Way of the Mind

ArchivePage 3 of 29

Childish stupidity among Democrats?

Published

on March 27, 2008

. 3 Comments

Just as reports of thousands of Republicans switching to the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania came streaming in this week, Gallup says Democrats are equally intent on crossing over to the GOP and voting for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if a candidate they do not support wins the Democratic party nomination.

The pollster said 28 percent of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY)supporters and 19 percent of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) supporters would vote for McCain if their candidate lost the party nomination.

I have one little question for these 28% of Clinton supporters and 19% of Obama supporters:

**Are you retarded or something!?!?**

Do you have any idea of what the consequences of such petulance, such stubbornness, such “I’m taking him/her down with me” sore losing, such stupidity are? Do you hate your candidate’s Democratic rival so much, so irrationally, that you’re prepared to condemn your country to 4 more years of neoconservatism? Do you have any idea what the party of war, torture, tax cuts to the rich, wiretapping, and the Religious Right, emboldened by a third victory in a row, can do to your country and even to the rest of the world?

Do you honestly think — that is, assuming you think at all, which I find doubtful — that the Democratic candidate other than your favorite is as bad, or even worse, as McCain, even though he or she has positions on the issues much closer to your candidate’s than McCain?

Have you even considered the fact that, regardless of whether Obama or Clinton wins, the administration will be filled with Democrats, while McCain will keep the Republican thugs who have done so much damage?

I don’t like Hillary myself. I think she just cares about power, about getting elected, and that she should have conceded already. But I’d never, in a million years, say I’d rather have McCain, or that they’re as bad as each other. And anyone who claims that much, who supports McCain out of childish, unthinking spite, is a complete imbecile, and shouldn’t even be considered mature enough to vote.

Democrats and Fighting Words

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 27, 2008

in politics

. 1 Comment

PZ just linked to this article about how Democrats and liberals need to stop being so afraid of offending or “being rude” and call things what they are.

I completely agree. I think this has been going on far too long. Democrats — and this includes the likes of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and company — seem to be deathly afraid of sounding “rude”. They never call things what they are, never really criticize the Republicans or the Bush administration, never even tell their opponents “you’re wrong” because, well, they might be offended. Even hurt! And we don’t want that, do we?

Even more disgusting is the way Democrats are afraid of looking “liberal”, as if that is a dirty word, and do everything they can to distance themselves from that, and sound “republican”. And, like I said before (though I think Ebonmuse said it first), even a foreigner like me can see the obvious: between a Republican and a Republican-wannabe, Republicans will vote for the real thing and Democrats will stay at home.

Republicans are bullies. That’s what they’re all about. Democrats need to stop trying to appease the bullies (which never works anyway), and begin to stand up to them. Call things by their name. Don’t accept their warped definitions, such as “patriotism” (a.k.a. not criticizing the administration, and wearing flag pins), “morality” (saying “God” and “Jesus” every five words), the “war on terror” (curtailing civil liberties and invading unrelated countries), and so on. They’re nothing but bullies, but even a bully may appear to many a better leader than someone cowed by bullies.

My favorite part of the article:

Liberals, still stunned by the way a legitimate combat vet like Kerry was beaten by a combat-dodging spoiled brat like Bush, never understood that for millions of voters, the question wasn’t how well Kerry fought in Vietnam but whether he would fight in 2004.

Would he defend himself when called out by the gang of disgusting bullies Bush had gathered around himself? It would have been so simple, so glorious, if he’d just turned on his accusers and reacted like a human being: “You’re questioning my record on behalf of a skunk like Bush who spent the war with the Alabama National Guard, and then went AWOL from the Guard?”

Millions of American voters were waiting, hoping Kerry would react like any sane person would have. He never did. I don’t know why not; I assume he was in the hands of some Clinton gurus who babbled about “rising above the fray.” Well, that sure worked well.

Darwin Mit Uns?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 26, 2008

in creationism, evolution, honesty and religion

. 0 Comments

I ask my readers (yes, you and that other one over there ) to please, please, spread this image (originally posted here) as much as possible.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I think that this is a perfect example. A simple picture shows the utter, disgusting dishonesty of the creationists behind Expelled’s attempt to rewrite history in order to blame evolution for Nazism.

Apparently, the Nazis themselves didn’t agree with Ben Stein…

Judaism, Christianity and Islam: is it really "the same god"?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 24, 2008

in christianity, islam, judaism and religion

. 6 Comments

While it is common for the more fundamentalist believers to believe that following their religion (or even their variant) is the only way to be saved, more liberal believers tend to claim that Judaism, Christianity and Islam worship basically the same god, that they are just varying interpretations of the same deity, and of the same “truth”.

I beg to differ.

Yes, the three main monotheistic religions have the same historical origins. Both Christianity and Islam claim to be extensions of Judaism, revere the same patriarchs (such as Moses or Abraham), but then add new claims, and refuse some of the original ones. I am not disputing this fact. Even the two newer religions’ holy books either include parts of the old one, or are inspired by it.

But having the same historical origin doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re the same religion, or that they worship the same god. Not when they claim that their god has completely different attributes — sometimes even opposing ones.

Think about it. Is God a being who needed the blood of his son (which is also himself) in order to forgive humanity for their sins? One religion says yes, the other two say no. And whether the answer is yes or no, it means God has a completely different character than he would have otherwise. Does he need blood, suffering and sacrifice in order to forgive? Or can he do it on his own? Is he the kind of being who believes that guilt can be passed from those responsible to an innocent, or is he not?

I can argue that a god who wants and needs a bloody sacrifice is very different from one who doesn’t. Unless God is schizophrenic, one can’t rationally argue that it’s the same god. Either he wants that, or he doesn’t — to say that he wants it from some of his believers and not from others is far too ridiculous. In other words, if Christianity is right about that facet of God, then Judaism and Islam must necessarily be wrong — and vice-versa.

It’s easy to find more examples. Take hell, for instance. To me, with my human imagination, I cannot imagine something worse, more terrible, than the idea of eternal punishment. Can you even grasp the meaning of “eternal”? Human minds can’t quite conceive of it. Even eternal boredom, without any actual, active torture, would be a fate infinitely worse than any kind of finite torture inflicted on Earth by the worst imaginable sadist. It also follows that there can be possibly no crime — even hypothetically — that warrants such a punishment. No finite action, no finite crime or “sin” is ever deserving of an eternal anything — much less eternal torture. It follows that a god who does inflict such a fate on even one sentient being would be more unjust, more sadistic, more evil than our minds can conceive of.

Yet, of the three monotheisms, two say God is that evil. The other one says otherwise (there is no hell in Judaism, and the Old Testament says several times that death is final). Can “more evil than we can conceive” be the same as otherwise? Either God is the ultimate sadist, or he isn’t; it’s absurd to claim that Jewish sinners die a final death, but Christians and Muslims go to a lake of fire and burn for eternity. If that was so, then either God was insane, or we’d have to be talking about two very different gods.

I could go on. Does God have a favorite group, a “chosen people”? One religion says he does, and therefore doesn’t actively attempt to recruit outside of it. The other two say differently.

I’m not claiming that there are three different gods, each one worshipped by its own religion. In fact, I don’t believe that even one exists (what with being an atheist and all). My point is that the three monotheisms worship vastly different gods, with vastly different personalities and desires. They can’t all be right, of course. In fact, even if one was right, the other two would have to be abysmally wrong — worshipping not just a slightly different variant of the same god, but one with completely different (and often opposite) traits. Despite the historical origins, whatever the three main religions worship these days can’t possibly be considered the same god — unless, of course, God is the ultimate case of multiple personality disorder.

FAQ: What do you atheists worship, then?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 20, 2008

in atheism and atheism faq

. 3 Comments

It depends on what you mean by “worship”. If you mean admire, respect, try to emulate, or believe in, I can’t answer your question, as every atheist is different. There’s nothing in the “atheist” tag that specifies any of those about a person.

If you mean in a religious sense… the answer is simple: nothing.

Now, many believers are brought up to believe that worship is an essential, universal part of the human condition; in other words, everyone worships someone or something. Since atheists don’t believe in gods — and, more specifically, they don’t believe in your god –, you may have been taught, or may have concluded yourself, that atheists worship someone or something else. Common theist claims about our objects of worship include:

ourselves
humanity
Darwin
Dawkins
materialism
wealth
science
reason
evolution
nature
communism
nihilism
other gods than yours (which contradicts the definition of “atheist”, but never mind that…)
Satan (!)

Needless to say, all those claims are false.

Atheists don’t worship, in the religious sense. We may respect, we may admire, we may even feel awed (and many of us frequently do — for instance, by nature or science). But “worship” implies something different.

Worship, much like religion, or having a car, is not an essential part of what being a sentient being is. Some do it (believers, in general), some don’t.

(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)

Obama’s speech on race

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 19, 2008

in politics and racism

. 1 Comment

You owe it to yourself to watch it (below), or at least read it.

Excerpt:

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

Arthur C. Clarke on Creationism

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 19, 2008

in christianity, creationism, quotes, religion and short posts

. 0 Comments

If I was a religious person, I would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created that whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading mankind?

– Arthur C. Clarke

(seen on Life Without Faith, in a post about Clarke’s recent death)

Let Nihilism Reign Supreme!

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 18, 2008

in atheism, books and nihilism

. 4 Comments

… or not.

Both PZ and Ebonmuse have mentioned a recent book by Chris Hedges, author of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America (which I haven’t read), called I Don’t Believe in Atheists. Hedges introduces his book in this essay, and, though those two much more esteemed bloggers than myself have already done so, I can’t refrain from adding my part.

Hedges writes:

The New Atheist authors [...] embrace a belief system as intolerant, chauvinistic, and bigoted as that of religious fundamentalists. They too propose a route to collective salvation. They too believe in the moral advancement of the human species, this time through science and reason. The utopian dream of a perfect society and a perfect human being, the idea that we are moving toward collective salvation, is one of the most dangerous legacies of the Christian faith and of the Enlightenment. Those who believe in the possibility of this perfection often call for the silencing or eradication of human beings who are defined by them as impediments to human progress. They turn their particular good into a universal good. They are blind to their own corruption and capacity for evil. They soon commit evil not for evil’s sake but to make a better world. And they do this in the name of religion or science or reason.

Now, if you know anything at all about atheists, if you know any of us personally, if you read atheist blogs (never mind being an atheist yourself), you’re probably as shocked right now as I was when I read the above for the first time. “Intolerant”? “Chauvinistic”? “Bigoted”? Excuse me?!? On what grounds does Hedges call atheists that? Well, here’s his argument: we believe in making the world a better place. We don’t believe human beings are intrinsically and irrevocably evil. The nerve of these pesky atheists! Don’t we know that the world can’t become better in any way? Furthermore, the very fact that we want to try makes us not only more evil than everyone else, but actually dangerous — because we have some dreams of “utopia” and will, inevitably, sacrifice and kill anyone who gets in our way.

Say what!??

Continue reading ‘Let Nihilism Reign Supreme!’

Double standards by conservative hypocrites… what a surprise

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 17, 2008

in politics

. 1 Comment

I call your attention to this piece on OpEdNews. Apparently, Barack Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was quote-mined for controversial remarks, and he had a few choice ones, and, of course, conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly are calling for Obama’s head, or at least for him to unequivocally condemn Wright.

The article reveals the conservatives’ hypocrisy by showing videos where Republican politicians / candidates accepted endorsements from much worse, and nobody called for them to distance themselves from the endorsers. We’re talking about people who have made anti-Semitic comments, blamed 9/11 and Katrina on “teh gay”, and so on… and yet endorse candidates and advise presidents. I think this should be widely known — ignorance and obscurity only helps those vermin to thrive.

The Four Hoursemen of the ATHEIST Apocalypse!

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 17, 2008

in atheism and humor

. 1 Comment

I just loved this comic.

I especially appreciate the contrast, when the very familiar-looking horsemen speak, with extremely scary looks on their faces, and horror movie poster-like letters, of an “apocalypse” I’d love to see become reality.

“FACTS WILL STRADDLE THE EARTH AS A COLOSSUS, AND YOU SHALL LIVE IN THEIR SHADOW!!”

(Seen first on Measured Against Reality)

Transfer of blame, and child abuse

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 14, 2008

in christianity and religion

. 3 Comments

Source: Cectic

Besides the obvious child abuse shown in the comic — and yes, telling a child about hell is child abuse, no matter how you put it –, I find the mother in the comic morally repugnant for another reason: cowardice. She is unwilling to take responsibility for her actions, and doesn’t come out and say “obey me, or I’ll punish you.” Instead, she has to invoke an external, supernatural entity who will punish the child for disobedience — and when one fails, she comes up with another… one which, sadly, most people don’t outgrow before they’re 5 years old, unlike the former. She’s such a coward that she lies just so that the child doesn’t see her as a source of discipline and therefore never resents her. Never mind that parents should be a source of discipline; it’s their responsibility, after all, what with being parents and everything.

Richard Dawkins and Douglas Adams, on the purpose of things, and a certain Dish of the Day

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 13, 2008

in atheism, nature and science

. 2 Comments

I just stumbled upon this, by browsing through a couple of other Dawkins-related videos on YouTube. I didn’t know such a thing even existed, though I knew Dawkins and Adams were friends, of course. Anyway, if you’re a fan of either, you’ll love this:

While not very well known compared to others, this was always one of my favorite parts of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, and I even told it to friends and co-workers a couple of times in my youth. To see and hear Adams himself reading it is a treat, to say the least. Also, Dawkins looks incredibly young — it feels a bit weird, in a way, as I’d just been watching his talk at UW Madison, from just 2 days ago (look here), and the difference is astounding, though I’m glad to see that he hasn’t yet lost his sense of humor.

P.S. - if you don’t see the video above, it’s probably because you’re reading this in an aggregator; in that case, just look here…