At WorldNetDaily simian-featured "actor" Chuck Norris wrote what he'd do if he were ever elected president. One of the stupid items on his list was this:
Tattoo an American flag with the words, "In God we trust," on the forehead of every atheist.
Now, I'm reasonably sure he'll never get elected president, but ya know, I'm sure people who saw Ronald Reagan in all those insipid movies would've said the same thing about him.
So fuck Chuck Norris. I hope he chokes and dies.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
well, that might be a little harsh, my friend.
On the other hand, bawdy, how do you just say so calm over crap like this?
Is it harsh to tattoo me on the forehead?
I guess I just cannot stay calm about such ri-god-damn-diculous shit that seems to be acceptable to the vast unwashed christian masses.
The sad thing is that it isn't just the 'unwashed christian masses'. That would almost be understandable. Abused by an under-privileged ignorant horde, one could make excuses for them. That is not the case here!!
derF
Perhaps I shoulda just said "vast unwashed masses"... but, then again, most of them seem to identify themselves as christians.
Where's your sense of humor?
That guy is wacked. We must boycott... oh wait. I already do. His acting sucks.
Here, csm, let me explain...
Harsh part:
"I hope he chokes and dies."
How about just one or the other? :)
Our Correction:
from "vast unwashed Christian masses" to "vast WASHED AND COIFFED Christian masses"
In addition, I DON'T expect YOU to stay calm, csm. That's what I love about you.
I wondered how BAWDY can stay so calm. That's what I love about him
Cheers!
When atheists are forced to have the American Flag and the motto "In God We Trust" tattooed on our foreheads we will have definitive proof the Constitution is dead.
This type of tripe is also proof to me all the decrepit denizens in Washington and their respective Hollywood mouthpieces have either never really read the Constitution, cannot understand the verbiage or never really liked the idea of freedom in the first place.
As far as how I can keep calm about dipshits such has Norris(I can honestly, say by the way, I have never seen any of this fuckers work(is canon too arty?))I take a lesson from my mother; I consider the source, and in this case, we are talking about a foul, smelly landfill. C'mon Joe, get that dozer and cover it over! Hurry up the stench is nauseating!
Jan says 'Harsh part:
"I hope he chokes and dies."
How about just one or the other?'
OK, I choose "dies"! Surprised?
csm you are just a stupid dip shit. The guy was obviously joking so get over your self. The loudest assholes are usually the most sesitive and usually the biggest offenders. Try calling upon Zeus.
Really, amber-alert? I s'pose the problem I had recognizing the "joke" is that jokes are usually funny, and Norris' stupid rambling was anything but...
Anyway, I guess then my response was a joke, too. See. Ha ha, ha ha. How funny we all can be.
I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?
So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.
But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."
Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.
Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.
From A Whore in the Temple of Reason
Dear amber-alert;
Don't worry, you're still a fuckin' asshole in my books.
Why I am Agnostic
From: Philosophical Poetry
From time to time during the classical ‘Does God Exist?’ debate, good old Aristotle will be dragged in, forced to testify (perhaps against his will?) that indeed, everything must have a first cause. The theist will point to that religiously ambiguous symbol of the modern age: the Big Bang.
The atheist buried deep in a philosophy of scientific materialism—and what atheist is not?—will calmly point out the glories of the Big Bang as a first cause to his system of thought. But the theist protests, for this event cannot puport to be a first cause at all, only an ordinary cause, albeit an important one in the physical history of the universe. Behind the Big Bang there hangs a curtain beyond which no one can reach, before which even the most prominent physicists of our day claim that science cannot touch at all. Accordingly the atheist’s own claim, that it is possible to give a total explanation of the universe in strictly physical terms, fails utterly, for he has only given a physical explanation from the Big Bang onward. He will not and cannot go further.
At first glance, the cosmological argument seems like an airtight argument for theism. But it is not, even in its more sophisticated forms. For the astute atheist will understand that the paradox facing him is no different than the one facing the theist. Both face an unexplainable: that they cannot explain things before a certain point in time. Stated another way, both the atheist and the theist must posit the existence of at least one eternal thing. Turning the words yet again, every individual who seeks a logically coherent system of thought must posit the existence of an unmoved mover or an uncaused cause.
It is possible that some less than educated atheists are uncomfortable with this statement. But unless they are willing to lay claim to an infinite regress of causes—turtles all the way down—they must come to this conclusion eventually. As must the theist.
The Antithesis
Both atheist and theist must then admit this paradox: that there exists something which has no cause, yet which itself causes all other things. The theist chooses one thing for his first cause, God; the atheist chooses another, the universe itself. There seems not to be any moral or metaphysical superiority to either view. They are equal but antithetical.
But are they truly equal?
There is a difference between the worldview of the atheist and the theist, and it is this: to the atheist, the world and everything in it is impersonal; whereas to the theist, the world and everything in it is personal. What seems like a choice between God and the universe itself develops into a choice between two very different ways of approaching reality. Loud protestations aside, scientific evidence does not support either view, for this choice is ultimately a philosophical one, not a scientific one.
Will you believe in an impersonal universe that in its final outworking destroys the significance of your own personhood? Or will you believe in a personal universe, lovingly designed, that glorifies your own person and the person who created all things: God?
The repartee and the unknown make life a captivating serious of paradoxes.
The thing I just cannot understand is why anybody would really care what another person's spiritual beliefs are; and if different, why they would make the effort to change their views. I guess if you were looking for a mate, maybe, but the situations for which this matters probably could be counted on one hand.(BTW, my wife of 25 years does believe in an intelligent being who kinda controls things down here, but she belongs to no organized religion, but to me that wouldn't matter either, I would love her just the same.) Is it just wanting to be right(naner-naner-naner)? Is it really just nice people wanting to see us heathens get to heaven(don't waste your breathe, guys)? It almost seems to me the reasons people have to try and change others in such basic personal beliefs have got to be based in some very bad traits engendered into our species. And if the subject isn't willing to change, they get a dose of a worse trait - ostracism.
I supposed it just made for appealing tête-à-tête. Agnostics seldom endeavor to alter opinion.
Why would anyone want to assume that the universe is either fully personal or purely material? Especially when all we experience tells us that is a mixture. Of course, all our personal interactions can be nothing but personal. If they impact other persons, they are personal.
However, there are many components of the universe that are not persons, not living entities and not sentient. This sense of self and self-importance that you, as a homo-sapient, feel is an experience limited to a small sub-set within living experiences. Beyond these these living experiences there are many form of existence that we can only observe and imagine.
To presume this human sense of self as an attribute of any 'other' besides fellow homo-sapients seems the height of hubris.
This becomes especially troubling when when one observes the impenetrable indifference with which made made systems and structures (governments, churches, corporations) regard our fellows .
lou,
If only religious discussions remained appealling tete-a-tetes. Many times they degenerate into heated arguments and even outright war.
The term personal is used more of an expression to delineate the liaison that many in the religious population have with their deity. This deity who creates and maintains their universe signifies a more resolute and personal relationship. Clearly each being does have a personal interaction with the universe regardless of the origin.
Interesting discussion, folks. Regarding changing people, there does seem to be a certain switch now with books from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens that purportedly want to influence others to not believe in god. Usually, it is the christians trying to influence everyone to become christian (not all christians, but the behavior is more endemic to christians than others in my experience).
It would seem to me that the atheists who have switched to proselytizing are doing so because of the negative impact that religion has on human behavior and culture. But personally, I just want people to leave their personal religious beliefs out of the political spectrum as the constitution demands - I don't give a shit what they choose to believe as long as the believe it without coercing me to pay for it, believe it, or spread it.
Nice piece on agnosticism. As I said elsewhere on this blog that is how I usually describe myself. Once as a bit of a joke I told someone I was a Zen Taoist. As to Chuck...or any given actor: For the most part I don't care what their political or religious views are. To me that has nothing to do with their acting and/or entertainment value. True, Chuck is not a great actor. I saw a few of his films back in the 80's. If all you expect is a schlocky action flick then they can be fun.
lou - how does a "personal" relationship with a deity work? Do u really believe that your god talks to u? If so how? If not how can u have a relationship - "personal" or otherwise? I'm truly curious - and yes - skeptical.
lou - I do note that u posted as an agnostic too... sorry if the previous question mischaracterizes your belief (or lack of belief) system
Follow this link for a very well-written essay on the true definitions for agnostic and atheist
Excellent article, thanks. Now I'm going to sound rather confused (if typed words can 'sound' any particular way). I think I can say I am an agnostic in both the original and the more commonly used sense.
Well, Ceroill, I don't think you "sound" confused at all. The original meaning -- "the belief that God’s existence is something that humans cannot be sure about" is something that any reasonable person would have to admit. Of course, the number of reasonable people "out there" is dwindling daily. The common definition -- "not being sure about God’s existence" seems to me to be one of the reasonable stances to take given acceptance of the original definition. I mean, if humans cannot know, then I guess being unsure is an acceptable response, no?
From the Essay:
“The broader purpose of this essay is to clarify terms and unite sides because, in reality, the agnostic and the atheist are on the same side. Both believe the Christian (Muslim, Hindu et. al.) hasn’t made their case.”
I always find it intriguing when the atheists commence to operate as the Christians. One gaffe here is the reality that atheist have not made their case either. Atheist as a group has become as dogmatic of God is an apparition as many religions are of God’s subsistence. One thing seems to be in common, they both want to save humanity.
From the Essay:
“Agnosticism” has been greatly misunderstood by modern audiences. The term’s original meaning has nearly been completely lost. Originally coined by Darwin’s attack-dog Thomas Huxley to describe himself as one who did not believe that God’s existence was knowable, agnosticism has been converted to mean one who does not know”.
Actually definitions often do transform over time. We do not know if God subsists and we do not know if it is possible to know that God subsists. That remains to be seen as time persists keeping in mind that space exploration was at one point science fiction. Could we define this as double agnosticism?
In any event, the quest is much more beguiling than the answer.
csm, cool. Seems that way to me too. It also reminds me of something I read several years back. For my own reasons I was doing research into Gypsies and their history and culture. While over the centuries they have absorbed much religious ideas from the cultures around them as they traveled, I found one point of view to be refreshing. While they did have a belief in an afterlife, they don't ponder too much what it's like. The idea being that since we have no way of knowing that, it's useless to speculate about. So they don't encourage curiosity about that point. Bear in mind this is an older traditional attitude and may not be all that common these days. I don't know.
Sounds like Gypsies may be apatheistic then, huh?
csm, not at all. They believe there is a god, but their traditional concept of the devil is a quite idiosyncratic. Basically they already had a concept of divinity by the time they encountered Christians, and they kept at least some of their old attitudes. In their language they use the same word for Devil and Fear, "Beng". They also believe that we each have two lives on this earth, one to live as we please, one to try and get it right. But we don't have any clue as to which life we're currently in. They just don't have a belief in Heaven and Hell. Again, bear in mind this is based on their older traditional ideas on such things. Oh, and by the way there are words in English that came from Romani. Not many, but Pal is one that I know of. Ok, I'll stop rambling now.
I don't view it as rambling! You are enlightening me about things I did not know... thanks!
Thanks. I try to be interesting without being a bore.
Post a Comment