More memeage

Religion Definition
are you mono or polytheistic? Atheistic
do you subscribe to a major religion? No
how do you feel about Jesus? I don’t feel about Jesus
what holy book do you feel is most accurate (Bible, Koran, etc) OED
do you believe in reincarnation? No
do you believe in the traditional heaven and hell? No
do you believe in ANY heaven and/or hell? No
do you think the god(s) are vengeful or nice? I believe they are inventions
do you believe in angels? No
do you believe in miracles? No
do you believe in predestination? No
do you believe in original sin? No
do you believe in freedom of will? For individuals, yes; as a religious concept, no
do you believe in souls? No
what do you think will happen to you when you die? bacteria, worms, mould, compost
do you think there will be an armageddon? Not in the religious sense, but there’s a good chance of a people-ending event
why do you think we exist? There is no why
do you believe in life on other planets? Yes
do you believe in evolution? Yes, in the same way that I believe in trees or light
do you think religion and science will always oppose the other? Probably
what would you say to God if you met him/her/them today? Who are you?
anything else we should know? I think we should have ‘ohnotheism’ for people who really object to the idea of religion

{via Pharyngula}

Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged with

Don’t worry, it’s only eternity

An interesting story about a young girl trying to take the sacrement as part of her Catholic faith. Unfortunately she is a sufferer of celiac sprue disease, which means she is unable to process wheat, and indeed is physically damaged by even small amounts of it. The Catholic church states that communion wafers must contain wheat. No wafer means no communion, and I assume no communion means you burn in hellfire for all eternity. Though I’ll admit my grasp of that part may be a little shaky. Perhaps that means that celiac sprue disease is the other mark of the devil; I wonder if the girl’s parents have checked her head for strange markings?

Lest you think I’m attacking the Catholic church for their faith, I’m not – I don’t believe there are biblical cooking instructions that specifically demand gluten be present in the wafers (or alcohol in the wine, another Catholic requirement by the way) so it doesn’t seem to be a matter of faith. No, I’m attacking the Catholic church for their doctrine, which is an entirely different matter.

Update:Fafblog has a post on this that starts with the following brilliant line:

“I am dismayed because that little girl cannot eat the wafer,” says me. “Without the wafer she will never get her recommended daily allowance of Jesus.”

Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged with

Nacreous Portals

I found this blog entry rather interesting. It reflects some of the feelings I have over religion and the religious, and reminds me of a poor joke:

A Baptist, Protestant and Catholic (please feel free to insert any religions here, that’s not the point) are discussing their relative faiths. The Baptist states his particular beliefs, and the Protestant replies “Well, that’s not what I believe, but I’m so happy that you have an anchor in faith.” The Protestant in turn explains his beliefs, and the Baptist replies “Well, that’s not what I believe, but it’s great that you’ve found a way to God.” Then the Catholic explains his beliefs, and the others respond with “Well, that’s not what we believe, but if that’s how you find comfort in God that’s great.” So the Catholic says “No it isn’t, it’s the word of God and you’re both going to burn in hell.”

I guess I’m too literal, perhaps. I find faith in a supreme being (insert capital letters if so inclined) an odd notion, but ultimately understandable because it can bring comfort to what is for many people a harsh world. (I should add to that the very real possibility that they are right, and I’m missing something; I don’t think that’s the case, of course, but I have no evidence to prove otherwise). Holding to that faith in the light of events that people like me might use to refute God(s) is still odd to me, but is in its own way admirable. But to staunchly proclaim one’s faith, and to be unshakeable and resolute that your faith is the one faith, the undoubted path to God(s) grace, is where I lose the plot. If I have two choices, both equally wholesome (such as two flavours of Christianity, or Christianity and Judaism), both equally without concrete proof of their correctness, choosing one instead of the other (or indeed neither) is fair. But to then declare that the other is perhaps well intentioned, but fundamentally wrong, is a gigantic step too far for me.

A closely related Gedankenexperiment that I play with is that I am a more forgiving person than if I were a Christian (or a devotee of many other religions). Stay with me on this. I believe that my Christian friends (good people all) are wrong. Their wrongness is, however, no biggie. But my (flawed? – I hereby invite corrections) understanding is that from a Christian point of view I’m wrong. I may be given the chance to repent when stood at whatever passes for the Pearly Gates, and if presented with said nacreous portals rest assured that I’ll be convinced in short order. But failing that opportunity, my non-belief will condemn me to an eternity outside of God’s love (there may be flames and pitchforks involved as well, but lets keep this simple). That’s easy to joke about, but again it’s my understanding that this is, quite literally, the worst thing that could possibly happen to anyone.

So to summarize the thought: I’m a nicer person because if you (a ‘believer’) are wrong you’re fine, but if I’m wrong the worst thing imaginable will happen to me. Just a thought.

Anyway, go and read the blog entry, for I fear I have strayed far from its intent, and it deserves better.

Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged with

One Nation

Back to the “under God” discussions, though briefly. Solicitor General Theodore Olson said during the Supreme Court proceedings that “The Pledge is not a religious invocation, not a prayer”. Now I’ll admit that I’m not a scholar of matters theological, but the phrase in question is “under God”; I invite anyone to tell me what is more relilgious than God, and hence how something that invokes God (as opposed to ‘god’) can not be a prayer.

Addition:
An interesting account of the proceedings can be found here. And I should state that I have no problem with the country deciding that the establishment clause (that bars government from getting involved in religion) is not what they want, removing it from the constitution, and pledging “under God” every day. I don’t think it’s a good idea, but this is a democracy, and if that’s what the demos want they should get it. But until then this is all so staggeringly unconstitutional that I’m amazed it’s even in question.

One Nation Under

I watched a program on C-SPAN. I assume their sophisticated tracking systems showed a 20% spike in viewership when I tuned in late. The excellent program was about a legal challenge making its way to the Supreme Court this week. At issue is the contention that the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow has brought suit, claiming that the use of those two words constitutes an endorsement of religion, which is something the government is prevented from doing by the first amendment.

There’s a lot I could write about this, and no doubt in time I will. For now I wanted to pass on an interesting point that Mr Newdow made in the C-SPAN debate. His ‘opponent’, Steven Aden, made what I understand is a standard comment on this issue when he said that the Founding Father’s believed that human rights derived from God, and that one of those rights is the right to believe (or not) in whatever you want. Keeping “under God” in the pledge merely acknowledges this reality (I may not be presenting this argument well because I don’t believe it, and for that matter barely understand it).

Newdow’s response relied heavily on the word ‘bizarre’, but his point was, for me, excellent. I don’t believe in God. But God granted me the right to not believe in him. But I really don’t believe in him, as in I don’t think he exists. So I only have the right to believe that God does not exist because the thing that doesn’t exist granted me that right? Presumably if He doesn’t exist then I don’t have the right not to believe in Him, but then I don’t need that right, because he doesn’t exist.

I hoped to be able to make that point better, but perhaps my confusion is the best explanation; it literally makes no sense. And for some people with strong ‘non-beliefs’ it not only makes no sense, it’s actually offensive.