Fanaticism | Way of the Mind

Tag Archive for 'fanaticism'Page 2 of 3

The abortion referendum in Portugal

Published

on February 12, 2007

in fanaticism, freedom, morality and politics

. 15 Comments

This concerns mostly my own country, but I felt I had to post about this.

While way too many people were too self-centered (”this doesn’t concern me, so I won’t move my ass”) to do anything at all (only about 40% of the population actually voted), still, the results were positive: the “don’t send women to prison anymore” side won. It shows that the Portuguese people are slowly, but surely, leaving the Middle Ages.

Today’s referendum, no matter what the fundies said, wasn’t about “saving lives” (anyone who really needs to have an abortion, will almost surely get one — even if it involves falling down a flight of stairs –, and who is concerned about their lives?). It was, instead, a choice between those who believe people should be free to decide things for themselves, and those who feel they have the “right” to control other people’s lives, to impose their own morality upon the rest.

Fortunately, and while the result isn’t “binding” (the turnout was too low), the former group won, and the prime minister has promised to use their parliament majority to change the law. It’s great to feel proud of my country, for a change.

Next Pope: John Paul II…?!?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on September 28, 2006

in christianity, fanaticism, religion and stupidity

. 8 Comments

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…

Nine Eleven

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on September 11, 2006

in fanaticism, politics, society, terrorism and violence

. 27 Comments

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.

"All things are possible"…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 11, 2006

in fanaticism and religion

. 4 Comments

The Martian has already commented on a great comment (!) from a thread in the God Is For Suckers blog, so I won’t repeat what he said; he’s obviously right.

However, another comment caught my attention as well. It’s the 2nd one, by Lynda:

And if she does fail she blames herself for not having enough faith in gawd or Jeebus. She will set unrealistic goals based on fairy tale expectations because some book promised that she would succeed if she just has enough belief in the “all powerful”. The end result is self-loathing and mistrust of her own abilities. She won’t be able to rejoice and take pride in any real accomplishments because they won’t measure up to the “all things are possible” standard.

See the problem? God is supposed perfectly good and all powerful, and the Bible says that “faith can move mountains”, that “with enough faith, all things are possible”.

So what if you pray for success in something… and fail?

Christian fundies will never doubt the existence of God. Nor his omnipotence, or his goodness. What remains, then? Lack of faith. With all the guilt it implies.

Say you have a sick son and pray for his recovery. He dies. But… how could that happen, since the Bible states that “God notices even the fall of a sparrow”? What about the promises of our prayers being heard? And aren’t all things supposed to be possible to God, and therefore to anyone with God on his/her side?

If you don’t doubt God, then only two explanations remain. One, “it was God’s plan” - which would make God an evil sadist, worthy of contempt, lower than most human beings, if he existed. The second explanation is “your faith wasn’t enough”. Or, in other words, “you deserved it”.

A lot of Christians say that they don’t think they could go on through life without their faith in God. Yet they’re the unhappy ones, always feeling guilty, because if something bad happens to them, their lack of faith - their “wickedness” - is to blame. After all, God is perfect, and he promised… if only you had enough faith…

(Now, some people will say that “God helps those who help themselves.” It’s an improvement… but it’s a modern interpretation, absolutely contrary to what it says in the Bible. I thought it was supposed to be the word of God?)

La la la, I can’t hear you…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on April 9, 2006

in fanaticism, religion and stupidity

. 3 Comments

From this article:

The Emmy-winning scientist angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”

He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.

A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence.

“We believe in a God!” exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three young children.

As usually, any bothersome fact that contradicts their narrow view of the world is ignored. “La la la, I can’t hear you, you evil secularist enemy of religion…”

I guess that idiotic woman believes the moon is actually a source of light?!

Really, how can people be so stupid?

Workaholics

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on April 5, 2006

in fanaticism, reason and work

. 0 Comments

Definitely, I don’t like workaholics.

I may like people who are workaholics, but it will be despite that, not because of that. It will always be a part of their personality that bothers me.

On top of that, I have had the misfortune of knowing a lot of them!

Many people (even non-workaholics) don’t really understand the concept, and they confuse “workaholic” with “responsible, hard-working person” - which are positive qualities. But they’re wrong. Being a workaholic is something irrational, unhealthy.

Some people also think that it’s just a case of someone loving what he does. But it’s not that - many workaholics spend most of they time depressed, stressed, and with health problems (both physical and mental). It’s a compulsion, an obsession.

What does being a workaholic tell about a person? In my opinion, one or more of the following: Continue reading ‘Workaholics’

Ahh, religion…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 24, 2006

in fanaticism, religion and violence

. 1 Comment

From Herald Sun:

Muslim clerics are demanding an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed

and:

Clerics have warned that if the Afghan Government caves into Western pressure and frees him, they will urge people to “pull him into pieces”.

and, of course:

“Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die.”

Apparently, George W. Bush is “angered”. It is a start… but would he be angered if the man, instead of moving from one superstition to another (which happens to be the same as his), had become an atheist? I doubt it. I bet he’d believe, instead, that “the godless heathen had it coming for insulting religion”.

Islam: a religion of peace?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 15, 2006

in fanaticism, religion and violence

. 1 Comment

As I said in the previous post, I have my reasons for speaking more against Christianity than against other religions, as it’s the one I “see” around me. But, in a way, Islam is even worse (and I am grateful that there are very, very few Muslims in my country).

Islam’s apologists say that it’s “a religion of peace”. The Martian has a great post refuting that, so I won’t repeat those arguments here - just read his post.

What I want to add is this: some people say it’s just the “extremists” that commit acts of fanatical violence and terrorism, and that “true” Islam isn’t like that. But… what’s true Islam? It should be what’s in the Koran, right?

If so, here’s what the Koran has to say about violence. And here’s what the Koran says about (in)tolerance.

“Religion of peace”? Maybe in the sense of “we’ll kill anyone who disagrees with us, then we’ll have peace”.

"Anti-Christianity"?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 15, 2006

in fanaticism, mysticism and religion

. 2 Comments

This site’s religion category, currently, has a lot of posts where I condemn Christianity and its doings. Am I anti-Christian? Do I have a bone to pick with Christianity? Is that it?

Not exactly. You’d be slightly more correct if you said I was anti-religion, but that’s still not the entire truth.

What I really am against is irracionality. Religion is just one particular case of that.

Religion, and mysticism (here I use this word in the sense of “any belief in the supernatural” - I am aware that some people use the word for a specific type of beliefs), are irrational - they’re wishful thinking, they’re the (comforting) belief that reality isn’t real, but is changed on a whim. As Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no religion has any evidence supporting, it, other than “it’s written so in some old books” and “a lot of people believe it”. Therefore, to believe in something so extraordinary (it’s no more believable than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny) without evidence is absolutely irrational.

I also say that while a few religious people may have done some good, as a whole, religion has only harmed the world, has only held back the advancement of humanity, and is guilty of more death and suffering than anything else in the world.

Why my focus on Christianity, and not, say, Islam? Personal experience, I guess. Islam is just as bad as Christianity, if not worse (more about that in a future post); it’s just that, living in Western Europe, it’s Christianity that I see around me. And when I study history, again, it’s Christian atrocities that come up. The United States (I don’t live there, but I read a lot of American blogs and news sites) are becoming more and more fundamentalist and irrational (just look at the choice of president) because of Christianity. I was raised a Christian. Is it any wonder that I speak more against Christianity than against other religions?

The "War on Christmas" in America

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on December 21, 2005

in fanaticism, religion and society

. 16 Comments

First, a disclaimer: I’m European (Portuguese, in fact). I read a lot of blogs and sites from the U.S., though.

A current controversy in the U.S. seems to be the so-called “War on Christmas”. In short, it’s like this: Americans tend to be quite fanatical about everything related to religion - including the lack of it -, and are also easily offended. (No, I’m not saying all are like this, but these are certainly the ones who make the most noise.)

So, some time ago, it was “decided” that saying “merry Christmas” is endorsing Christianity - which, of course, means insulting all other religions. After complaints, and since store chains are paranoid about offending anyone, many chains made it a nation-wide policy not to say “merry Christmas”, but something like “happy holidays”, or “season’s greetings”.

Naturally, the other side didn’t like it, and speak of a “War on Christmas” by “ultra-liberal organizations” (what does that mean, anyway?). And polemic ensues - it’s “us against them”, it’s a battle between the “forces of secularism” trying to “destroy Christmas” (and Christianity, in general), and those who “stalwartly defend” it.

Now, thinking rationally for a while… don’t you think that all of that is a bit ridiculous?

In Europe, we don’t tend to be so fanatical. Neither our Christians, nor our atheists, nor those of other religions. “Merry Christmas”, to most people, doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with religion - Christians may celebrate the birth of Jesus, while everyone else has a holiday where the family eats codfish (in Portugal) or turkey or something else, together, then give gifts to each other. Simple as that.

“Merry Christmas” doesn’t offend anyone. Why should it? It’s a holiday, except to Christians.

Or am I oversimplifying things?