************
I am not saying Dawkins is anti-semitic (he is not known for any other anti-semitic slurs), but what he said was anti-semitic, though I blame it on him being a victim of the British culture.
About the Jewish lobby: There are plenty of lobbies in the US that have as much if not more influence on foreign policy than Aipac does. The oil lobby for instance. US foreign policy takes Saudi Arabia and China into consideration way ahead of Israel in my opinion.
What Dawkins said about the Jewish lobby is similar to what Christians say about the Atheist lobby. Think about it. Courts are ruling for gay marriages, against pro-lifers, taking the 10 commandments out of government buildings and prayer and creation out of school. But all these things are happening not because of the Atheist lobby (Dawkins said we need a lobby in the article), but because it makes sense to separate church and state in order to have freedom and freedom of religion too. Common sense makes the laws, not atheists. In fact, common sense makes atheists.
The US supports Israel and does things that appear to help Israel so much because Israel pretty much the same ethical values and goals as the US. Of course, it is a little more complicated than that. The US also supports Israel to keep Israel in check. They try to make sure Israel doesn't respond as the US would respond if the US were in Israel's shoes. This keeps the Saudi lobby content.
Respectful Insolence is a must read if you are still interested in this topic.
I'll also note that one commenter (Tim) was banned because a moderator didn't like the inference that Dawkins might be anti-semitic. Even though it was clear to me that all Tim was saying that what Dawkins said was obviously anti-semitic. What is with moderators? See previous post.
Tim left a comment on my previous post saying that Dawkins did email him back when he inquired about the ban. Dawkins stated that he was misquoted, but there was nothing to back it up according to Tim.
OK, now for some levity. Pat Condell's latest video on the Christian love he has been receiving for his previous videos. Great points about the "historical Jesus" too:
And finally, on a sad note. My "other" dog Jake had to be put down on Saturday.
Jake is the dog on the couch in the above picture.
We took him in almost exactly a year ago. He had very bad back legs. And my brother, who took him in two years previously (because his former owner moved to an Old Folks home), move from a farm to a place with lots of stairs. Jake could barely make 3 steps tops because of his infirmaries. So he was sort of pawned off on us. We have a very good sized main floor with a couple of three step accesses to a very large backyard. He never did see the upstairs of our house.
I never really bonded with Jake, but he loved my wife. He would walk around the house looking for her all the time. Why not? She fed him and took care of him like a king, cooking him and Daisy chicken almost every morning.
He was probably 11ish based on the information I have. On Saturday, he fell right after drinking water in the kitchen. My wife called me, I saw his eyes moving up and down and he wouldn't get up. He couldn't get up. His back legs finally gave out.
My sister in law came over with her friend (who is very knowledgeable about dogs). The friend was pretty sure it wasn't a stroke or a heart attack. We called vets. But in a small town just after noon, it was impossible to get immediate help.
We waited a couple of hours. Jake refused food for the first time ever. He was always like a disposable garbage can when it came to scraps. Instead he threw up a couple of times.
He wasn't improving at all. And he tried to get up but couldn't.
We made the decision to euthanize him. We found an SPCA that was still open though 20 minutes away and lifter him into my brother's truck (he weighed about 90 pounds), in the front seat.
My wife and I were to attend a wedding at 3:00. I told my wife to go without me, I'd make it for the reception. My wife tearfully said goodbye, to Jake and I went with my sister in law and her friend on his final road trip.
They wouldn't let anyone in with him at the SPCA after they took on a stretcher to the death room, which was fine with me (though I wouldn't have minded the option). I don't like watching an animal die. From the front desk at the SPCA I heard Jake bark a few last times. Then I didn't hear anything.
The vet told us that he most likely suffered a blood clot in the hind and that it caused his main functions to shut down. We did the right thing. And remember, this is a long weekend. If we waited, we would have probably had to wait until Tuesday morning.
We took Jakes body back to my house. My wife was back from the wedding and we had a couple of hours to kill before the reception. We spent it digging Jake's grave and then burying him wrapped in one of his favorite blankets.
Bye Jake.
I figure I might as well do some odds and ends since I'm posting today.
First, I wanted to comment on Richard Dawkins recent quote in The Guardian:
"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."
*************************************
I have lots of thoughts on this issue, and I have posted most on RichardDawkins.net.
It would be denying reality if one ignored that Dawkins has become the equivalent of a Jerry Falwell for atheists, though not too many atheists including me believe that we need a spokesperson who speaks for all of us, because we all differ so much when it comes to our opinions on crime, state, politics, etc.
But when Dawkins talks, he gets attention. Unfortunately, he is not perfect, as seen by the above quote. He has swallowed the Arab and anti-semitic propaganda about the Jewish lobby. I think it is a cultural thing in Britain, and Dan Johnson agrees with me in this article, "Suppressed Scholarship."
Dawkins apologists on the Dawkins Forum point out that he meant the comment as a compliment. That a small amount Jews are organized enough to monopolize US foreign policy. The thing is that is not a fact, and comments like this have led to dead Jews in the past. That is why it is a bit disturbing that he even thinks it.
From Wikipedia:
Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, business, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance. [1][2][3] It is used most commonly by the far right, far left, and Islamists.[4]
The expression is commonly associated with antisemitic aspersions.[5] Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, an American research group that tracks right-wing extremists, writes that it combines the classic elements of anti-Semitic stereotyping and scapegoating, and is part of the discourse of conspiracism.[2]
Sometimes the term "Jewish lobby" is being used to refer to Israel lobby,[6][7][8] but according to Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), such usage "is both vague and inadequate."[9]
History
For centuries, a key element of antisemitic thought were conspiracy theories that the Jews, as a group, were plotting to control or otherwise influence the world. Vijay Prasad described The myth of the "Jewish lobby" in India's magazine Frontline:
The idea of the "Jewish lobby" is attractive because it draws upon at least a few hundred years of anti-Semitic worry about an international conspiracy operated by Jewish financiers to defraud the European and American working poor of their livelihood. The "Jew," without a country, but with a bank, had no loyalty to the nation, no solidarity with fellow citizens. The anti-Semitic document, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," is a good illustration of this idea. The Nazis stigmatized the "Jew" as the reason for poverty and exploitation, and obscured the role played by capitalism in the reproduction of grief. The six million Jews in the U.S. do not determine U.S. foreign policy; nor are they united. Jews in America, like other communities, are rent with division, not united behind one agenda.[3]
*************************
I am not saying Dawkins is anti-semitic (he is not known for any other anti-semitic slurs), but what he said was anti-semitic, though I blame it on him being a victim of the British culture.
About the Jewish lobby: There are plenty of lobbies in the US that have as much if not more influence on foreign policy than Aipac does. The oil lobby for instance. US foreign policy takes Saudi Arabia and China into consideration way ahead of Israel in my opinion.
What Dawkins said about the Jewish lobby is similar to what Christians say about the Atheist lobby. Think about it. Courts are ruling for gay marriages, against pro-lifers, taking the 10 commandments out of government buildings and prayer and creation out of school. But all these things are happening not because of the Atheist lobby (Dawkins said we need a lobby in the article), but because it makes sense to separate church and state in order to have freedom and freedom of religion too. Common sense makes the laws, not atheists. In fact, common sense makes atheists.
The US supports Israel and does things that appear to help Israel so much because Israel pretty much the same ethical values and goals as the US. Of course, it is a little more complicated than that. The US also supports Israel to keep Israel in check. They try to make sure Israel doesn't respond as the US would respond if the US were in Israel's shoes. This keeps the Saudi lobby content.
Respectful Insolence is a must read if you are still interested in this topic.
I'll also note that one commenter (Tim) was banned because a moderator didn't like the inference that Dawkins might be anti-semitic. Even though it was clear to me that all Tim was saying that what Dawkins said was obviously anti-semitic. What is with moderators? See previous post.
Tim left a comment on my previous post saying that Dawkins did email him back when he inquired about the ban. Dawkins stated that he was misquoted, but there was nothing to back it up according to Tim.
OK, now for some levity. Pat Condell's latest video on the Christian love he has been receiving for his previous videos. Great points about the "historical Jesus" too:
And finally, on a sad note. My "other" dog Jake had to be put down on Saturday.
Jake is the dog on the couch in the above picture.
We took him in almost exactly a year ago. He had very bad back legs. And my brother, who took him in two years previously (because his former owner moved to an Old Folks home), move from a farm to a place with lots of stairs. Jake could barely make 3 steps tops because of his infirmaries. So he was sort of pawned off on us. We have a very good sized main floor with a couple of three step accesses to a very large backyard. He never did see the upstairs of our house.
I never really bonded with Jake, but he loved my wife. He would walk around the house looking for her all the time. Why not? She fed him and took care of him like a king, cooking him and Daisy chicken almost every morning.
He was probably 11ish based on the information I have. On Saturday, he fell right after drinking water in the kitchen. My wife called me, I saw his eyes moving up and down and he wouldn't get up. He couldn't get up. His back legs finally gave out.
My sister in law came over with her friend (who is very knowledgeable about dogs). The friend was pretty sure it wasn't a stroke or a heart attack. We called vets. But in a small town just after noon, it was impossible to get immediate help.
We waited a couple of hours. Jake refused food for the first time ever. He was always like a disposable garbage can when it came to scraps. Instead he threw up a couple of times.
He wasn't improving at all. And he tried to get up but couldn't.
We made the decision to euthanize him. We found an SPCA that was still open though 20 minutes away and lifter him into my brother's truck (he weighed about 90 pounds), in the front seat.
My wife and I were to attend a wedding at 3:00. I told my wife to go without me, I'd make it for the reception. My wife tearfully said goodbye, to Jake and I went with my sister in law and her friend on his final road trip.
They wouldn't let anyone in with him at the SPCA after they took on a stretcher to the death room, which was fine with me (though I wouldn't have minded the option). I don't like watching an animal die. From the front desk at the SPCA I heard Jake bark a few last times. Then I didn't hear anything.
The vet told us that he most likely suffered a blood clot in the hind and that it caused his main functions to shut down. We did the right thing. And remember, this is a long weekend. If we waited, we would have probably had to wait until Tuesday morning.
We took Jakes body back to my house. My wife was back from the wedding and we had a couple of hours to kill before the reception. We spent it digging Jake's grave and then burying him wrapped in one of his favorite blankets.
Bye Jake.
October 5, 2007
I GOT BANNED BY CRAIG ON THE BLOGGING TORIES FORUMS
I recently got banned from the Blogging Tories Forum. It is supposed to be a political forum first and foremost. I started posting there because of the John Tory platform to fund faith based schools. I was upsetting quite a few Christian Conservatives with my militant atheism and my perceived arrogance. I found out that there were quite a few evolution deniers and even YECs on that board. It is hard not to get confrontational when atheism is called a religion by the ignorant, and when idiots spew that it takes faith to be an atheist.
So one of the kiddies on the board started a subject called Atheism Kills (later renamed Does Atheism Kill because one of the moderators on the board didn't want to give lurkers the "impression" that the PC Party hates atheists).
I would have expected to get a lifetime ban if I started a topic called "Christianity Kills." And of course, this illustrates the double standards on the forum.
The start of the thread had all the old crapola about Stalin killing all kinds of people, and some Youtube videos blaming atheism on mass murders from the start of Christianity to today.
Then Lafayette chimed in with this:
I'm not sure if I left a "reputation message" after this comment or after this one:
Either post deserved my comment (see below):
Craig (a moderator and one of the founders of Blogging Tories) PMed me (private message on the BT Forum)
Subject: Personal insults Quote message
No place for them here...
Quote:
"Dumber than a rock. And I don't mean to insult rocks."
BT Forum allows you to give members reputation points and comments. The above is what I said about Lafayette.
*****************************************
I replied:
Re: Personal insults
I hope you are being equal and informing Lafayette too. He said I'm acting like a two year old, etc.
I'll bet you didn't send him/her a reprimand. Am I wrong?
********************************************
Craig diplomatically replied:
None of your business. End it or be gone.
*******************************************
I replied:
Wow. I get it, and I think I totally understand you now. Not very impressed either. In fact I'm totally disappointed in your reply. I will comply with your hypocrisy, but I will write about this on my blog later this week. OK Craig? No more insults from me. I'll just take the insults without defending myself.
I made one or two posts after that, and then I found out I was banned. Then I found out my IP was banned, but I can still view most of the posts using anonymous.org.
One post was directed at Craig on a different thread:
Craig wrote:
I've never understood how someone could call themselves an atheist. Nobody knows why we are here so at the very least you should call yourself an agnostic. You don't have proof as to why we are here so how can you absolutely discount one possible option?
I replied:
An atheist can be simply someone who doesn't believe in God. Again, as pointed out on another thread, one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
I see no evidence God exists, and the same evidence exists for my invisible man under my bed, so why consider either?
Now, apparently I am banned temporarily (after this post, maybe permanently). I've emailed three of the mods (including Craig). One moderator said that he is keeping out of it. The other said he would look into it and has now says that Craig wants an apology because I apparently personally insulted him.............WHEN AND WHERE?
If Craig is thinking that I should apologize for my email I sent him after I got banned, although it is consistent with how Craig seems to work, it should have no bearing on why I was banned in the first place.
I sent him this (he didn't reply):
You banned me?
Craig,
I told you I would comply.
Seriously, are you a grown man? You are acting quite childish. You
gave me a warning and I said I would comply. You represent the
Blogging Tory community. I didn't realize that the PC party was into
censorship.
I can still view the pages btw even though you banned my IP, so I can
make my case to other bloggers, using your words and my words.
*********************************************
The big thing here is that it is obvious that Craig treats the God fearing members of the board differently than atheists. He is so biased that he can't even recognize it when an atheist is insulted by an ignorant Fundy, or maybe it is a cultural thing that atheists are allowed to be called names once they admit to being an atheist.
Either way it reeks of hypocrisy, and it sure isn't the first time I've experienced a moderator like Craig.
I did receive this from a very sane member of Bloggging Tories:
Unfortunately, anonymous.org doesn't allow me to open the link above, so I don't even know what it is I'm supposed to be apologizing for.
Many PC supporter are Libertarians (I am close to Libertarian myself), because of all three major parties in Canada, the PC's platform has the least amount of government interference (that is another reason why John Tory's faith funding platform bothered me. It was totally NDPish) . But I also like the platform against terror, and realize that many people can't be trusted to completely govern themselves. I'm a strong social liberal with the exception of being strong against terror like crimes).
So alienating secularists like me (all I want is complete separation of church and state when it is all said and done), is a very bad move by a Forum like Blogging Tories. They aren't going to win too many elections if they just suck up to religionists.
Can you believe a 46 year old has to go through this nonsense in the year 2007?
So one of the kiddies on the board started a subject called Atheism Kills (later renamed Does Atheism Kill because one of the moderators on the board didn't want to give lurkers the "impression" that the PC Party hates atheists).
I would have expected to get a lifetime ban if I started a topic called "Christianity Kills." And of course, this illustrates the double standards on the forum.
The start of the thread had all the old crapola about Stalin killing all kinds of people, and some Youtube videos blaming atheism on mass murders from the start of Christianity to today.
Then Lafayette chimed in with this:
It is to laugh. One of the first thing militant Atheists like to point to is how religion has killed so many people. Then, in the same breath it seems, they deny that the same yardstick can be applied to them. Well it can, and you measure up quite well in the infamy department.
Pol Pot is one of you. Stalin is one of you. Deal with it. Atheism, as a belief system, has been used to justify its share of death, and no amount of equivocation, prevarication, or denial will change that.
I'm not sure if I left a "reputation message" after this comment or after this one:
I think this is a prime example of what happens when you attack a man's religion. BEAJ has basically gone ape shit all up in here. It is slightly amusing, in a 2 year old tantrum sort of way.
This whole thread just goes to show the point that Atheism is just another religion. BEAJ has defended his faith with as much vitriol and what not as the most ardent Muslim, Christian, or anyone else. I am curious to see just how far he will go.
Either post deserved my comment (see below):
Craig (a moderator and one of the founders of Blogging Tories) PMed me (private message on the BT Forum)
Subject: Personal insults Quote message
No place for them here...
Quote:
"Dumber than a rock. And I don't mean to insult rocks."
BT Forum allows you to give members reputation points and comments. The above is what I said about Lafayette.
*****************************************
I replied:
Re: Personal insults
I hope you are being equal and informing Lafayette too. He said I'm acting like a two year old, etc.
I'll bet you didn't send him/her a reprimand. Am I wrong?
********************************************
Craig diplomatically replied:
None of your business. End it or be gone.
*******************************************
I replied:
Wow. I get it, and I think I totally understand you now. Not very impressed either. In fact I'm totally disappointed in your reply. I will comply with your hypocrisy, but I will write about this on my blog later this week. OK Craig? No more insults from me. I'll just take the insults without defending myself.
I made one or two posts after that, and then I found out I was banned. Then I found out my IP was banned, but I can still view most of the posts using anonymous.org.
One post was directed at Craig on a different thread:
Craig wrote:
I've never understood how someone could call themselves an atheist. Nobody knows why we are here so at the very least you should call yourself an agnostic. You don't have proof as to why we are here so how can you absolutely discount one possible option?
I replied:
An atheist can be simply someone who doesn't believe in God. Again, as pointed out on another thread, one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
I see no evidence God exists, and the same evidence exists for my invisible man under my bed, so why consider either?
Now, apparently I am banned temporarily (after this post, maybe permanently). I've emailed three of the mods (including Craig). One moderator said that he is keeping out of it. The other said he would look into it and has now says that Craig wants an apology because I apparently personally insulted him.............WHEN AND WHERE?
If Craig is thinking that I should apologize for my email I sent him after I got banned, although it is consistent with how Craig seems to work, it should have no bearing on why I was banned in the first place.
I sent him this (he didn't reply):
You banned me?
Craig,
I told you I would comply.
Seriously, are you a grown man? You are acting quite childish. You
gave me a warning and I said I would comply. You represent the
Blogging Tory community. I didn't realize that the PC party was into
censorship.
I can still view the pages btw even though you banned my IP, so I can
make my case to other bloggers, using your words and my words.
*********************************************
The big thing here is that it is obvious that Craig treats the God fearing members of the board differently than atheists. He is so biased that he can't even recognize it when an atheist is insulted by an ignorant Fundy, or maybe it is a cultural thing that atheists are allowed to be called names once they admit to being an atheist.
Either way it reeks of hypocrisy, and it sure isn't the first time I've experienced a moderator like Craig.
I did receive this from a very sane member of Bloggging Tories:
It appears that Craig wants you to apologize for the personal insult:
http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/post24733.html#24733
I'd like to have you back as you've got a balancing perspective, and
that can have the effect of generating more activity on the forums by
everyone.
Unfortunately, anonymous.org doesn't allow me to open the link above, so I don't even know what it is I'm supposed to be apologizing for.
Many PC supporter are Libertarians (I am close to Libertarian myself), because of all three major parties in Canada, the PC's platform has the least amount of government interference (that is another reason why John Tory's faith funding platform bothered me. It was totally NDPish) . But I also like the platform against terror, and realize that many people can't be trusted to completely govern themselves. I'm a strong social liberal with the exception of being strong against terror like crimes).
So alienating secularists like me (all I want is complete separation of church and state when it is all said and done), is a very bad move by a Forum like Blogging Tories. They aren't going to win too many elections if they just suck up to religionists.
Can you believe a 46 year old has to go through this nonsense in the year 2007?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)