Monthly Archive for September, 2006

Next Pope: John Paul II…?!?

John Paul II

Yesterday, I did what any blogger or webmaster shouldn’t ever do: I clicked on an ad on my own site. Well, doing it once shouldn’t make a difference… and I had to click on it. :) I don’t remember the exact text of the ad (refreshing the page isn’t showing it anymore), but the destination page is this: The Bible reveals next and last Pope will be a devil impersonating John Paul II.

How could anyone resist that? :)

That page, which is actually very well written, shows how Revelation 17 “tells” us some curious facts. It starts with an historically interesting part, about how the Papacy lost temporal power in 1798, and several Popes were “prisoners in the Vatican” for several decades, until the Vatican City was given to the Papacy, to be a sovereign country. This has prompted me to read more about it in Wikipedia (start here if you’re curious) about it. I found it quite interesting… and just because I’m an atheist, it doesn’t mean that I don’t like to learn about religion and its history.

The authors go further, though, and “show” how Revelation (a book that shows every sign of having been written under the influence of some bad mushrooms) tells us that the current Pope is the 7th of a list, will reign only for a short while, and the next one will be… a devil impersonating John Paul II. They also say that the Church will regain temporal power, then, with the Pope being above presidents and kings.

Now, I can perfectly accept that Benedict XVI will be there only for a short time: he’s been elected Pope while already quite old. But the John Paul II doppleganger… somehow, I have a problem believing that. :)

I could write much more about how absurd all of this is, but I don’t think it deserves that much. I’ll say this, though: unlike many other “prophecies”, this one is actually testable, and has a limited date: indeed, the current Pope will almost surely die in less than 15 years. Most of us will still be here, then. When the next one doesn’t look, act and talk exactly like John Paul II, including saying he’s actually John Paul coming back from the dead (I’d be amazed to see such a character be elected Pope, anyway…), what will the authors of that page do?

Admit they were wrong about that, and that they are, quite likely, wrong about other things as well? Admit that the Bible can’t be taken literally, if it can be “taken” at all?

I doubt it. They’ll do what theists always do in these cases: say they were “misunderstood” and meant something completely different, or pretend that they never said anything like that at all. Remove all traces of that page from the web, and, if confronted, deny everything.

Oh well. It was an excuse for learning a little bit of history… :)

Why do people believe in God?

Funny question, isn’t it?

If you don’t believe in (a) God, but live in a place where most people do, you’ve probably thought about this - even if just to understand others better. If you do believe, however, it’s likely that you know why you believe, but haven’t given much thought to what makes others believe.

Well, as readers of this blog know, I’m one of the former - I don’t believe in God or gods, but I like to understand people better. Therefore, I’ll try to list the several possible causes of belief in God, and add what I think about each. I mean mostly the Christian God, here, though I believe this list could apply to the other monotheistic religions.

The list isn’t probably complete, so, if you’re not included, please comment. :)

  1. You can’t explain the existence or origin of something, so you believe God must have done it. Once, we didn’t know the cause of a lot of things. Today, the last few remaining questions seem to be “how did the universe come to be” and “what is the origin of life”. This is the God of the Gaps, of course. Much like ancient people believed that Zeus or Thor created lightning, and were wrong, it’s quite likely that these last two questions also have a natural explanation - and, yet, we still make the same mistake that our ancestors did: come up with supernatural explanations, instead of simply admitting that we don’t know, yet.
  2. The universe seems too complex, too ordered, too beautiful, to have appeared naturally. A variant of the above, really. Things seem much too interconnected to have appeared randomly, and we have everything we need in this world to survive; it almost seems like the universe was made for us. A universe with billions of stars, and we’re on this infinitesimal planet… made for us, indeed. :) I may write more about this point in the future; it would make this post too long.
  3. You’ve been educated that way. I was, myself. But we shouldn’t accept “knowledge” on authority. Parents and teachers can lie (e.g. Santa Claus) or simply be wrong (the Earth being in the center of the universe, whites being superior to blacks, etc.). It’s always a bad idea to lose the ablity to question. Besides, as Richard Dawkins says, most people have the religion of their parents, which makes one’s religion a matter of chance - if you’d been born in Saudi Arabia, you’d be a muslim; in India, you’d be a hindu, and so on. If you accept your parents’ religion, it was randomly selected, in a way - so why be so sure it’s the “real” one?
  4. You feel that your faith in something greater than yourself gives your life purpose and meaning. This is a very common one. Life seems so random, so ephemeral, and so pointless… surely, there’s got to be something more, doesn’t it? Trouble is, this is no more than wishful thinking. We want it to be true, therefore it must be true. Besides, life - wordly life, in our reality - is much more fascinating and meaningful than these people believe.
  5. You’ve “felt” the presence / touch of God. Another common one. Feelings or sensations, as we know, are subjective. Quite often, we feel what we expect to feel, or what we want to feel - it’s either a placebo effect, or wishful thinking, again. Besides, if the only thing God does is to make us feel “warm inside” from time to time (if you believe in him for just this reason, that’s what you’re implying), then does such a God deserve worship? He’s no more than a “spiritual foot warmer”, after all…
  6. It’s comforting to believe that someone is taking care of you. It is, indeed - but, if the reason for such comfort doesn’t exist, it can actually be dangerous. It’s like convincing yourself that you have Superman-like powers, or that your (perfectly common) shirt is bullet-proof. If you behave according to those beliefs, you’ll probably injure yourself, or even die. If you don’t, then you don’t really believe, right? Anyway, this is - once again - wishful thinking. Believing (whether it’s true or not) feels good, so you believe.
  7. You’re afraid of death, and want to believe that it’s not the end, that you simply go to a better place. Wishful thinking, once again. In reality, things don’t become true just because we want them to be true. Alternatively, it may not be about you: sometimes, the death of a loved one causes you to need to believe that the essential part of them isn’t really dead, it’s just gone to a better place, where there is no more suffering, and where you’ll meet them someday.
  8. You feel that (finite) life in this world is meaningless unless there’s something afterwards. In other words, if, no matter what you do, you die and turn to dust, what difference does it make whatever you do in your life? So you have to believe that there’s something more. However, not only is this wishful thinking (again…), but it’s a limiting view of life. If you believe that the purpose of life is something “exterior”, then this view makes sense; however, if you instead believe that the purpose of life is life itself - that is, that life needs no external justification, and is worth it on its own - not to mention that it can be utterly enjoyable, and that you actually can make a difference while you’re here -, then you can easily see what’s wrong with this view of existence.
  9. You want to believe that there’s some kind of absolute, perfect justice in the universe, even if only after death. I’d like that, too. Really. You can’t imagine how strongly I wish that was true. I’ve seen monsters living in luxury their entire lives, and never paying for their crimes, and I’ve seen terrible things happen unfairly to good people - sometimes randomly, sometimes caused by the monsters I mentioned. I wish that both would get what they deserve. It would be so… comforting to believe so. Unfortunately, wishing doesn’t make it so. The best thing we can do is try to make things better here, not resign ourselves and hope for some kind of “justice” later.
  10. You’ve had some unusual experience that made you believe. Not necessarily a miracle (that’s the next one), but an “amazing coincidence”. Say, you prayed for something that was quite improbable, and it happened. The problem here is usually referred to as “counting the hits and ignoring the misses”. I’ll write more about it in the near future.
  11. You’ve witnessed an apparent miracle. Now, this should be it, right? I mean, if you witness an actual miracle, it means, at least, that the supernatural exists - not necessarily God (or gods), but at the very least there’s something out there, right? So, what are those miracles? Oddly enough, they are always one of the following:
    • A disease goes into remission, or actually vanishes, even though doctors were pessimistic;
    • Someone “speaks in tongues”, or acting as if they were possessed;
    • Something, by random chance, looks like a religious entity (such as Jesus or the Virgin Mary in tree bark, or in a slice of pizza);
    • Statues or pictures of religious entities, usually in a church, appear to “cry” or “bleed”;

    And that’s it. All but the first are so absurd that they don’t deserve consideration (if all that God does is appear on slices of pizza, then that’s not a god I’d want to worship anyway…). And that one, well, doctors can make mistakes, and there’s still much about the human body and diseases that we don’t know. Still, if it was actually God doing it, and since God has no limits, then why doesn’t he heal amputees? Are those “beyond” God? Does God hate them for some reason?

  12. You’re desperate for a miracle. Similar to the previous one, but in this case the “miracle” hasn’t happened yet. But you’re desperate, and ready to try anything, including becoming religious - or, possibly, changing religions.
  13. You see your death getting closer and closer. You don’t really want your existence to end. If something - anything - promises that it won’t, that there is an afterlife, you grab it.
  14. The example of another believer or believers inspired you. I’d say that this is actually more common in less religious societies, like in Europe, than in more fundamentalist ones, like the US or Muslim countries. I’ve seen it happen myself. Some of the best people I knew in my youth were devout believers (though not fundamentalists), and they radiated happiness and love wherever they went. It’s quite natural for others to be inspired by them. But I’d say that they weren’t good people because of religion; they’d be good people anyway.
  15. Other believers were there for you when you needed it. Similar to the above, and, again, I know cases like that. Say, you were going through a bad phase, your close family rejected you for some reason, you didn’t have any real friends, and the only people who really cared and tried to help were members of a church. It’s understandable that you may start to believe, too. Still, I maintain that you don’t need God or religion to be a good, caring human being. There are good and bad theists, and good and bad atheists.
  16. You like the sense of community that comes from belonging to a church. Again, similar. In this particular case, curiously, you don’t even need God; it’s the group itself, and its activities, that makes you feel like a part of something.
  17. Being told what to do and what to think comforts you. Sad, but true. A lot of people don’t want the burden and the responsibility of having to think and decide for themselves, and anyone or anything who relieves them of that burden and responsability will have their hearts and minds. This doesn’t happen only with religion, of course. Many people join groups - religious or otherwise - just so they can be told what to do and think.
  18. While reading the Bible, something made you believe. I almost didn’t include this one, as I’m convinced that reading the Bible, critically and dispassionately, and in its entirety, will unconvert at least ten people for each one it helps converting. Almost everyone who reads the Bible already believes; I’ve never heard of someone believing just because they read the Bible. Even most Christians are forced to ignore most of it.

And that’s it. I’ve tried to be comprehensive, but it’s possible that I missed a couple of reasons.

Now, please be honest: if you’re a believer, do you fit into one (or more) of the above? Or is your case different? I’d like to know. :)

The Origin of Morality

Note: this post is a reply to a comment by Matt in a previous thread.

Where does morality come from, anyway?

Most theists believe it comes from God. In other words, morality - or “good” - is obeying God. Whatever it is that God wants, becomes moral; it follows that doing what God doesn’t want is immoral.

Putting aside, for now, the problem of determining what God really wants (not to mention whether he actually exists), which should already be enough reason not to accept this definition of morality, there’s a more important problem here: it’s arbitrary.

If morality is simply obeying or pleasing some being (whether human or divine), what about that being’s own morality? What if that being is wrong, or actually “evil”? I’ve dealt with this one before, in The Morality of God. What most theists do, here, is say that God is “above morality” - that he can’t be judged by us, or by anyone, that whatever God does is by definition “good”, and any rules he gives us don’t apply to him. In other words, if I kill someone, it’s immoral (not because murder is wrong for any reason, but simply because God said so), but if God kills someone, he was moral in doing so… because he sets the rules.

I believe it stands to reason that morality 1) must apply to each and everyone, instead of having someone “above morality” (much like a ruler can’t be above the law), and 2) can’t come just from someone’s desires or whims. If I believed God existed, but was evil, I wouldn’t worship him anyway - and if the price for that was hell, then, as I’ve read somewhere, nobody would be safe from such a monster anyway.

Now, a great many people believe, instead, that morality comes from society, that it’s defined by what society believes - or, in other words, by what most people believe. To them, morality is simply a social construct, there’s no reason why this is moral and that is immoral, other than it being accepted so by society.

If you think a little about it, it should be obvious that this way of thinking has the same problem: it’s arbitrary. Who’s to say that the majority is always right? Not a long time ago, slavery was accepted. Was it moral, back then? Did it become “wrong” only after most people came to believe it was wrong?

What about some of the more primitive Muslim countries today, where women are seen as downright inferior beings, with no voice at all, and rape is OK? Is it “moral” to do so, just because that’s what most people there believe? What about racism? Just a few decades ago, non-whites were seen as inferior… were they really inferior? Was it “moral” to be a racist, at the time?

What should define “moral”, then? I don’t have an absolute answer, but, in my opinion, morality should come from one’s love of life, from empathy to other human beings, and from rational principles.

I don’t kill my neighbor for his money. Why don’t I do it? Not because some god told me not to. Not because society tells me not to. Not because of fear of punishment - either divine or legal.

Instead, I don’t do it - and I don’t feel tempted to do it - because I don’t want to live in a world where people kill their neighbors for their money. That’s not a rational, civilized world; it’s a world of brutes, of beasts, of predators. That’s not the world I want for me, for my family, for my friends, and for my kids (when I have them).

I want to live as a rational being, and, to me, it’s moral to do so. I need no “compulsion” from God or society.

The "morality" of God

In the Dwindling in Unbelief blog, there’s a post about how many people God has killed in the Bible (assuming all of it is true, of course). As the author says, many times the number isn’t stated (such as “every firstborn in Egypt”, or “that entire city”, or “everyone in the world except Noah and his wife”), but there are also many times where it is. The author is only counting those, of course.

The number, by the way, is 2,270,365. Not too bad.

Now (again, assuming that it all happened), we could argue whether those people really deserved to be killed, or whether some were killed just because of innocent mistakes, or for waging war on Israel (or having Israel wage war on them), or simply for already living in a land that God had “promised” to the Israelites.

Surely, if we were talking about a human being - say, an emperor of a large empire - instead of a deity who created the universe, we’d be describing him using terms such as “cruel”, “sadistic”, “insane”, “mass-murderer”, and “with temper tantrums like those of a spoiled child”. But we don’t - after all, this is God, right?

Because… well, we could say that “for God, there are different standards of morality”. But it’s more than that. For most Christians (and theists in general), God is the standard of morality!

Their belief goes like this: whatever God does, is moral. Whatever God wants, is good. Goodness is obeying God - if God wants the murder of someone, murdering that someone is good. Same thing for torture, rape, and so on. There are no objective standards of morality; it all comes from a single being and his desires.

In my opinion, that is a hideous way of thinking. By defining good as “what God wants”, you are refusing all standards; we all become rats in a maze. It’s no different than, say, having a mad, sadistic emperor who orders people tortured or killed on whims - and yet he is above any law, as he’s the emperor.

Therefore, we get comments like this one, in that post’s discussion:

The question you did not ask was; Is God justified in killing these people.

If God is who He says He is, then He is justified in all that He does. He is the ultimate standard for what is just and unjust.

He can kill who He pleases and is righteous in doing it.

Repugnant. How anyone can believe such a thing… is beyond me.

What if there is a god, but he’s evil? What if he’s cruel, sadistic, and demands human sacrifice, like the Aztecs believed their gods did? Is it “moral” to obey such a being? The author of that comment - who, I believe, is representative of most Christians - would believe so.

The Dark Side of the Bible, part 1

Bible

I don’t think anyone - Christian or not - will disagree with me when I say that the Bible - the Old Testament and the New Testament - is the most important book to Christianity. From the “liberal” Christians who think of it as a collection of tales and parables, inspired by God, to the more fundamentalist Christians who believe that it’s the literal word of God, and that everything written in it happened exactly that way, its importance to Christians cannot be overestimated.

Yet, it’s surprising how the majority of Christians don’t really know most of their Bible, having never read it, or most of it, in their lifetimes. They only know the parts they hear in church sermons: usually, the beginning of Genesis, parts of Exodus, the Gospels, and parts of Paul’s letters.

Which strikes me as very odd, to say the least. I don’t know about you, but if I truly believed, with all my heart, that this one book was the word of God - either inspired, or literal -, and that what was inside that book could mean the difference between salvation and hell, I’d find the time to read it!

Think about it. If you’re a Christian, why haven’t you read the Bible from beginning to end, and possibly several times? You don’t have the time? Too busy with your job? I’d think that the salvation of your eternal soul, and the better understanding of God’s word, would be worth taking less work home for a couple of nights. After all, is your reputation at the office more important than knowing the word of God?

Or maybe you don’t like to read. Fine, a lot of people don’t. Still, it’s your soul! Eternal, never-ending. If you can’t be inconvenienced to do something you don’t enjoy even once, if you can’t be bothered to know his word, will God be pleased with your dedication? I doubt it.

The problem goes even further than this. In early medieval times, the Bible wasn’t translated to most languages (translating it was a part of Martin Luther’s “heresy”), and even masses were in Latin; the priests were the intermediaries between the common people and the Bible, and that was exactly how then wanted it. Ignorant people would believe anything the priests said, and were much easier to control.

These days, on the other hand, translated Bibles are everywhere, and many newer translations are in modern English, and easy to read, instead of being in archaic English, like in the King James version. So, there should be no excuse, right?

And, yet, I don’t think priests / pastors / ministers really encourage their “flock” to read the Bible, except for some of the more common parts. Can it be because they don’t want to lose their relevance as intermediaries between men and God, as it was with medieval priests? That may be a part of it, but I think that the main reason is something else.

And that reason is this: many people would be horrified by several parts of the Bible, and might reject it outright. And I don’t mean just the Old Testament. Therefore, Christians are fed the “nicer” parts, and aren’t really encouraged to read the rest of the word of God.

Which parts? What’s really in the Bible that may be repulsive to modern people? That’s for part 2, as this one is already getting too long. :)

What is the most important thing about you?

If you believe your skin color is the most important thing about you, you are wrong.

If you believe your nationality is the most important thing about you, you are wrong.

If you believe your gender is the most important thing about you, you are wrong.

If you believe your heterosexuality or homosexuality is the most important thing about you, you are wrong.

All of the above beliefs make as much sense as thinking that you are defined by your hair color, eye color, height, and so on.

Why? Because all of them were “decided” before you were born! You didn’t choose any of them.

An individual is defined by his or her choices. Those are the only things in his life that are up to him or her.

And, yet, people give a huge importance to skin color, gender, nationality and so on, as if one of those was their most important quality, their main reason to be proud. It probably gives a comfortable feeling of “belonging”… but belonging to what? It’s not even some group you chose to join! You didn’t decide, or do, anything.

Are all your deeds and your personality so small, so insignificant, that they’re eclipsed by the fact that you were born in a particular country instead of any of the others? Don’t you see how you are diminishing yourself, as an individual, by believing that the most important thing about you was randomly “decided”?

The facts that I’m male, white, Portuguese and heterosexual don’t define me. They’re all parts of what I am, but not the most important parts. I was born that way. What defines me is what I did afterwards. What I chose to do - either good or bad, right or wrong. My choices.

We’re all individuals, and we’re much more than our genes or our place or birth.

Nine Eleven

Five years ago today, something terrible happened. Without warning, thousands of innocents were killed by a terrorist attack, which changed the world… for the worse.

Even though I’m not American, I remember feeling shocked and horrified that day. Things like that simply didn’t happen in a civilized world… or did they? And all those deaths. It was something dreadful, and anyone who says that America “deserved it” - whether it’s other terrorists, fundamentalist Muslim leaders, or Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson - is a moronic, disgusting human being.

Yet, to a group of people, it was the best thing that could have happened.

What’s changed since 2001?

People remain paranoid about terrorist attacks. People believe that terrorists may strike at any moment - much like the climate of nuclear fear in the 1950s.

America is more nationalist than ever, up to a “my country, right or wrong” point; anyone who says the United States may have acted wrongly is a “pinko commie liberal traitor”, or something like that.

The world economy is worse than it was in many decades. In the 90s everything grew, in the 2000s everything shrank. Things are still so bad that many people believe that employers do employees a favor by employing them, instead of it being a fair trade which benefits both sides, as any employment should be.

America is more religious and fundamentalist than ever. Many attempts against science have been made by religious groups, for religious purposes. Stem cell research and abortions are fundamentally “evil”, but a brain dead woman must be kept alive at all costs. Separation between church and state is increasingly becoming a myth, and the Constitution is constantly spat on by lying politicians who insist that “America was founded on Christian principles”. And no, it wasn’t.

By assuming a state of “perpetual war” against a concept such as “terror”, instead of a tangible enemy, a war which has already lasted longer than the US’s involvement in WWII, the government has successfully obtained “carte blanche” to do just about anything it wants. After all, in times of war, it’s “traitorous” and “unpatriotic” to criticize the government or the president. They say so, and people believe it. The president actually becomes above the law. Gee, why not be at war at all times, then? Which, of course, is exactly the case today.

The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. Illegal wiretapping. Arrests and imprisonment without trial. Secret prisons. Torture. Need I go on about the huge loss of freedom? And yet they say they’re fighting for it…

A couple of wars have been started, and at least one of them was based on lies, greed for oil, and the “be in a permanent state of war” absolute power that I mentioned above. A lot of people were fooled by those lies, and whoever wasn’t was, again, branded “a traitor” and “unpatriotic”. Or “a liberal”, or “an appeaser”, or…

Before, he was an unpopular president who had “won” an election in uncertain terms, and had his “victory” handed out to him by a court. But George W. Bush, in a couple of hours, became a “hero” and a “savior”, the “defender of the land of the free”. And won the next election, which would never have happened if Americans were judging him for the state of the economy, the conditions of living, and so on. Hmm, I bet he was really sad when 9/11 happened…

The rest of the world isn’t much better. By not standing up to the United States’ policies, both the EU and the UN lost most of their credibility. Almost everyone outside the US knew that the stated reasons for the Iraq war were obvious lies, and yet nobody had the courage to do a thing about it.

In short, the world is now much worse than it was.

Blame the terrorists first? Sure. Note that I haven’t mentioned any of the theories that say that the Bush administration knew about 9/11 and let it happen, or actually did it. It’s certainly possible - they’re the ones who benefitted by it the most - but I don’t know enough to make any accusations about it. So I won’t.

What I know is that they’re responsible for what happened afterwards. The climate of terror, the loss of civil liberties, the wars, the religious fundamentalism, the international bullying, the “either you’re with us or against us - and therefore a traitor” attitude… I blame Bush and everyone around him for that.

I don’t know about you, but if I had lost someone in 9/11, I’d despise anyone who used my pain for his own gains. Even if he was the president.

Individualism and X-Men: The Last Stand

I’d like to draw your attention to this blog post: X-Men 3: Libertarian Masterpiece.

An excerpt:

The major development in the 3rd film is the creation of a “cure” for mutation. Any mutant exposed to it will lose his or her special powers and become a regular human. Though it is offered on a volunteer basis, the mutants are divided between those who would do anything for the chance at a “normal” life and those who would do anything to protect the mutant “identity.” It is no small irony that all of this takes place in San Francisco, of all places.

Things escalate and battle lines are drawn. What had been a completely voluntary cure becomes less so. At this point, we recognize the twin bigotries of social conservatism and identity politics. On the right, we have the populist masses and the government who are driven by fear of that which is different. On the left, we have members of minority groups who place their group identity above all else, and who are driven by fear of the loss of that identity. Any mutant desiring the cure is a traitor. Any mutant deviating from the group’s stance is a threat. Therefore the cure, and its supporters, must be eliminated.

The X-Men offer a third way, the only way not driven by bigotry: Individual choice, not decisions forcibly made by society or an identity group. One of the X-Men decides that she would rather be normal than a mutant. Instead of denying that choice or deeming her a traitor, she is told to think about what is best, personally, for herself. Individuals who mean no harm to anyone deserve the right to control their lives. This is the heart of libertarianism.

I don’t think I could have said it better. :)

Continue reading ‘Individualism and X-Men: The Last Stand’

New features in WotM

Well, I’ve finally made Way of the Mind catch up with the times. It’s 2006, after all, not 2004. :)

Here’s what’s new:

  • New theme: you’ve probably noticed that one already. :) It’s based on K2, instead of being based on one based on another based on another (whew!) based on the old Kubrick. I hope you don’t hate the colors too much. :) My main goal was for it to be readable and easy on the eyes, instead of “pretty”.
  • Recent comments list: it’s on the right sidebar. The commenter’s name is more visible (darker) when the comment is more recent, and you can also see the total number of comments, or click on the commenter’s name to go there.
  • Time since each post: as in “Published by Pedro Timóteo 1 week, 2 days ago”.
  • Improved quoting: there’s a “Quote” link near each comment, which will automatically quote it all into the new comment entry area (though you can, and should, edit out the parts you’re not replying to). You can also select a part of a post or comment, and click on “Quote selected text”, under the entry area, to quote it. Try it, it’s makes it much easier.
  • Minor usability improvements: for instance, adding a new comment doesn’t require a page reload anymore.
  • More visible “search”: it was already working perfectly, but it’s more visible now, and it already has some instructional text (automatically erased when you start typing) in the search box.
  • “Related posts” list moved: It’s on the sidebar, now. Naturally, it’s only visible when you’re viewing an individual post, not on the front page.

By the way, there are still a few alterations to be done, and I’m already aware of a couple of problems (for instance, the “About the blog” and “About me” pages are gone, but they’ll be back). Still, if you have any suggestions, or have spotted other problems, please let me know, I’ll appreciate it.

Oh, and there will be a new, real post later today. :) I apologize for the delay.




Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal