A conspiracy without a mastermind

Religion is a conspiracy without a mastermind. What a good way to define religion. It came about through the evolution of culture and morals.

Dan also mentioned that there are many pastors who are atheists. In my estimation, atheists would make great pastors. They’re not dogmatic about dogma, they take actions without assuming the intervention of God. Such action tend to be planned better. I would guess that most mega-church pastors are actually atheists. I challenge Christians to ask their ministers point-black,”Are you can theist?” You might be surprised by the answer.

Really, theology is nothing but obfuscation and tautology. It’s to help people believe in the concept of God without really believing in God. It’s useful for persuading people who think deeply about God. The rank-and-file Christian couldn’t care less. He just assumes that God exists.

 

A Perfect World (1993)

Recently Sabio did a write-up on one of Clint Eastwood’s Movies. The other day, I happened to watch another movie of his, A Perfect World, again directed by him, and in which he acts as some kind of cop.

Butch (Kevin Costner) is the main character in this movie. The whole thing seems to be a great exercise in mis-communication, or lack of sufficient communication.

Butch grew up in a whore-house; his father was a criminal, while his mother was a prostitute. Butch murdered someone when he was only 10. It was later revealed in the movie that he did it only to protect his mother. And later his mother died (of suicide? can’t really remember), and Butch was destined to be returned to his biological father, which would lead to a life of hard crime, or so Clint Eastwood (CE) thought.

In all his wisdom, CE sent Butch to juvie for a minor misdeed, in order to keep Butch away from his father. Butch does not know anything about all this. This later leads to a poignant scene when CE volunteers himself as to go forward to ‘negotiate’ with Butch for the release of the child whom everyone assumed Butch had kidnapped, and Butch asks CE,”Haven’t I seen you somewhere before?” Getting ahead of myself.

In other words, CE had always been the guardian angel of Butch, floating around without Butch knowing anything about it at all. It all ended tragically when a stupid, trigger-happy sniper shot Butch without CE’s authorization.

Butch was escaping from prison, when his colleague wanted to molest a child, and Butch had to shoot him. That was only the second person that Butch had ever shot, but his partner-in-crime had shot someone else in their escape, whom people again suspected Butch of being the culprit.

ANYWAY….

Anyway… Butch was just a good person who grew up with the wrong set of parents, but whom everyone mistook as a bad guy, while the FBI agent (Sniper), was a bad guy whom everyone assumed was a good guy. And CE cared for Butch but never showed himself as such to Butch. Which is why I think this movie is all about the lack of information leading to many disastrous consequences.

Of course, I’m not doing justice to Clint Eastwood’s movie, but then that’s only to be expected.

I hope you get to watch it yourself. It’s worth watching.

CE tries to get as close to the reality of life as he can. As brutally honest as he can get, while being entertaining at the same time.

 

Good progress on being myself

Being free to think your own thought is great, without having to think that God is watching over you.

If someone wrongs you, you’re free to think big murderous thoughts against him. You’re also free to consider the other side’s position, and then decide whether to sympathize.

I used to suppress hateful thoughts, but it only brought more hate. Expressing hate is really a healthy thing. It’s those who never express hate that you need to be careful of. Or rather, who need to take more care of themselves. They’re likely to be simmering with hate and may explode at any time. Internally.

I need to show more hate as time goes by. It’s a healthy way to live, though I admit I’m still a big coward in terms of expressing hate or dislike.

Caution: There’s also a time for everything. A time to hate and a time to love. A wise person knows when to show hate and when not to show it. A time to rant, and a time to keep the peace.

 

What I think of liberal Christians

I thought I would be in for a real eye-opener. Alas, no. Well, I’ve only managed to interact with one or two genuine article liberal Christians here online, but my opinion is that liberal Christians are just Christians with another set of dogma, so-called more liberal, but still dogma, nonetheless.

It’s like, they’re just another denomination, like Catholicism is just another denomination. Catholics are considered liberal too, by other more conservative Christians, but they’re Christians nonetheless.

Fundie Christians used to think such liberal Christians are satanic, anti-christ and so on. Actually, many of them still do. Well, you’re wrong folks, they’re just another denomination, just like yourselves.

 

People should be allowed to blog

A blog is just a log of some of our thoughts. There’s no guarantee that every single one of us has all the right ideas, facts and knowledge.

People should be allowed to explore their ideas, and share what they think, with others, without the need to be called stupid, or to be insulted. If a person finds a blog to be too much to take, he can stop reading it, instead of leaving insulting remarks and such like, and insist that the blogger not be so ’sensitive’, and thus to just put up with all his or her insults, name-calling, and all sorts of uncivilized behavior. Such people should clog up their own blogs. People who call others names are often very insecure themselves, and just want to place themselves on a higher pedestal.

I would advise all commenters here, including myself, to be civilized and put on their best behavior, and refrain from calling names. Feel free to challenge thoughts by providing your own reasoning in a pleasant manner and courteously, please. Please note that it is not obligatory on your part nor the author’s part to answer all challenges put forth. While presenting your case, it’s not advisable to call another person, stupid, asinine, idiotic, ignorant, etc.

You can just say,”I feel you’re wrong because…”

This is advisable for the reason that it can be very embarrassing for you should you turn out to be the one who is wrong or ignorant instead. And a war of egos would ensue.

On other other hand, if we don’t call each other names, then perhaps we can all learn something, and have a pleasant time all at once.

Wouldn’t that be lovely?

 

Something I said to a Christian

used to research such things with much fervor, because I used to think that there was a point to it all. Yes, I can vaguely recall having done a study on how Jesus quoted from the OT in the NT.

You commented on my blog, then quoted from me in your own blog quite a few times now, to start a discussion. I realize now that you’re trying to stir up an argument and a debate. I think I can understand that. I used to love debating with atheists. I kept thinking I knew something more than them, and if I just shared a little bit more, then perhaps they can be saved too. And perhaps I could also strengthen the faith of my own brethren.

I am no longer so eager for such religious debates. Discussions, yes. About how silly religion is, and even how silly I used to be for falling for such things. I have found the truth, or rather, the falsity of Christianity, and that it is already enough of that for me.

 

A good Christian looks for a good church

I’m being speaking here only to enlightened beings.

Being a serious Christian is frustrating, because you have to go to church. There’s all kinds of nonsense going on in a church. When you compare biblical Christianity to actual Christianity, you see a big difference.

Take the idea of a democratic church. How are things decided? Some vote by a show of hands, some are run by a charismatic dictator, some are run by committees.

The first and last example is actually the same. The committee proposes something, and then come church business meeting day, everyone just raises hand when asked to. It’s all very robotic.

Rule by dictator is the most interesting. The church goes hither and thither at every whim and fancy of the Hitlerite. And this man can make the church do anything. Boy, it really inspired me to be a pastor.

All the silly things that come to the Hitlerite, comes to pass. And you wonder why a church is silly. The reason is, every one of us is a little silly. The collective will normally mitigates that. But when you let one person decide everything, well, you get a church.

 

Agnostic can be fundamentalists too

This post is not mainly about agnostics, just exploring more of the term, fundamentalist. Though it’s only recently occurred to me that agnostics can be fundamentalists too. Maybe I’ll also talk a little bit about agnostics.

This is a comment I left on Sabio’s blog.

In practice, it’s good to have liberal Christians; they’re better friends, and they’re more permissive.

On the other hand, they may not be so easy to persuade to change their mind about God, because they are too fluid! To view it from another angle, and not-so-nicely, they’re not very rational about all of their beliefs. Whereas for some fundamentalists, if you can shake their foundational  beliefs and tear down some of their arguments, they can be persuaded to entertain doubts. Serious doubts.

The worse thing about liberal Christians is that because they are ‘nice guys’, like Luke here, they will turn out to be charismatic leaders, leading many more astray, . And liberals are the perfect screen for the conservatives hiding in their midst.

Try arguing with a nice, liberal Christian in real life; they’d just keep smiling at you and offering to buy you a coffee.

Fundamentalists

There are 2 kinds of fundamentalist Christians. (Sure there’s more, but for discussion’s sake…)

The first kind are actually just stubborn and irrational. They might have been born into a fundamentalist family. Such fundys don’t really have a very rational basis for their beliefs. Their doctrines are hand-me-downs that they inherited from their parents and as a matter of tradition, where belief is more a matter of loyalty, patriotism. They mouth all the reasoning for their belief, but they have never thought it through for themselves carefully, meditatively.

Some of them may also have joined the church via recruitment and friends, and they trusted their friends implicitly, or they fell for the bible thumping.

The second kind are the real deal. They are the real fundamentalist in that they stick to the fundamentals of their faith. They search back to the roots for the beliefs and actions of their church. They question, and they have come to a rational conclusion for their belief. Such folks can be brought to see the light with sufficient information and research. They can be persuaded to see the light.

Which kind would those who fly planes into buildings fall under? I suspect it would be the first. Though, to be fair, they probably need a category all their own.

…….

Agnostics

About agnostics. There are all kinds of agnostics. Some are the scholarly types that write books and intelligent blogs. They have explored all the concepts thoroughly and have come to no conclusion. They choose to sit on the fence because they cannot say with honesty what they truly believe, given all the facts.

Then there are those that are truly atheists, but prefer to hide behind that term, agnostic, for political purposes. ‘Agnostic’ it not an abrasive a term relative to ‘atheist’ in the market-place, thus it’s more readily acceptable, and unlikely to ruffle feathers. I think I would want to hide under this term too, given the opportunity. In other words, it’s just an expedient term for them.

…….

Deists or agnostics?

Then there are those that are really deists, but prefer to use the term agnostic, again, probably because it sounds better, and is a trendy term to use. There are not many deists around claiming to be deists, for one reason for another. Deism is not a label that seems to endear its adherents for one reason or another.

Probably because it sounds neither here nor there. It’s not a very intelligent position to make, and as a result it lacks strong apologetics. There may be many deists, but they don’t espouse their views too strongly, as the statements they make may not sound too intelligent, nor belligerent, and hence do not make good soundbites.

……

Why I think agnostics can be fundamentalists too

TfT posted this comment under my previous post, Nothing Comes from Nothing:

“In my opinion everyone who claims to “know” one way or the other is full of Sheit. “

In all fairness, he was probably simply being honest, and not having any belligerent attitude at all. I probably took it too harshly, being too taken aback by the “full of ****” phrase to notice the smiley at the end. Four-letter words still shake me.

As a result, it led me to  suspect that agnostics can be fundamentalist too, since they insist that both atheists and Christians are wrong, just as a fundamentalist Christian would insist that atheists and Buddhists are wrong.

Furthermore, it’s an illogical position to take, IMO, as there either is a God or there isn’t. (I had forgotten that there’s still a third position, that of the deist, i.e. that there is a god, with a small g.) One of them has got to be right, just as one of them has got to be wrong, even if there is insufficient evidence for either position, or so I thought then.

In any case, I was then defining, in my mind, a fundamentalist as someone who insists on something that is not rational and who ignores all the evidence, and all the science that our modern age has to provide.

~~~~~~~

So these are just some of my thoughts and sentiments about fundamentalists, agnostics and deists.

 

Religion and its tribal value

Religion is useful in gathering people together into a tribe, to give a sense of solidarity, oftentimes against enemies. Which is why religion is often useful as a tool to start wars and aggression.

People feel good when they belong to a tribe, a clan, a gang. People evolved with a strong need for a sense of belonging, so in that sense, religion serves to satisfy that feeling. Which is why I mentioned missing gathering with a group of people for the exchange of gifts and singing.

A religious group is an interesting thing. It is neither family, nor are the people necessarily friends. They’re sort of in-between.

In a previous church, we had 2 church leaders who hated each others’ guts, and you could see the animosity in their eyes from a mile away. Yet they come together every Sunday, even on weekdays! They must give each other much grief, yet they are loathe to part.

One of them even shared that in a particular council meeting, they were forced to shake hands with one another, to sort of kiss and make up. This is common for children, but these were 50 plus year-old adults! And it was plain to see that they still hated each other after the pretended reconciliation, though one of them would profusely testify of his changed attitude towards the other. Yet once an official meeting is over, you would never see one fraternizing with the other.

Which is why I say that church-mates are not family, but they are not friends either. Friends would not hate each other and yet meet regularly. Yet church people do that all the time.

Perhaps that’s just an example of the special kind of Christian love that Christians have for one another.

 

Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could

I enjoyed Lawrence Krauss’ lecture yesterday via Youtube.

It was already dumbed down, but some of it was still way beyond my comprehension.

I was just saying in the other post how I have lost the thirst for knowledge, but such lectures tend to rekindle my curiousity about the universe. I’ll try to look for his book, Atom.

I like how he was honest in conveying that in no way have we reached ‘the truth’, by showing how physics/cosmology has progressed through time, how we got some things wrong, and but for the grace of God, we would not have reached the truth we have today. (No, he didn’t really mention God, that was my addition.)

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be here today.”

We are made of stardust, the atoms in your right hand probably came from the atoms of a different star than the ones in your left hand.

And other memorable statements.

There are stars billions of light years away, and what we see is what they were billions of years ago. Imagine we can observe an alien civilization a million light years away. As of this moment, they would probably have already died out. If we flew there in a spaceship, by the time we reached them, even the ruins might have disintegrated.

Oh, and The Hardon Collider! Very funny, Richard.