BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME.

"Thick as a Brick" or Lego Navels?

2010-01-30T08:10:00.015+11:00

The Mystery of the Belly Buttons

It has been a long time. I haven't posted here for ages and it certainly doesn't help when one forgets the password in order to access the blog and moderate it. If there is anyone out there who tunes in occasionally to see what I have to warble on about, I am here and contemplating what article to write next as well as intermittently contemplating my navel.

Hmmm - Maybe Adam and Eve didn't have navels? A-hah, perhaps that is the next post! As forethought on this, I shall post an attractive artistic representation concerning said subject.

Not a navel in sight. Though they do appear a little "artificial."

The Brick Testament

Thick as a Brick

"Thick as a Brick" Youtube - Jethro Tull

I Just Want To Wish You Well

2007-09-09T21:18:00.000+10:00

Bernard Fanning - "Wish You Well"

Hello heathens, miscreants, agnostics, atheists, skeptics, free-thinkers and assorted other human beings who do not wish to be so titled. Those of you who have watched my youtube presentation of my last holiday Hats, Holidays and Halitosis will have listened to a track from the Australian band Powderfinger which hails from Brisbane, Queensland. Bernard Fanning, who is singing the song, "Wish You Well" is the lead singer of this band and the song is from his solo album called "Tea And Sympathy." The lyrics for the song can be viewed here. The latest album by Powderfinger is called "Dream Days at the Hotel Existence." Bernard Fanning is a very talented singer/songwriter and homegrown so all the better. Anyway, I just want to wish you all well, even lapsed catholics. ;)

Other Songs by Bernard Fanning and Powderfinger

Bernard Fanning - Songbird
Powderfinger - On My Mind
Powderfinger - My Kind Of Scene
Powderfinger - My Happiness
Powderfinger - Passenger
Powderfinger - Lost and Running (from the latest album)

music video life wish personal brisbane australia atheist bands musicians lyrics resolution

Hats, Holidays and Halitosis

2007-08-08T11:27:00.000+10:00

It was that time of the year again when I wandered off on holiday; usually somewhere up or down the coast. This year it was to Rainbow Beach which used to be a quiet, secluded part of the Queensland coastline but has recently seen much more development. I will miss the innocence of these places in Australia. There used to be literally hundreds of undeveloped areas of coastline and now with the ability to make lots of moolah, Queensland's coastline will mimic the tourist destinations of the rest of the world. That is, they will be filled with overweight, pasty people frying themselves in the hot Australian sunshine. Most of us like the tourist dollars but still manage to suffer from Nimby Syndrome. (Not In My Back Yard)

Even though it is winter here, hat wearing, or at least cap wearing is recommended. The mornings might be crisp and cool, but the sun is unrelenting and will fry many an unsuspecting tourist to a crisp before they can say, "Oh, how Cuuutteeeeee." In the typical Australian way of seeing the positive in a potentially dire situation, the response to "What do you think of global warming?" is likely to be " Well, now the sausages will cook themselves." Potentially this leaves Australian men more time at the BBQ to do what they do best - holding a stubbie of beer in two hands instead of one. ;)

So where does the halitosis fit in? Well, after 4 glasses of champagne, 2 glasses of red wine and a steak the size of a cricket pitch, YOU wake up the next day and smell your own breath. (Too much information probably.)

Anyway, watch the video and have a glimpse of the Queensland coast.

Winter Holiday

holiday travel photography photos pictures life personal australia queensland beach vacation coast tourism tourists

Abortion, And Other Sundry Religious Amusements

2007-07-29T17:12:00.000+10:00

How to Get Laid at an Anti-Abortion Rally

Firstly, I would like to apologise for not posting on my blog for a while. I have been lazy and should be severely chastened. So, if there are any regular readers left out there please accept my apology for not being here to discuss the controversial subjects which you know I do like to do.

Anyway, back to the game at hand. This response of mine on a blog triggered a few responses.

"It amazes me sometimes that theists will fight tooth and nail to protect a bundle of cells, but dropping thousands of bombs on sentient adults doesn’t seem to pose much of a problem."

Is an acorn the same as an oak tree? Should we ascribe the same rights, value and meaning to a bundle of cells as we do to a fully formed sentient human being? I think that the majority of people who are opposed to abortion are opposed to it because of a religious belief that a clump of cells contains a soul. People do disagree with abortions for many reasons, but the primary reason I think is because of a religious belief associated with the idea that a clump of cells has a soul. Under those circumstances of belief, I would suggest that those people who believe that should not have abortions. However, if their primary reason for opposing all abortions is a religious one, then they are by default, requiring that everyone share that religious belief if they demand abortions to be illegal on that basis. I agree that there are times when it is right to take life. And so do most people on the planet. War certainly wouldn’t be as popular as it is, if human beings didn’t find ways to justify it. Capital punishment wouldn’t be as popular if people didn’t believe for various reasons, (many of them religious ones) that they were doing the right thing.

There may be reasons why I would oppose the termination of pregnancy but a religious one wouldn’t be persuasive for me. And I suspect that the reason that the majority of people oppose the termination of pregnancy IS a religious one. So, any ideas other than religious appeals to the supernatural, would be considered - but not perhaps accepted. If, you believe that there is NEVER an instance where it is appropriate or right to kill another human being including that of self-defence, capital punishment or during times of war, then I can accept the consistency of your position even though I may not agree with it myself. I don’t believe that people have souls. So, if you oppose all killing on that basis, then I wouldn’t agree with this reason - perhaps I would find some other reason acceptable though.

If the major reason you have for all abortions being illegal is your belief that a soul inhabits each or most human beings, then you are in effect demanding that I also have faith in said supernatural concept. It is within your rights to believe that demons inhabit trees, rocks, and people if you so desire. I have no legal desire to remove this delusion from you. If, however your major reason for opposing abortion is because of your faith that human beings have an incorporeal mind which survives death you may not demand that I also consider this to be a valid or true reason to ban abortion. Otherwise, you are in effect demanding that religious beliefs which I do not share, should be able to decide for me.

If a belief in the supernatural is a persuasive argument for you, then you really should be doing your outmost to make sure that not only men, but women also lead responsible sexual lives. But the argument that tikki tikki tembo inhabits a bunch of cells is not persuasive to me. As abortion in the majority of circumstances is legal, it is not up to me to provide reasons why it should be illegal. That job is for those who disagree with it. Until then, no supernatural appeals to souls will be considered a persuasive argument by myself.

And what does the Bible have to say about abortion?

Very little, except:

22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or, as the endnote says, she has a miscarriage] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (Exodus 21:22-23)

And God doesn’t seem to have any trouble with abortions, as Numbers 5 says.

Perhaps in its crudest terms of expression, the topics of abortion, euthanasia, suicide, infanticide and rape are basically asking the question - “who owns what?” (A crude way to express it perhaps, but I think it may devolve to this concept.) A person who believes in a god would probably say that god owns us and our individual lives. A person who believes in god and the state reflecting the wishes of said god, might believe that god owns our individual lives and that the state acts on god’s behalf. A person who doesn’t believe in a god or gods might say that the state, as highest authority, owns our individual lives. For me, I don’t believe that a god owns my individual life, nor do I believe that the state can act on a supposed god’s behalf. I also don’t believe that the state can own my life. As a result, I would neither support laws (either from a god or the state), which made abortion compulsory or illegal.

What authority outside of yourself, do you believe has the ultimate say over your life, if any? If you do not own your own life it would seem to me that you are in servitude to either a god or the state. Neither of those ideas appeals to me much.

abortion reproductive rights religion pro-life pro-choice bible

Who put the “BOMP” in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp? Who put the “MEEP” in the beep beep its me?

2007-07-03T10:52:00.000+10:00

With thanks to BEAJ at Bacon Eating Atheist Jew for this little titbit of information.

Apparently, I am much older than I thought. Shocking I know. And I mean MUCH older.

"Skeletal remains from a 220-million-year-old dinosaur reveal a prehistoric road runner of sorts, whose svelte figure and long legs allowed it to evade predators lickety-split." (I must say that I hold my age remarkably well under the circumstances. 220million years old, who would have thunk it? It appears to be so much like me that I am gob smacked.)

"The creature stood about 12 inches tall at the hips and weighed just 4.4 pounds. Its head-to-tail length was about 3 feet, with about half of that taken by the tail. The new species is aptly named Eocursor parvus, meaning 'early little runner.'" (Obviously I won't be requiring that people refer to me by my latin name of Eocursor parvus. Perhaps only on formal occasions or at fancy dress balls. It is also evidence of how the vocalization of this particular dinosaur has changed over time from the classic "meep meep" to the more modern, "beep beep."

Anyway, I am ecstatic that my predecessor has been found and so rigorously identified, after all, as a dinosaur, I would hate to have a type of primate as my common ancestor. We dinosaurs have our pride, you know.

LINK: - Meep-Meep! 'Road Runner' Dino Discovered

"Who Put The Bomp"

dinosaur dinosaurs science evolution fossils paleontology palaeontology prehistoric who put the bomp meep meep meep beep beep beep road runner roadrunner satire

“First we make our habits, then our habits make us.”

2007-06-29T13:58:00.000+10:00

I have been tagged by Chris at Deeply Blasphemous , Kriscinda at Goldbricker , Dave at The Galloping Beaver , Beast at Atheist Haven, and Nona from Fish Wars on Cars. I am very late at doing this meme and consequently, I am sure that all the blogs I read have been tagged already. Perhaps I can just link back to some of them without requiring them to repeat the meme over.

Here are the rules.

We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
Don't forget to leave them a comment telling them they're tagged, and to read your blog.

This was much harder than I expected. What do I tell people about me? What could possibly be interesting to the rest of the blogging community about myself? I have no idea but here goes.

Eight Random Facts Or Habits:

1. I could read reasonably well before I went to school. I couldn't write though. In retrospect, I think I was probably a natural left-hander like my mother, but I was being encouraged to prefer my right-hand. I think I can remember my Aunty, who was a teacher, placing a pencil in front of me and asking me to pick it up. According to my memory, which may be accurate or inaccurate at this stage, I continually tried to pick it up with my left hand much to the disappointment of those viewing the experiment. ;) Nonetheless, reading has always been a pleasurable activity for me and is probably one of the distinct reasons why I find the internet such an attractive place.

2. I always think that I am right. In other words, I start with the premise that I am right and work from there. I am quite conducive to being shown otherwise, but I do not assume that others know better than I do unless they are a recognized expert in a particular field and even then I find that I am quite willing to challenge them on their assumptions. (This exercise of completing eight random facts or habits may turn into a litany of my flaws.) I have always been opinionated and I don't consider this by necessity, to be a negative characteristic. After all, I have to lead MY life; I can't lead anyone else’s. I was encouraged to classically "think for myself” and once in the habit of this, it is virtually impossible to defer to others through an appeal to authority, an appeal to age, an appeal to gender, or any other fallacious appeal that at least some of us, find compelling. I was encouraged to be a self-determining adult.

3. My favourite sandwich is white bread with vegemite and rare onion. You may all gag now at the thought, and gas masks are highly recommended during and after consumption of said sandwich.

4. Over the years I have methodically stripped away the vestiges of superstition and meaningless ritual from my life and feel much the better for it. Though I am aware that many people enjoy the imposition of external power structures, mores and belief systems upon their lives, I am not one who thrives on rigid structure or routine. It saps my energy and my enthusiasm. Nothing depresses me more than the thought that I must complete a certain set of behaviours within a given time frame and in a specific pattern. For better or for worse, I am unquestionably individualistic.

5. One ritual I have no intention of parting with at the moment, probably because I find it pleasurable, is the use of scented candles. Good quality scented candles burning in the house with few other light sources, is very relaxing and contemplative.

6. I have a fascination with what makes people tick. That is, what drives them - how they think, and why they believe what they believe. Obviously, this also extends to myself. It is of endless fascination to me that none of us have the exact same visual, visceral, intellectual or emotional reactions to the same object or experience. Obviously, we are not meant to behave as if we are clones of each other, yet so much of societal influence is an encouragement towards conformity. I do not make a "good drone." I actively rebel against the business model which treats people as identicals, or machine parts. I think the politically correct term is "human resources."

7. I have been "addicted" to computer gaming; more specifically, play station and nintendo games. Many of the strategy games are challenging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed first person action and role-playing games. And if I disappear from here for any length of time, it is probably because I have found a play station game which is taking my attention. I rarely use game cheats unless I am stuck on the same level for a couple of days, then I might weaken and look up some info concerning it on the net. I like to complete the game and don't see a lot of sense in buying a game and not mastering it to its conclusion.

8. I like a glass of red wine with my dinner, preferably a grenache, but I am not really that fussy. One is just right. Two is enough to send me off to the land of nod. Three and I am dancing on tables singing "Hey Big Spender" at the top of my lungs. Not really, but if you were kind enough to read this far, I thought you deserved a disturbing image of me to complete the picture.

Now to tag some other blogs. Ok, I give up. If you would like to be part of this meme, please tag yourself.

meme habit fact tag me about me personal individualism

"What Sort of Marriage, What Costumes, What Physiology and Phrenology..?"

2007-06-18T11:50:00.000+10:00

The topic of gay marriage is hot on the press again and being discussed on a few blogs around the ridges. After listening to quite a few arguments concerning the subject of marriage, it seems to me that there is a great deal of discussion about the definition of marriage itself. What it is, what it is not and why. Talk to a variety of people and each seems to have a view of what a marriage is and what it is not. Many people seem to have a view of marriage which derives from their religious beliefs, but to assume that marriage is only that which confirms our complies with our religious beliefs, is to only acknowledge part of the larger picture.

To assume that marriage throughout history is derived from a specific religious belief, flies in the face of history. My understanding of human relationships and history suggests strongly that marriage is not specifically aligned with the advent of either judaism, christianity, hinduism, buddhism or islam. That various religions have formulated their version of what a marriage is and goes on to claim that ALL marriages must fit their religious precepts, is an indication of religions trying to redefine what marriage is and the history of it.

In other words, marriage predates judaism and as such it predates christianity. If one wants to pretend that the only kind of marriage is one formalized through a specific religious construct, then all I can say is that the revising of history has been successful in this case.

"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage." - Westermarck, Edward Alexander (1903). The History of Human Marriage. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London. ISBN 1402185480 (reprint).

Marriage as a concept, existed prior to judaism and consequently christianity and islam. One only needs to look at Ancient Egypt to see this. And certainly pagan marriages, (those who were not one of the big 3), existed prior to these religions and during the expansion of these religions.)

In other words, neither jews nor christian, nor muslims created marriage. They created a concept of marriage which fitted their religious precepts and then went on to claim that marriage under all circumstances must comply with their religious precepts. If you want a "christian marriage" - go right ahead. If you want a "jewish marriage" - go right ahead. If you want a "hindu marriage" - go right ahead - but don't try and pretend that you invented the concept of marriage and that all marriages must fit your religious precepts.

Marriage existed prior to the jewish version, the christian version or the islamic version. Religions do not OWN the concept of marriage. They have just formalized a natural process of pair bonding into their respective religions and tried to convince us that no other type of marriage except the ones they espouse, are allowed to exist.

The marriage contract, as we in the west know it, involves consent which is why it is restricted to those who are able to give consent on their own cognisance. This rules out marrying your goldfish if you believe that it looks at you in that "special way", as it is not capable of responding in kind to your declaration of love and marriage. The issue of consent or consensual sex is also what makes paedophilia wrong whether you have a religious belief that it is wrong or not. Paedophilia is illegal because a contract for sex cannot be made without consent. Children are unable to give consent on their own cognisance, so paedophilia is sex without the legal consent of one of the parties. Sex without consent is rape. Easy to see why it is illegal and a crime. The same goes for bestiality or people in love with their goldfish. The issue of a contract requiring mutual consent is what keeps paedophilia and bestiality illegal.

Surely one would agree that the important issue in a contract of any kind is that of mutual consent. The ability to give consent on one's own cognisance is the underlying feature. Unless, of course, you support the marrying of children as child brides at the age of 9 or 10 - regardless of their ability or willingness to consent? Now, where did I read about instances like that? Oh yes - in so-called holy books.

So, Christianity gets to say what a christian marriage is. Judaism gets to say what a jewish marriage is and islam gets to say what an islamic marriage is. However, they don't get to dictate to those OUTSIDE of their specific religion what a marriage is. If, however, the only reason you can give for not marrying your goldfish or your cat, or perhaps your favourite teddy bear, is a scriptural one, or one associated with your religious beliefs; where in passage and verse does it say that you are not allowed to marry your underpants?

I think that if a referendum was held in Australia today concerning gay marriage that it would pass. However, the conservative government and conservative "christian prime minister" that we have now decided to rewrite the definition of a "marriage" so that the door to marriage for gay people is shut. I believe that this is a case of him inflicting his personal religious beliefs on the rest of the population. He has the right to his own religious beliefs, he does not have the right to impose them on others.

As I have mentioned previously, you also have the right to believe according to your religious position, that homosexuality is wrong, but it is an insufficient and irrelevant reason for those who do not share your religious beliefs and by demanding through law that it be banned, you are in effect demanding that I object to gay marriage because of religious beliefs I do not hold. It is tantamount to saying - "My religious beliefs will decide for you even if you don't share them."

This isn't good enough.

"I think men who have a pierced ear are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought jewellery." - Rita Rudner

The Kinks - "Lola"

marriage relationships gay marriage same sex marriage civil union homosexual religion and politics

The Highway To Hell: Or The Loving Eternal BBQ

2007-06-14T16:50:00.000+10:00

So what is "The Highway To Hell?" I would consider that it is the antithesis of "The Yellow Brick Road." Now some of us, freethinkers, sceptics, atheists, agnostics and the like, consider the idea of a place like hell to be part of interesting mythology, but mythology nonetheless. I guess the "Highway To Hell" is that road that so called unbelievers, nonbelievers or disbelievers are on. If that is so, I am on that highway and beetling along at breakneck speed. No doubt blasphemers top the list when it comes to a place on Hell's Highway and as a practiced blasphemer, I may actually be coming first. Obviously, threats of Hell, Hades and the devil are of no consequence to those who consider them to be all but primitive campfire stories. But I suppose they do keep the kiddies in line.

One of the problems of the concept of hell is one which is closely related to the problem of evil. As in, how can an omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent god consign some people to hell forever where they will be eternally punished? Is it love to create a heaven and a hell, then tell people they better do as you say and love you and get your name right or you're going to burn them for eternity? Does that pass for love?

And now for a little background about hell. Gehenna, (or gehenom or gehinom) has sometimes been described as a final punishment for the wicked and sometimes as a spiritual forge in which souls are purified after death. The name derived from a burning garbage dump near Jerusalem (the valley of Hinnom), sometimes identified as an entrance to the underworld. Gehenna also appears in the New Testament and in early Christian writing to represent the place where evil will be destroyed. It lends its name to Islam's hell, Jahannam.

The word is supposedly derived from the Greek meaning the Valley of Hinnom's son. The valley forms the southern border of ancient Jerusalem and stretches from the foot of Mt. Zion, eastward, to the Kidron Valley. It is first mentioned in Joshua 15:8. as a deep, narrow ravine at the foot of the walls of Jerusalem where refuse was burned. It is here that the bodies of executed criminals or others deemed unworthy of a proper burial were dumped. The association with hell derives from the tradition that the Canaanites sacrificed children to their god Moloch in this place.

Eventually this valley became Israel's "garbage dump". In it would be thrown refuse as well as dead animals and the dead bodies of criminals. This "dump" was perpetually on fire to rid the land of these unclean things. Jesus, who spoke more about hell than love, used this word 11 times to describe the suffering of those who do not trust in Him before death.

The Christian philosopher Origen also argued that the literal terrors of hell were false, but they ought to be publicized in order to scare simpler believers.

That having been said, watch the video, enjoy the music and find out why I am on "The Highway To Hell."

hell hades The HighwayTo Hell evil Gehenna Origen satire Moloch

I Come From A Land Down Under Where Women Glow And Men Plunder

2007-06-11T22:17:00.000+10:00

" I Come From A Land Down Under"

Ever wondered why Australia is called the "Land Down Under?" Ok you haven't, but maybe some people don't know. It is a colloquialism which refers to all things Australian because of Australia's position in the southern hemisphere. When one looks at a map in the most common way, Antarctica appears at the 'bottom' of the page, and north appears to be "up" and south appears to be "down." Now if cartography developed in Australia, we would have all you northern hemispheric centrists as "downunders."

According to the description listed beside the video: -

"This is some traditional Australian Dancing. This is what the convicts used 2 do in their spare time and to the same music. Ahh-Just watch it." (My suggestion is to watch out for Australians cause they are the biggest bullshit artists you are ever going to meet.)

Nevertheless, this is a video made by a couple of aussie guys doing what aussie guys go best and that is making dickheads out of themselves. :)

When you watch the video, you will see an Australian flag. On the flag you will notice the Union Jack which symbolizes that Australia was claimed as a British Colony. The Southern Cross is the constellation called surprisingly, The Southern Cross. It is comprised of 4 major stars in a kite pattern and is easily recognizable from the Southern Hemisphere. The other major symbol on the flag is The Commonwealth Star or Star of Federation which has seven points to denote the six states and the combined territories of the Commonwealth.

One of the guys is dancing around a Hills Hoist which is an Australian version of the rotary clothesline. Its distinguishing feature is a crown and pinion-winding mechanism invented by Adelaide based Lance Hill in 1945. As most places in Australia have good clothes drying weather, the Hills Hoist has been a common feature in many Australian backyards. In part of the clip a guy is also riding a unicycle and carrying a cricket bat. Cricket, if you hadn't guessed, is a National obsession for many Australians.

The song used is by Men at Work and is called "I Come From a Land Downunder"

Travelling in a fried-out kombi
On a hippie trail, head full of zombie
I met a strange lady, she made me nervous
She took me in and gave me breakfast
And she said,

"Do you come from a land down under?
Where women glow and men plunder?
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover."

Buying bread from a man in Brussels
He was six foot four and full of muscles
I said, "Do you speak-a my language?"
He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich
And he said,

"I come from a land down under
Where beer does flow and men chunder
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover."

Lying in a den in Bombay
With a slack jaw, and not much to say
I said to the man, "Are you trying to tempt me
Because I come from the land of plenty?"
And he said,

"Oh! Do you come from a land down under? (oh yeah yeah)
Where women glow and men plunder?
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover."

This song was used as a theme song by the crew of Australia ll when they won the America's Cup in 1983. I remember the yachting race well as it was the first time that another country broke the US's stranglehold on the race. Most of Australia sat up glued to their TV sets in the wee small hours to catch a glimpse of John Bertrand's crew doing the seemingly impossible. It goes without saying that a lot of Australians also had a small celebrationary drink as a result. The next day, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time, Bob Hawke went on National television and uttered his immortal line that any boss, who sacked a worker taking a sickie because he was up late celebrating the win, was 'a bum'. So, many of us didn't go to work. I know I didn't. :) I can't imagine the present Prime Minister, John Howard being quite as "Australian."

australia men at work down under southern hemisphere aussie america's cup bob hawke john howard humor humour

What Is Fascism?

2007-06-08T10:02:00.000+10:00

What Is Fascism?

"Fascism" is one of those terms that many people use when they want a word to describe a political ideology that they don't like. To call someone a "fascist" has become an attack on someone's character and morality. Consequently I have heard people on the left, middle and right of politics call each other "fascists" on regular occasions. But what does it actually mean and how would someone be able to identify a fascist? Is fascism the sort of political ideology to be aspired to, or is it always something to be confronted and despised?

People seem to be able to understand easily that a communist is someone who believes that the state should control aspects of society including the economy. They seem to understand that a capitalist is someone who believes that means of production are mostly privately owned and operated for profit and that the various ideologies of socialism are somewhere in between. (For more complete descriptions of communism, capitalism and socialism click on the links.) But what do people mean when they call someone a fascist? The word seems to be used more often than not as a way to say - "I don't like you and what you stand for."

One thing that many people will agree about fascism is that it is anti-democratic. That it opposes liberalism. A couple of quotes express this view.

" The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power. " - President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He wrote in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism: -

"Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

I prefer the simple version stated by Robert A. Heinlein: -

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein

fascism fascist liberalism democracy individualism collectivism communism socialism capitalism

"I Can Make You A Man" - or "What Is A Wimp?"

2007-06-04T16:52:00.000+10:00

Click on image to enlarge - "I Can Make You A Man" - Charles Atlas

~*~

From: Dispatches from the Culture Wars -

The Worldnutdaily has a column up with the following headline:

Leave it to the ladies
Exclusive: Pat Boone honours women leaders who've stepped up due to male 'wimpiness'

(Pat Boone. Talking about male wimpiness. Pat Frickin Boone, who could only seem macho if he stood next to Andy Williams. Someone really needs to come up with some sort of irony transplant surgery.)

And what does someone mean by "male whimpiness?" I suggest that the term isn't meant to apply to when guys get sick and want to be mothered incessantly. Is "male whimpiness" the desire not to kill furry little animals with a sub-machine gun? I dunno. What IS "male whimpiness?"

In the 1940s, the word "weakling" or "wimp" was used before the word "nerd" was used widely.
wimp : –noun 1. a weak, ineffectual, timid person. 2. a person lacking in courage or confidence

What is it with gender stereotyping? Some cultures seem to gravitate between the idea that a male isn't a "real man" unless his balls are dragging in the dust, (and his knuckles probably as well), and a female isn't a "real woman" unless she can pull out of her vagina a freshly baked tray of chocolate chip cookies the instant guests arrive. Regardless of how one expresses it, the concept of gender and gender roles is a polarizing factor in many cultures. Why did this polarization occur? A hint to this question might be found in one of the other comments posted on the article.

"It comes from the idea, popular in fundamentalist circles, that in God's ideal world only men are to be in positions of leadership. The only excuse for a woman to lead is when the man has wimped out of his responsibility and the woman is forced to reluctantly take over. The perfect biblical illustration is the story of Deborah and Jael which I posted about a few weeks ago. There's a link to a whacked out fundamentalist website that goes into detail about this very issue."

I think that this comment may have hit the nail on the head. Religions seem to push the gender stereotype more than any other dynamic. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, from my understanding, are probably the biggest players when it comes to gender stereotyping. What do you think?

Of course Frankenfurter from "The Rocky Horror Show" was also a fan of Charles Atlas. I am not sure it was what Charles Atlas had in mind.

gender gender roles gender stereotyping wimp religion bible the rocky horror show frankenfurter I can make you a man charles atlas humour humor satire

GOD'S VENDETTA AGAINST KITTENS

2007-06-02T00:29:00.000+10:00

God's Vendetta Against Kittens - "Everytime You Masturbate God Kills a Kitten"

For centuries, all forms of sexual pleasure unlikely to result in population increase have routinely been denounced as wrong. This goes a long way to explaining why some religious folks have had a hard-on for those who waste seed. Perhaps I should express that differently.. Some people of religious conviction believe that it is wrong to indulge in sexual activity which does not result in procreation. This concept probably stemmed from ancient times when male seed was associated with abundance in the same way that the seed of various crops was also associated with abundance.

Regardless of various "modern religious views", masturbation has been quite a popular past time throughout history and prior to the Abrahamic Religions was part of many cultural religious practices.

"A clay figurine of the 4th millennium BCE, from a temple site called Hagar Qim on the island of Malta, depicts a woman masturbating. However, in the ancient world depictions of male masturbation are far more common. A figure of a masturbating male from a Neolithic cemetery in Greece is roughly contemporary with the Malta image and likewise suggests fertility rites. From the Sumerians, who invented the first written Western language, we find references to the Mesopotamian god Enki masturbating, his ejaculation filling the Tigris River with flowing water."

"Male masturbation became an even more important image in ancient Egyptian cosmology. When performed by a god it could be considered a creative or magical act, but a mortal human masturbator might not receive such approval. According to one major creation myth the god Atum appeared on the Primordial Mound out of the void of Nu. As the first "thing" in the midst of nothingness, Atum relieved his loneliness by masturbating. His ejaculation resulted in the appearance of the first god and goddess, Shu and Tefnut, who became the parents of all other elements of the world. An alternate version indicates that the god Ptah, architect of the universe, maintains cosmic order through continual masturbation. The yearly flooding of the Nile, on which Egypt depended entirely, was also said to flow from the secretions of the Nile god Hapy. Min, the god of male potency, was always shown standing with an immense erection, often held in his own hand. The vegetative god Osiris, King of the Dead and Lord of Eternity, resurrected himself through an act of sacred masturbation, an association with seed-force and cyclic regeneration. Osiris conceived his son Horus, Lord of the Living and the Falcon of Light, in this way."

If we skip to the "modern era" we have someone like Cereal magnate John Harvey Kellogg declaring "sex for anything but reproduction" to be "sexual excess." He also recommended circumcision as a way to discourage male masturbation. (Obviously female circumcision is much more successful at discouraging female masturbation. Suffice it to say, I am more than glad that he didn't recommend this as well.)

"The eminent neuropsychologist James W. Prescott has said: "Deprivation of physical affection in human relationships...constitutes the single greatest source of violence in human societies." We might want to take a cue from our close relatives the Bonobos and consider the social benefits of increased sexual satisfaction."

LINK: - MASTURBATION THROUGHOUT HISTORY

masturbation fertility history masturbation and religion sexual taboos sex and procreation Kellogg Bonobos kittens god satire humour humor

"Clothes make the man, but nakedness makes the human being."

2007-05-30T23:19:00.000+10:00

Spencer Tunick - Melbourne

A while ago I wrote a piece about Spencer Tunick and his photography. It was called "Now lies the earth all Danae to the stars." What I failed to include was this video when he organized some of the people from Melbourne, Australia to be part of one of his nude photographic sessions. The day was enjoyed by all who participated it seems, except for a lonely protester who wanted to use the photographic session to voice his religious opinion. There's one in every crowd apparently, but to the cheering of the crowd he was removed from the scene. Even the police at the end of the shot seemed a little sad for the poor man and gave him a consoling pat on the back. What needs to be remembered is that this was a legal photo shoot with willing participants who were not paid for getting naked. But at least according to the lone protester, god was upset with this display of nakedness. What do you think?

By the way, those of you who may be offended by naked Australian wobbly bits bouncing around in full view, should avert their eyes from the video.

nakedness nudity tunick spencer tunick photography art photos religion protest protester humour humor

The Tu Quoque Fallacy: Or Atheism is a Religion Too.

2007-05-29T09:52:00.000+10:00

From : Atheist Eve. (Click link to enlarge.)

~*~

I am going to start a series of posts which just involve a few lines of either my own thoughts on a specific subject, or a few lines of someone else's thoughts on various subjects. Comments are welcomed.

My understanding is that a religion would require an explicitly stated set of beliefs. There is no explicitly stated set of beliefs for someone who calls themself an atheist. However, if someone calls themselves a 1. Materialist 2. Naturalist 3. Existentialist 4. Humanist 5. Secular humanist - it could be argued that these philosophies display an explicit set of beliefs.

Would the evidence of explicitly stated beliefs mean that these philosophies were a religion? For that you would need to be able to demonstrate how a philosophy differs from a religion, or more pertinently, how it doesn't differ. Off the top of my head, I would suggest that a philosophy involves itself with arguments primarily based in reason and that a religion involves itself in arguments primarily based in faith.

Faith, in this context means that regardless of the argumentation or the processes used, that the argument would not under any circumstance change the position of the person of faith. Faith, in this sense, is an unwavering belief, which is not ameliorated or mitigated in the light of new or contradictory evidence or information. Secular humanists, materialists, naturalists or philosophers do not have "faith" of this nature. They may endorse a variety of beliefs, but those beliefs are open to review and to change in light of evidence to the contrary.

Tu Quoque Tu Quoque Fallacy logic religion philosophy equivocation beliefs faith atheist atheistism materialism naturalism existentialism humanism secular humanism evidence

'Praise the Lord' - Hill$ong Celebrates the National Day of Secularism

2007-05-25T23:23:00.000+10:00

National Day of Secularism May the 26th

"Praise the Lord" - Hill$ong Parody - Brought to you by "The Chaser's War on Everything"

Introduction: - " Ladies and Gentlemen in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit let me hear you say "A - men." Let me hear you say "Praise the lord." Let me hear you say "I will empty the contents of my wallet into that little collection plate when it comes around. And it's all Tax free! Hallelujah! "

Lyrics: -
"Praise the lord for all the cash I've got. Praise him for my Rolls Royce and my yacht.

Serving god ain't hard with a credit card. Jesus died so I could make a lot.

Praise the lord he's made us millionaires. Wave your donations in the air.

We've replaced our hymns with ATMS. And soon we'll charge a fee on every prayer.

Jesus Christ was a poor man don't you know. He should have used our accountants for his cash flow.

Stop the sermon on the mount he should have had a bank account.

Two thousand years with interest he'd be rolling in the dough.

Praise the lord this song's out on CD just $40.95 plus GST.

Hallelujah plenty of moolah. Solid gold baubles on my christmas tree.

I've got all of heaven's riches thanks to all you stupid b*tches.

Praise the lord for modern christianity. Whoever said religion should be free."

~*~

Hillsong Church (formerly Hills Christian Life Centre) is a Pentecostal Christian church. Its primary location is in Australia where it is headquartered at its "Hills" campus near Castle Hill, to the north-west of Sydney in Baulkham Hills' Norwest Business Park.

The Hillsong Church has attracted support from high profile politicians, especially from the conservative Liberal Party of Australia. The Prime Minister, John Howard, opened its Baulkham Hills campus and the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, spoke at its annual conferences in July 2004 and 2005. Mark Latham, the former Leader of the Opposition, declined Hillsong's invitation to the 2004 conference, although Bob Carr, the then Premier of New South Wales, (from the Australian Labor Party), did attend the 2005 conference. The former New South Wales Liberal Party state director, Scott Morrison (to November 2004), is a prominent member of Hillsong Church.

The Anglican Bishop of Western Sydney, Ivan Lee, has expressed concern that the extreme emotion of Hillsong services could be manipulative and said that "... their worship is in danger of being experience-centred rather than Bible teaching-centred".

Of course it is manipulative. It wants people to have an emotional experience, which will encourage them to part with their cash.

In the Australian Constitution - Section 116 - (Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion), it states that: - "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't say - "And no politician will kiss the arse of corporate religion in order to gain a few more votes."

hillsong religion praise the lord politics parody secular secularism secular state religious right blog against theocracy national day of secularism satire

This Is Australia Too

2007-05-23T21:39:00.000+10:00

"This Is Australia Too"

I mentioned before I went on holidays how I would take a few pictures and post them when I got back. Well, if you click the youtube presentation, you can view those photographs. I didn't take all that many pictures when I away, so you will see similarities in some of the shots. Usually, I would only select a few from each roll and use those, but in order to make the presentation of a reasonable length, I had to use all of them - even the less visually appealing ones. Anyway, to those who read my blog, I hope you enjoy them.

One of the reasons I decided to punctuate some of my writings with aspects of my own life, feelings and ideas, is so that people may get an understanding that skeptics, freethinkers, non-christians, non-muslims are real people who have real lives. They are just people who do not share your religious beliefs.

"Shoot straight you bastards. Don't make a mess of it." - Harry (Breaker) Morant - executed Australian soldier and poet.

australia holiday vacation travel photography photos pictures life blog internet blogging Breaker Morant

Blog Against Theocracy: National Day of Secularism May 26th

2007-05-23T10:04:00.000+10:00

I have been tagged by Arthur @ Five Public Opinions for the National Day of Secularism on May 26th.

National Day of Secularism May 26th

Tagging stage:
If you are tagged by the meme, then it’s the same old format; mention this entry so people can see the rules and then tag five other bloggers (preferably Australian given the nature of the NDoT.) You can link back to these rules and display the banner.

Blog against theocracy stage:
If you have been tagged then in addition to tagging others, it is also hoped that you will write a blog entry about the separation of Church and State in Australia. It could be a critique of Pell’s “normative democracy”, the historic anti-democracy sermonizing of Archbishop Daniel Mannix, inevitable discrimination by the funding of (approved) chaplains in public schools, the state backed imposition of bans on forbidden women’s dress or whatever Church-State issue you find important.

Preferably, such a blog entry would be published on the 26th, but there is no deadline as such. Just a couple of caveats:

1) the church-state anti-theocracy blog entry should mention the phrase “National Day of Thanksgiving”, possibly mentioning that the entry is a response to the NDoT, and
2) feel free to add the (again admittedly modest) banner.

I, in turn, tag the following:
1. Dikkii's Diatribe
2. Plonka's Blog
3. Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
4. Dissecting Leftism
5. Talking Squid

atheist culture wars politics current affairs religion theocracy secular secularism national day of thanksgiving blog against theocracy meme

There's A Sucker Born Every Minute

2007-05-19T21:44:00.000+10:00

"Money: That's What We Want."

"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase often credited to P.T. Barnum, an American showman. The entire quote is "There's a sucker born every minute...and two to take 'em." The source of the quote is most likely famous con-man Joseph ("Paper Collar" Joe) Bessimer.

"When Christianity went to Athens, it became a philosophy. When it went to Rome, it became an organization. When it went to Europe, it became a culture. When it came to America, it became a business."

christianity religion politics business capitalism evangelical fundamentalism america P.T. Barnum sucker

"This Is Australia" or "Now For Something Completely Different."

2007-05-08T10:52:00.000+10:00

"This Is Australia"

I was wandering through some of the photographs stored on my PC the other day and decided that I would make a video snap shot of some of the places in Australia that I have visited. It also made me think about how our environments effect and reflect our cultural beliefs. I have been fortunate to have had ancestors who decided that they would make Australia their home. I also acknowledge at this stage that their decision and the decision of many other settlers to move here has not been so fortunate for the indigenous people who lived here first.

This video is just a snap shot of some of the places along the east coast of Australia, yet there is a focus upon one particular little farming community which was also my home town for many years. The music which accompanies the video was specifically written by an Australian group about that little cane farming community. The photographs were taken in a ten year period and also reflect the technology I used at the time, which was an old Canon SLR, so don't expect high quality digital resolution. In fact, I still mostly use the old SLR even though it weighs a ton and the quality of the image certainly isn't as crisp as a modern digital camera. Using the SLR is, however, much more fun.

Anyway, sit back and have a peek at the east coast of Australia through the lens of one who lives here.

australia this is australia and now for something completely different east coast patio cane fields cane field humidity

PS: - I am heading off for a few days rest and recreation. Hopefully, I will take a few snaps of my holiday and if I get any which are fit for publication, I will make a short video and post it when I get back.

(The ones of me where I discuss with Beelzebub how to genetically mutate cute little puppies into ravenous hounds from hell will not be published at this time.)

So, to the readers of this blog, I hope to see you soon. Have fun and may Darwin confer upon you and your descendants many beneficial mutations. Toodle oooo.

Are Theists More Superstitious Than Atheists?

2007-05-05T21:32:00.000+10:00

How Superstitious Are you?

What is a superstition? A superstition is the belief that events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship. A causal relationship is the logical relationship between one physical event and another physical event. So a superstition is where there is an event, but there is no logical relationship between an event and the cause, or subsequent event which is ascribed to it.

Superstitions are based on cultural beliefs in a supernatural "reality" and they relate to things that are not fully understood or known. Therefore, the type and nature of the superstition may be dependent upon the culture and the origin of the culture. This culture difference is evident when one thinks of the number 13 or the number 4. In Asian cultures the number 4 is considered unlucky and in western cultures the number 13 is considered unlucky. The Chinese pronunciation for the words "die" and 4 are similar, which explains why 4 isn't a favourite number in many Asian countries. In western countries which have a christian tradition, the number 13 is considered unlucky because supposedly there were 13 at the last supper. So superstitions are culturally relevant, but many of them have their origins in a belief in the supernatural.

What are the origins of some of these other superstitions?

1. Breaking a mirror will bring 7 years bad luck.
(Before the invention of mirrors, man gazed at his reflection, his "other self," in pools, ponds, and lakes. If the image was distorted, it was a mark of impending disaster.)
2. The devil or evil spirits can enter your body when you sneeze unless someone says "God bless you."
(Ancient man believed that his breath was also his soul or "essence of life." A rapid departure of that breath, a sneeze, is the same as expelling life from one's body. Also, it leaves a vacuum in the head which evil spirits can enter.)
3. If you spill salt, you must throw a pinch over the left shoulder to ward off the devil.
(Salt was once a rare and costly commodity. As such, it was economic waste to spill any. Also, salt is a purifier, a preservative, and it symbolizes the good and lasting qualities of life. It was mixed into the foods used in the religious ceremonies of both the Greeks and Romans. One source of this superstition is Leonardo da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper. The betrayer Judas, has accidentally spilled salt onto the table.)
4. Black cats crossing your path bring bad luck.
(The Egyptians worshiped the cat and punished anyone who dared to kill one. In the Middle Ages, however, the black cat was linked to witches and Satan. Since it was believed that a witch had the power to transform herself into a cat, it was thought likely that a cat who crossed one's path was a witch in disguise.)

Without going through the origin of lots of superstitions, it is evident that many of them originate from a belief in the existence of supernatural forces which can either be harmful or helpful. Ancient man always had supernatural explanations for natural events. Supernatural explanations when systemized became religions and that is probably why we still find today that highly religious cultures are also superstitious cultures. That includes the majority of people on the planet except for perhaps those who are atheists, agnostics or skeptics. I haven't met any overtly superstitious atheists, but I have known many superstitious theists. Superstition and religious beliefs appear to walk hand in hand.

Religious practices are most likely to be labelled "superstitious" by those who do not share the religious belief. Especially when they include belief in extraordinary events, an afterlife, supernatural interventions, apparitions or the efficacy of prayer, charms, incantations, the meaningfulness of omens, and prognostications. Greek and Roman pagans, (who were theists but not christians), scorned the man who constantly trembled with fear at the thought of the gods, as a slave feared a cruel and capricious master. "Such fear of the gods (deisidaimonia) was what the Romans meant by superstition." (Veyne 1987, p 211).

PS: Don't forget to watch the video I made.

superstition religion culture folklore superstitious supernatural supernaturalism theist atheist

A Brief History of Disbelief

2007-05-03T13:15:00.000+10:00

JONATHAN MILLER'S BRIEF HISTORY OF DISBELIEF Part 1

From the youtube description of the series: -

In this first ever television history of disbelief, Jonathan Miller goes on a journey exploring the origins of his own lack of belief and uncovering the hidden story of atheism.

Jonathan Miller visits the absent Twin Towers to consider the religious implications of 9/11 and meets Arthur Miller and the philosopher Colin McGinn. He searches for evidence of the first 'unbelievers' in Ancient Greece and examines some of the modern theories around why people have always tended to believe in mythology and magic.

With the domination of Christianity from 500 AD, Jonathan Miller wonders how disbelief began to re-emerge in the 15th and 16th centuries. He discovers that division within the Church played a more powerful role than the scientific discoveries of the period. He also visits Paris, the home of the 18th century atheist, Baron D'Holbach, and shows how politically dangerous it was to undermine the religious faith of the masses.

The history of disbelief continues with the ideas of self-taught philosopher Thomas Paine, the revolutionary studies of geology and the evolutionary theories of Darwin. Jonathan Miller looks at the Freudian view that religion is a 'thought disorder'. He also examines his motivation behind making the series touching on the issues of death and the religious fanaticism of the 21st century.

The other parts of the series can be viewed here:

A Brief History of Disbelief 2.

A Brief History of Disbelief 3.

A Brief History of Disbelief 4.

A Brief History of Disbelief 5.

A Brief History of Disbelief 6.

A Brief History of Disbelief 7.

A Brief History of Disbelief 8.

A Brief History of Disbelief 9.

A Brief History of Disbelief 10.

A Brief History of Disbelief 11.

A Brief History of Disbelief 12.

A Brief History of Disbelief 13.

A Brief History of Disbelief 14.

A Brief History of Disbelief 15.

A Brief History of Disbelief 16.

A Brief History of Disbelief 17.

A Brief History of Disbelief 18.

Each video is only about 10 minutes long. Watch them while they are available.

disbelief religion politics philosophy science theology christianity islam judaism jonathanmiller jonathan miller atheist

They can also be seen at this link should the other links become inactive. (Thanks for the tip Remy.)

How Many in the Bush Administration Went to Pat Robertson's Law School?

2007-05-01T09:57:00.000+10:00

Bill Maher blasts Regent Law School

Video Transcript: -

Now that liberals have taken back the word "liberal", they also have to take back the word, "elite." By now you have heard the constant rightwing attacks on the elite media and the liberal elite, who may or may not be part of the Washington elite, a subset of the East Coast elite, which is overly influenced by the Hollywood elite. So basically unless you are a shit-kicker from Kansas you are with the terrorists. You know if you played a drinking game where you did a shot for everytime that Rush Limbaugh attacked someone for being elite, you'd almost be as wasted as Rush Limbaugh.

I don't get it. In other fields outside of government, elite is a good thing, like an elite fighting force. Tiger Woods is an elite golfer. If I need brain surgery, I would like an elite doctor. But in politics, elite is bad. The elite aren't down to earth and accessible like you and me and President shit for brains. Which is fine except for whenever there is a Bush administration scandal, it always traces back to some incompetent, political hack appointment and you think to yourself - "Where are they getting these screw-ups from?" Well, now we know, from Pat Robertson. I'm not kidding.

Take Monica Goodling who before she resigned last week because she is smack in the middle of the US attorney scandal, was a third ranking official in the Justice Department of the United States. She's 33 years old and though she never worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked at overseeing the job performance of all 93 US attorneys. How do you get to the top that fast? Harvard? Princeton? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College. You know Messiah, the home of the fighting Christies and then went on to attend Pat Robertson's Law School. Yes, Pat Robertson, the man who said that the presence of gay people at Disneyworld would cause earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor - has a Law School. And what kid wouldn't want to attend? It's three years and you only have to read one book. US News and World Reports which does the definitive ranking of colleges lists Regent's as a tier four school which is the lowest score it gives. It's not a hard school to get into. You have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook. This is for people who couldn't get into the University of Phoenix.

Now, would you care to guess how many graduates of this televangelist diploma bill work in the Bush Administration? One hundred and fifty! And you wonder why things are so messed up? We are talking about a top justice department official who went to a college funded by a TV host. Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich U? And if you did, would you expect her to get a job at the Whitehouse? In 200 years we have gone from "We the people" to "up with people", from the "best and the brightest" to "dumb and dumber" and where better to find people who are dumb enough to believe in George Bush than Pat Robertson's Law School. The problem here in America, isn't that the country is being run by elites, it's that it is being run by a bunch of hayseeds. And by the way, the lawyer Monica Goodling just hired to keep her ass out of jail - went to a real law school.

bill maher george bush politics religion white house video humor satire pat robertson monica goodling Regent University messiah college

H/T to Drunkentune at philaletheia.

'The Kalam Kalamity' - Or God Exists Because I Say So Part 2.

2007-04-29T14:55:00.000+10:00

The concept of Infinity is no longer represented by this hypothetical manufacturer

From: - Kalam Cosmological Argument

The basic argument of the Kalam is as follows:1. Everything that begins to exists has a cause for its existence2. The universe began to exist (i.e. it is not infinite)Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.

Craig's Mistaken Concept of Infinity

We will look at the second premise of the argument first. It is strange that Craig is trying to prove infinity is impossible by pointing out oddities which are already well known to mathematicians and logicians. Just because a feature is odd does not mean it involves a contradiction.First in his example of the infinite library of books. His argument is flawed because we can simply remove the books from the library, add the new books together with the ones in it and then reassign natural numbers to each book. No problem, no absurdity.

With respect to the problem of successive addition. You can get infinity if you construct a successive addition that has no beginning, i.e. it already reaches out into infinity.

The Universe Being Finite in Time:

Craig's use of science is really a double edged sword. He claims that science supports the finiteness of the universe. Actually it does not do that at all. All it shows is that our current state of the universe had a beginning about fifteen billion years ago. It does not show that it was the absolute beginning. For instance Stephen Hawking has proposed a four dimensional universe. In this model the universe goes through a period of increasing entropy during an expansionary phase and a period of reducing entropy during the contractionary phase. Furthermore the jury is still out as to whether the universe will end in a contraction (a "big crunch") or whether it will continue to expand forever. If the former is the case, there is every possibility that ours is merely a cycle (of big bangs and big crunches) within an infinite series of cycles.

The Concept of Causation

With this we go to the first premise. Is causation an a priori necessity? In other words, can it be shown that it is logically contradictory to speak of ubncaused things, the way it is logically contradictory when we speak of husbands as unmarried spouses? The answer is no. We can conceive of something as being uncaused, it involved no contradiction. As proof, theist conceive of God as being uncaused. Is causation an inductive principle? In other words, is it something which science can show to be true? If it is something which can be resolved inductively, the answers seems to be causation is not a universal principle of science. We note first and foremost cosmologists seem very comfortable with the idea that the universe could have come into existence uncaused. In fact some scientists have suggested that the Big Bang began with a quantum fluctuation. The principle of quantum mechanics allow virtual pairs of quantum particles to appear and exist for a short time before annihilating. In December 1973, in an article for Nature, Edward Tryon of the City University of New York proposed the idea that the universe is "a fluctuation of the vacuum". He showed that such a fluctuation does not violate the conservation of energy. When Tryon's hypothesis is combined with the inflationary theory of the big bang a viable model of creation literally ex nihilo can be constructed. [4] Secondly causation is not a universally observed fact. In the realm of subatomic particles, quantum mechanics dominate. Yet quantum mechanics lead to many non-causational observations that are probabilistic in nature.

As Timothy Ferris explains:
The radioactive isotope radium-224 has a half life of 3.64 days. So if we study an atom of radium-224 for 3.64 days we will have an even chance of witnessing its decay. But we cannot know just when it will decay-this particular atom might wait for years-nor can we, in principle or in practice, assign a causeto its decay. All we can know are probabilities.

Note that he mentioned it is not even possible in principle. In other words quantum mechanics, one of the most widely confirmed scientific theories known, says that it is simply not possible to do, not that our equipment or knowledge is incomplete. Thus causation seems to break down in the subatomic realm. Yet this is exactly the condition the universe was in at the beginning. The universe, was in the domain of quantum mechanics at the beginning, the domain where causality breaks down.

Conclusions:

Thus in conclusion, the basic premises of the Kalam cosmological argument are either invalid or not proven:

Craig's concept of infinity is mistaken.

The universe may or may not have a beginning in time.

The verdict is still out, thus it cannot be used as a premise to prove his argument.

Causation is not an a priori principle.

Causation is not a universally valid empirical principle, as quantum mechanics have shown.

Normal Forms and Infinite Surreals

Degrees and Exponents of Infinities in the Surreal Numbers

Bigger and Bigger Infinities

The Principle Underlying Quantum Mechanics

The Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics: An overview

History and Development of Science and Scientific Naturalism

"So Long and Thanks for all the Fish"

kalam kalam cosmological kalam cosmological argument cosmological argument uncaused cause infinity causation

Pascal's Wager: The Empty Wager

2007-04-27T11:26:00.000+10:00

The Empty Wager

~*~

Pascal's wager is betting on the existence of god. It suggests that belief in god has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Blaise Pascal argued that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists, because the expected value to be gained from believing that God exists is greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief.

This argument has some major flaws. Some of them are:
1. It assumes that god (if it exists) rewards belief and punishes non-belief.
2. It assumes that the individual has chosen the right god.
3. It assumes that the individual is a member of the right religion or sect of that religion.
4. It requires that any person who is believing in a god to avoid punishment or gain reward would need to believe in all the religions which consider non-belief punishable.
5. It assumes that god/gods would not know that you are believing in order to avoid punishment or to gain reward.

So, if you claim that we should believe in Christianity just because of the possibility of being punished for not believing in it, then what are you going to say about other religions which also make such a claim? Based on Pascal's wager, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism cannot all be correct as they do not worship the same god/gods in the same way. So, to escape punishment, for Pascal's Wager to work, you would need to believe in all 3. Or some unknown non-Christian gods might exist, and punish Christian believers for their failure to believe in them. Or some powerful entity might decide to punish those who believe in a god while rewarding non-believers. To avoid punishment from believing in the wrong god, one would need to believe in all of them. This is bound to upset at least one of them, if any of them exist in the first place.

Also, if the belief is basely solely on the expectation of reward and the fear of punishment, instead of other things as well, such as the desire to do good, it is not belief with pure intent, which, if any of the gods exist, is bound to piss off at least one of them. I am not sure that "pretending to believe just in case" would score many "god brownie points." This is apart from a lifetime spent in worshipping which my turn out to be the wrong god, or a non-existent god. Thus a life spent on either a wilful delusion or a lie. So it is a fallacy that those who believe have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

"Men never do evil so completely or cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal
~*~
(Pascal's Wager always reminds me of the part in "The Mummy" where Benny is confronted by the mummy as it is hunting for body parts from which to reconstitute its own body. Benny is trapped against the wall inside the burial chamber with the egyptian mummy advancing towards him. Benny begins to pull out a dozen or so religious amulets from around his neck, and tries to use them as religious talismans to warn off the advances of the mummy. What saves him from the mummy, according to the story, is not his belief in any of the religions, but the fact that he can speak ancient hebrew. The moral of the story seems to be that it isn't belief that is going to save you from a dangerous situation, but knowledge. Specifically in Benny's case, it is the knowledge of another language which makes him useful - even if it was only on a temporay basis. Nonetheless, that part in the movie always makes me laugh as Benny is in effect, pretending to believe in all the gods, in the hope that none of the others, should they exist, be offended.)

Some of Benny's antics from "The Mummy."

LINK: The Empty Wager by Sam Harris

pascal's wager pascal blaise pascal bet wager sam harris letter to a christian nation religion god gods

"And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda"

2007-04-25T12:14:00.000+10:00

Anzac Cove - Gallipoli

It's Anzac Day in Australia. (25th April) The ANZACs were the combined forces of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. ANZAC Day in Australia is when Australians remember those who have fought in war. The ANZAC legend started during WW1 when Australia and New Zealand combined their forces under British Command to attack the Turks at Gallipoli. Unfortunately, there was a right royal stuff-up and the ANZACs landed at Suvla Bay and were faced with a small beach landing and thousands of well-armed Turks manning the cliff faces above the beach. The ANZACS were blown to hell - "almost blew us right back to Australia."

From the words which accompany this video:

On 25 April 1915, the Anzacs (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) landed at a difficult and desolate spot on the Gallipoli peninsula and the Turks appeared to be ready for them, a defeat was inevitable, Gallipoli was the plan thought up by Winston Churchill to end the war early by creating a new war front that the Central Powers could not cope with. The Gallipoli campaign was a debacle, Military censorship prevented the true story being told but a young Australian journalist, Keith Murdoch (father of Australian newspaper tycoon Rupert Murdoch) smuggled the story about the scale of the Dardanelles disaster back to the Australian Prime Minister who sent it on to the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who was no friend of the British military establishment. It led directly to the dismissal of the British commander, Sir Ian Hamilton who never again was to hold a senior military position. The British Government ordered an evacuation. By day, the ANZACs kept up their attacks with more ANZACs observed to be landing - by night the force was withdrawn, broken only by sporadic rifle and gunfire. On 20 December 1915, the Anzac retreat was complete.

A British Royal Commission into Gallipoli concluded that from the outset the risk of failure outweighed Its chances of success. The British had contributed 468,000 in the battle for Gallipoli with 33,512 killed. 7,636 missing and 78,000 wounded.The ANZACs lost 8,000 men in Gallipoli and a further 18,000 were wounded. Australia had a population of five million - 330,000 served in the war, 59,000 were killed. New Zealand with a population of one million lost 18,000 men out of 110,000 and had 55000 wounded.

This video is for my grandfather who was one of those who landed at Gallipoli in 1915. The song "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" always makes me shed a tear or two around this time of year. So many brave, innocent, young men were led "like lambs to the slaughter."

"And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda"

This video extract is from the movie "Gallipoli" which was made in 1981 by Peter Weir. It shows the common occurrence in the Gallipoli Campaign where the young ANZACS were ordered out of their trenches at the bottom of the hill to push forward over the dead bodies of those who had gone before, to try and gain distance up the cliffs. The turks, sitting at the top, picked them off like flies with machine gun fire. They knew they ran towards their certain death.

anzac anzacs anzac day gallipoli suvla bay and the band played waltzing matilda

"They Seek Him Here, They Seek Him There.."

2007-04-24T16:19:00.000+10:00

"They seek him here, they seek him there, those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven or is he in hell? That damned elusive Pimpernel." - The Scarlet Pimpernel - Sir Percy Blakeney

I would like to share with you today some of the search parameters which have been typed in search engines and have lead people to my blog. It's amazing what people type into search engines and expect as a result, to find information specific to their search requirements. I have absolutely no idea what some of these people were actually searching for when their search enquiries lead them to my blog. But, I would like to suggest a few examples. The moral of this story, is to define your search, or you will be lead to places which exist in parallel universes which require the use of a babelfish in at least one ear in order to make sense of your surroundings. By the way, if you see one of your searches listed, "DON'T PANIC" as the "Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy" never reveals its sources.

LIST OF SEARCHES AND SUGGESTED REASONS AS TO WHY THEY WERE DIRECTED TO MY BLOG.

1. mark of the beast for atheists
(This must refer to the oversized Darwinfish which I had tattooed on my left bum cheek. Word of advice: The beast always prefers that you tattoo the left bum cheek rather than the right as the right is for the hand of god. Smacks god's hand off my right bum cheek. )

2. itch in butt
(This search had me slightly bewildered until I realized that they meant to search for "pain in butt" rather than "itch in butt." Nonetheless, my expansive metatag source directed the search here anyway.)

3. mary had a little lamb
(What the!! How did you know my name was Mary? And I deny the lamb thing... Anyway Aries said that he used protection. Damn those randy male constellations.)

4. nude male
(Where?)

5. invisible egg
(Once again "where?" It is invisible, no good searching for it here.)

6. most billionaires are atheists
(But not this atheist.)

7. little engine that could
(Obviously related to: - The little search engine that couldn't find the "little engine that could" on this blog.)

8. understanding pulp fiction
(Success. They obviously came to the right place. Passes them a babelfish.)

9. Amen-Ra golden showers
(Excuse me but I think that a god's sex life should remain private. I am not a conservative busybody after all.)

10. William Lamb the psychic
(Uh oh - Looks like Aries is back and he is demanding that I pay him for that astrology session.)

11. benny hinn enema
(Yes, I recommend an enema for him too. You gotta pass those poop demons somehow.)

12. babel babel bitch bitch marilyn manson lyrics
(Yes, I do babble on a bit but it is Ms Bitch to you and Marilyn sends his love.)

13. hijacker guide through the galaxy
(That's right, your search has been hijacked here. Mwwahaahahah.)

14. keep your jesus off my penis
(I insist that jesus do that. I also insist that if jesus loves me, that he wears a condom.)

15. gay music
(I demand happy music at all times. La la la la la :) )

16. Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me
(How many devils has the dude got? And are any of them rich and cute?)

17. Homosexuality in the Ancient Near East, beyond Egypt semen in lettuce
(Semen in lettuce? Is this the egyptian vegetarian version of "American Pie?")

18. shakira's objection tango video is shit
(Hahahaha. I know.)

19. women who worship the penis
(Keep searching... )

20. quran unintelligible bernard shaw
( I agree and Bernard agrees with me.)

Hitchhiker's Guide - Don't Panic!

search search words search engine blog weblog internet google blogging blogs don't panic hitchhikers guide to the galaxy hitchhikers guide satire comedy

Does This Make Me Famous, Infamous or Almost Famous?

2007-04-22T13:12:00.000+10:00

Quote from the movie 'The Three Amigos': - "In-famous is when you're MORE than famous. This man El Guapo, he's not just famous, he's IN-famous."

~*~

Recently I entered the information concerning my blog at One Blog A Day. This is a blog which features blogs from across the internet. In the words from 'One Blog A Day': -

~*~

'One Blog A Day' will feature an Enterview with a blogger, who has made a significant contribution to the online community, every day. Our goal is to let bloggers share their stories with you and get invaluable feedbacks on their hard work. Please contribute to our efforts by sharing your thoughts and comments. Also, if you are a blogger, share your story with others by Submitting Your Blog Information.

~*~

So, being the shrinking violet that I am, I entered the information concerning my blog and the posting of my blog on the site can be viewed here. If you too want to be famous, infamous or almost famous, you also can enter your blog details. Good luck and may the 15 minutes of fame be with you.

"In the future, everybody will be world famous for 15 minutes." Andy Warhol.

(And yes, that is Adam Savage from 'Mythbusters' playing Van Gogh.)

famous infamous the three amigos almost famous andy warhol 15 minutes fame

"Let Me Not To The Marriage of Knowledge and Shakespeare's Sonnet 116"

2007-04-20T00:45:00.000+10:00

Click on image to enlarge

~*~

According to Plato, knowledge is a subset of that which is both true and believed. It is easy for people to discuss what they believe, but how do we ascertain that which is true? From my experiences with theists, they seem to imagine that believing something to be true, makes it true. Atheists are more likely to suggest that believing something to be true may have little impact on whether or not something actually is true. What does this mean for how we view the world and the potential knowledge within it? It may mean that for a theist knowledge is precisely that which they believe to be true. So, I would suggest that a theist believes that a god represents all knowledge known, or believed, and therefore what is true. Implicit in this is the belief that as they believe in god, that there is no knowledge outside what they believe they know about god.

Therefore knowledge which is inconstant, or inconsistent with that which is ascribed to the god, or to the god belief, is not considered knowledge. It is not considered knowledge because if the premise is that knowledge is only knowledge if it is expressed through a specific modality of god belief, then any information which is inconstant with the premise, cannot by definition, be considered knowledge. This theistic concept of what knowledge can be expressed like this: "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments." That is, the supposed mind of god, which contains all knowledge (omniscience) and the theistic mind which has faith that an omniscient god exists, CANNOT countenance the idea that knowledge exists which is contrary to: -

1. God exists
2. God is omniscient and as
3. God is omniscient, god defines what knowledge is.

To explore this thought further, this theistic concept could be expressed in this way. "Knowledge is not knowledge which alters when its alteration finds, nor bends with its remover to remove." Analogous to this is that if god is all knowledge, there is nothing outside of the word of god which can be considered to be knowledge. That is, if you believe that the concepts of love or knowledge can ONLY be explored and explained within the context of your god belief, you have hindered your ability to intellectually assess information with any degree of neutrality. This applies to all theists who have chosen a particular god to represent what they believe to be the embodiment of these concepts.

shakespeare sonnet sonnet 116 knowledge belief truth faith plato theist atheist all I need to know I can find in shakespeare

Book of Knowledge

Religious Presuppositionalism in a Nutshell - Or, "God Exists Because I Say So."

2007-04-17T12:25:00.000+10:00

The concept of religious presuppositionalism goes like this. Presuppose that something exists and then pretend to go through some argumentation. The result of this argumentation will NEVER impact negatively upon the premise and will always show, regardless of what information or argument is presented, that the premise is true. In other words, it is the most explicit example of blind faith that I can imagine.

1. Premise: - God exists.
2. Insert whatever words, opinions, arguments or would like here.
3. Conclusion: - God exists.

(Religious people go away as happy little campers.)

Let's try this religious modus operandi just for fun.

1. God exists.
2. My cat's poop is stinky.
3. Therefore God exists.

1. God exists.
2. %^%$#$#@
3. Therefore God exists.

1. God exists.
2.
3. Therefore God exists.

1. God wants me for a sunbeam.
2. Sunbeams exist.
3. Therefore God wants me for a sunbeam.

See how easy it is? Let’s try presuppositionalism on some other topics.

1. My cat created the universe with its poop.
2. Poo exists.
3. Therefore my cat created the universe with its poop.

1. Life is but a song.
2. La la la la la la
3. Therefore life is but a song.

1. My computer hates me.
2. Fatal error! Fatal Error!
3.Therefore my computer hates me.

1. Atoms are the breath of 2-headed lizards from Alpha Centauri.
2. Lizards are sometimes born with 2 heads.
3. Therefore atoms are the breath of 2-headed lizards from Alpha Centauri.

1. The kangaroo has a pouch so it doesn't need to purchase a handbag.
2. I have never seen a kangaroo with an oroton handbag.
3. Therefore the kangaroo has a pouch so it doesn't need to purchase a handbag.

1. The stars are little holes in the heavens.
2. I have a little hole in my jeans and when I shine a flashlight through the hole a pinprick of light is displayed on the wall.
3. Therefore the stars are little holes in the heavens.

1. Belly button lint is evidence of satan.
2. Belly buttons exist.
3. Therefore belly button lint is evidence of satan.

Anyway, most of us could go on and on with this nonsense but for a bit more fun in a similar vein have a lookie here. Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

Beware the nut and the nutshell.

nutshell presuppositionalism presuppositional presupposition argument philosophy religion satire parody

My Chance To Be An "Intelligent Designer"

2007-04-15T13:52:00.000+10:00

My contribution to the competition - 'DarwinFish Burp' by Ms Beep

From: - Your Chance to Be an Intelligent Designer

"We’re having a competition to see who can come up with the next best Darwin fish design. So long as it cleverly incorporates that telltale fish profile, all ideas are game. Send us doodles, polished Illustrator files, graffiti art, whatever. We don’t care as long as it’s got an almond-shaped body, a tail and a certain wittiness."

~*~

Other entries in the competition can be found here.

A hotly contested debate like this can obviously only be settled with a ritual such as "The Fish Slapping Dance" by Monty Python.

fish christian fish jesus fish darwin fish monty python satire parody beepbeepitsme

Personal Revelation

2007-04-13T13:56:00.000+10:00

Exodus 20:18

~*~

It has been personally revealed to me that the bible, is in fact, referring to Australia in many of the verses and passages. It may be referring to Australia as the Promised Land. Of course, one must read the bible in the spirit of HOPS to be able to ascertain the true meaning of its passages. Here is a list of the passages and their true meaning as revealed to me.

Job 37:9 "The tempest comes out from its chamber, the cold from the driving winds."
(This is an apt description of an Australian Beer fridge hard at work during the Xmas Holidays.)

Ezekiel 24:11 "Then set the empty pot on the coals till it becomes hot and its copper glows so its impurities may be melted and its deposit burned away."
(This passage describes how those poor people who live in the remote and cold southern areas of Australia must use central heating in order to avoid having their gonads frozen off.)

Daniel 4:5 "I had a dream that made me afraid. As I was lying in my bed, the images and visions that passed through my mind terrified me."
(An observant description of an Australian watching a satellite transmission of Faux News.)

1 Chronicles 21:27 "And the LORD commanded the angel; and he put up his sword again into the sheath thereof."
(Those who wish to be considered angelic, need to wear condoms.)

Genesis 1:12 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
(This one is pretty self-explanatory. It describes God's personal pot plantation in Byron Bay.)

Nahum 3:2 "The noise of a whip, and the noise of the rattling of the wheels, and of the pransing horses, and of the jumping chariots." (Most Australians recognize this immediately as a reference to chasing kangaroos through the bush in a four-wheel drive. That they consider that they are "jumping chariots" adds to their ability to out manoeuvre their pursuers.

Job 41:14 "Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about."
(Tourists to Australia should take particular notice of this passage. Many a gullible tourist has fallen prey to saltwater crocodiles. Most of those taken by saltwater crocodiles have been new earth creationists trying to cuddle them and take them back to the US as evidence that dinosaurs and humans can co-exist peacefully.)

Acts 28:3 "And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand."
(This is also a warning about what should be used as fuel for a fire. The spiny anteater (echidna) which can resemble a bundle of sticks on a cold night, doesn't take kindly to being chucked on a fire. It is likely to rise out of the fire like a snake and bite or scratch you either on the hand or any other organ which is not well protected.)

Exodus 20:18 "And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off."
(Anyone who has been to Ayer's Rock (Uluru) is familiar with this sight. An afternoon thunderstorm, the noise of drunken Australians blowing trumpets in the background and a glorious sunset with Uluru in the foreground. All the people are standing a long way off as if they get too close, someone will suggest they climb the damn thing, so as a precautionary measure, they stand a distance away.

Jeremiah 51:32 "And that the passages are stopped, and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted."
(This verse describes the Australian precaution of burning firebreaks in the bush during drought to halt the progression of bushfires. Therefore the passages of the fires were stopped by the burning of the long grass. The men who are doing this are somewhat anxious in case they set fire to themselves in the process.)

Joshua 11:4 "And they went out, they and all their hosts with them, much people, even as the sand that is upon the sea shore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many."
(This verse is obviously describing the annual pilgrimage to Fraser Island where thousands of tourists and their mates speed up and down the long sandy sea shore of Fraser Island in their Suvs and four wheel drives.)

These are just some of the revelations which have been personally revealed to me. If you do not accept these revelations as true, you will not be going to hell. It will be something far worse. You will be forced to live in Sydney.

This information is brought to you by HOPS, the 'Holy Order of Perpetual Smartarses'.

Goanna - Solid Rock

bible christianity religion christian australia true christian real christian revelation personal revelation satire comedy parody

BIBLICAL CREATION OR "THE SEED AND POTTING MIX SAGA."

2007-04-11T10:04:00.000+10:00

Having mentioned previously that many early religions were fertility cults, that is worship of gods, goddesses, natural processes, the stars moon and primarily the sun which were revered in order to enure the fertility of the soil, crops, livestock and humans; I am now going to discuss the origins of the Abrahamic religions in the context of this knowledge. I have also discussed previously, the origins of circumcision and how it was a ritual performed in Ancient Egypt for specifically the purposes mentioned above.

Ever wondered why god is male? Yes, I know there are the new agey types out there who carry on like a pork chop how god isn't male or female, but those of us who were or are a member of one of the Abrahamic religions, should be left in no doubt that the monotheistic god of these religions is male. The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are basically patriarchal religions. Anyone who knows a little of their history is aware of this. The word "patriarchy" derives from the word "patriarch" and the ancient books of the jews and consequently the christians are full of the deeds of the patriarchs. They were supposedly the male leaders of their clan or tribe. In other words, the head male honcho of each group.

So, there are patriarchs all over the Bible and the Hebrew Scriptures. The same story applies to the Islamic holy book the Quran, though I am not sure if they call their male leaders patriarchs, but the idea is the same. The guys supposedly get to rule, the guys are supposedly chosen by god, (who is inevitably male), to lead their people, the guys supposedly get the conversations with the male god which are then written into holy scriptures and women get to obey those words if they behave well enough so that they are not raped, sold into slavery or stoned to death. That's pretty well the gist of it. And I say fuck that shit. I don't think that the guys had a handle on what was going on at all. I think that they were basically ignorant, primitive tribesmen who concocted ideas as a means to explain the natural world. I mean, there were god stories all over the place, as the invention of a god was the common artifice used in order to explain anything they didn't understand. One more god didn't make much difference and probably seemed like the necessary thing to do if you wanted to galvanize the tribe into a common purpose.

The interesting thing to me is how and why religions became so obsessed with maleness. I have mentioned before the origins of circumcision and in this article I am going to discuss the mentality of these ancient people, why circumcision became a religious ritual and why the people of that time period created the concept of one male god who was the creator of all things and all life. As an interested observer of the bible I am struck by the language used to express concepts. One that is especially noticeable is the use of agricultural terms to express fertility and reproduction. If you do a search of the bible, you will see that the words "seed", "fruit" and "soil" are used in many occasions to describe human reproductive processes. This is understandable as these ancient people used words which were applicable to their time. There is no use of the words, sperm, ova, penis, uterus, foetus or embryo in the bible because those words were unknown. They were unknown to ancient people. The word "womb" is mentioned in the modern versions of the bible, but as the word originates from the old english word "wamb" (mid 5thC), one can assume that it wasn't the word used in the original text.

Need I add that in an agrarian mentality or culture that "tools that tilled the soil" were especially prized, and so fertility rituals were created which spoke of their importance. After all, if you have the belief that seed is produced exclusively by males and that women do not contribute genetic material in order to create new life, then you most probably create a ritual which symbolises the importance of this belief. If women and men were made from seed which man produced, then the male penis would take on special religious significance. I suggest that the ritual which was created to symbolize this male power was circumcision.

I am sure that ancient human beings understood the process of conception but nothing like the way we understand it now. So they probably twigged that they had to do the "wild thing" alright, but they didn't know that women produced half the biological material to create life. They had a common name for sperm which was "seed" and they had a common name for the finished product which was "fruit" but they had no common word for "ova". Why? Because the existence of ova wasn't considered until Reinier de Graaf. (1641-1673) That is approximately two thousand years after the creation of their penis cults. Reinier de Graaf was the first one to describe follicles, which he called "kleine bollekens", in the ovary which he called 'the female testicles' and he realized that a follicle contained an oocyte, which he called 'ovum'. Although he has never seen an oocyte; he deduced its presence from the observation of an ectopic pregnancy. Let that sink in for a moment. He considered the ovary to be "female testicles." This language explicitly demonstrates how little of the female reproductive system was known in the sixteen hundreds, let alone a couple of thousand years previously. But, as I am in the mood for being as matriarchal as the previous language was patriarchal, I shall henceforth refer to testicles as male ovaries.

Ova themselves were not EVIDENCED until 1827 by Prussian-Estonian embryologist Dr. Karl Ernst von Baer. See, I kind of go by what people DIDN'T know. I figure that people's beliefs are more than likely based on what they DON'T know, not so much on what they actually know. It's obvious that ancient man knew that his penis contained sperm which he called "seed". It is NOT obvious that they knew that women produced eggs which we now call ova. As it is NOT obvious that they knew these things it is extremely doubtful that they knew that women contributed 1/2 the biological material to create life. If they didn't know that women contributed half the biological material required to produce new life, then it is more than probable that they made some glaringly false assumptions. That they based their religions around these false assumptions is of no surprise to me either.

The bible uses the kind of "sexual language" that one would expect from an ancient agrarian society that associates male sperm with "seed", the woman's womb with "the soil" and the result as "fruit". I think that ancient men believed, because of a LACK of knowledge about human reproduction and a lack of knowledge about ova, that they were the instigators of life through their "seed" and that women were the "soil" which bore their "fruit." I am sure that men viewed themselves to be powerful because of this. Powerful men sired powerful sons. Weak men sired women, who were necessary, but not as important as males who exclusively produced seed. In an agrarian mentality, seed is the focus of life. No seed equals no crops. Even if you have no soil, you can always take your seed with you and fight for new soil. This works from an agricultural point of view and also a human reproductive point of view.

Now, this is where it gets even more interesting. From an agrarian point of view, if men were responsible for holding the seed to life in their penis, then a more powerful man must be responsible for the creation of all life. This is working from the agrarian mentality based on false assumptions. It had to be a male who was responsible for life because human males considered themselves to be the responsible for sowing seed to create new life. But how would this mysterious all-powerful male create all life? Well, if he was all-powerful, he wouldn't need a penis to transfer seed and he wouldn't need a woman's body to act as soil. (I suppose he might have had an invisible penis, but the ancients seem to have steered away from this concept, except for the offering of thousands of bits of penis skin to their male super deity. Perhaps it was a form of sympathetic magic whereby they hoped that by giving their male entity lots of bits of their "powerful organ" that he would bless them with fertile sperm and multitudinous fruit. Anyway, this all-powerful invisible dick in the sky didn't seem to need a woman's womb in order to create children, nor did he need visible sperm. He was all-powerful after all.)

But who created the first male? Seed is needed to create another male, or, a male is needed to create a male. So it must have been a superdooper male who created the first human male. This is where the agricultural mentality kicks in again. The powerful supernatural male creates life in the way that an ancient male would expect him to. He doesn't use his seed to impregnate a female; he uses his breath as an invisible being would use something invisible. Genesis 2:7- " the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." He doesn't need a woman; he uses the soil of the earth in exactly the same way that women were considered to be soil in which seed could be planted. So, the soil, clay, dirt is the symbol of the female and the almighty male god only has to breathe into it to create a male. This is the explanation that ancient men came up with to explain not only why they believed that they were biologically more important, but also to explain how a male was produced without the need of a female. So what came first in the chicken and the egg story? In the case of ancient man and his knowledge, or lack of knowledge, the male and his seed came first, (pardon the double entendre) and the female or human potting mix was created secondly.

So it must have been a superdooper male who created the first human male. And amazingly, to match the ancient agrarian thinking, this superdooper male made a man out of dust, clay or soil. Seed goes into soil you see. But the superdooper male god didn't have to use "seed" like an ordinary human male. Oh no, he was SO powerful and so invisible that his invisible breath was enough to fertilize the soil. Then having created a man out of dirt, he went on to create a woman FROM man, because that is what the ancients believed, that women originated from men, from their seed. “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man.”1 Corinthians, 11:8 They believed that all humans came from a man's seed and where no visible seed was available that it was invisible seed in the form of a male's breath.. And that has been the fairytale for a few thousand years. Groan.

Thomas Acquinis (1225–1274CE) does not recognize the existence of any biological material suppled by the female. "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power." - Thomas Aquinas, 'Summa Theological', Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1 They didn't KNOW that women contributed half the biological material required to create life. They saw THEMSELVES as the ones who provided all the biological material that was necessary. They believed that they held the spark of creation. Little wonder that they went on to create religions which put them and their seed at the top of the pyramid and the soil or the potting mix at the bottom.

I consider these religions to be basically penis cults. They chop a bit off here and there and offer it up to their male god as a token of their esteem for him. Perhaps the supposed coat of many colours is actually made up of dried out old foreskins. Who knows? It wouldn't surprise me at all. They are just political organizations based on guys having an excuse to worship their own pee pees and the invisible pee pee who lives in the sky and who apparently watches them while they have sex with their pee pees. It appears to be basically a voyeuristic male entity who, at least from its inception, required foreskin sacrifice and who nodded approvingly at the snip of each organ..

Now, I know that men are basically fascinated with their penis from birth. Let's face it, it is a dangly toy a little like the mobiles which we dutifully hang above their cribs. They hold it when they sleep, unless they have been traumatized into thinking it is dirty, and they hold it when they are in danger and when they die. I don't have a major problem with the fact that they find their penis to be endlessly fascinating, except to say that I do not feel compelled to worship their penis with them, nor to worship their almighty invisible penis which has magic breath and lives in the sky. I am sure they find it absolutely enthralling but they really should move onto to other pursuits like being able to multi task or being able to count their golf scores honestly. After all, their penis isn't all-powerful no matter to which religious myth they ascribe. I intend to remind the more penis cult minded among them of that often.

Grease 2: 'Reproduction Song'

reproduction science fertility religion circumcision foreskin penis penis cult cult bible creation genesis agrarian agriculture soil seed fruit biblical creation satire comedy

Blog Against Theocracy

2007-04-06T08:28:00.000+10:00

Dominionism: ~ Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism, primarily, though not exclusively, in the United States, that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs. The dominionist interpretation sees adherents as heeding a command from God to all mankind to subject the world to the rule of the Word of God.

The terminology of dominionism, and the broad concept of the trend described by critics, has been taken from the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 1:26. Some influences on the Christian Right acknowledge looking to the New Testament to justify theocracy. In Matthew 28:18, for example, Jesus is reported to have said, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. This verse is seen as an announcement by Jesus that he has assumed authority over all earthly authority.

In that light, some theologians interpret the Great Commission as a command to exercise that authority in his name, bringing all things (including societies and cultures) into subjection under his commands.

What differentiates Christian Dominionism from Islamic Dominionism? Not much in my opinion. Both strive for the absolute authority of a theocratic government. Both may reserve the right to punish "evil doers"according to the repressive dogma of their "holy books". Both seek the destruction of secularism in favour of an autocratic religious state.

Whereas secularism protects the right of citizens to be of any religion of their choosing, or no religion at all, theocratic governments demand civilian adherence to the scriptures of ONE religion. That religion and the beliefs of that religion, would be enshrined in all law.

Both of these religions seek to oppress and deny individual rights in favour of the tenets of their religion. Both religions are imperialistic by nature. They each seek to be a religious monopoly. They do NOT ascribe to a pluralistic society. They each prescribe a monotheistic society. In their identical mantras, "There can be only one."

Blog Against Theocracy

For details about "Blog Against Theocracy" see: -

blog against theocracy theocracy christian theocracy islamic theocracy dominionism secular secularism secular state monotheism pluralism religious pluralism

The Thinking Blogger Award

2007-04-05T06:56:00.000+10:00

Bruce from The Thinker's Podium has tagged me with a Thinking Blogger Award. (I just knew that liking Monty Python would score me some bonus points one day.)

The Thinking Blogger awards have rules as follows:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with 5 blogs that make you think
2. Link to this post so that people can find the exact origin of the meme.
3. Optional: Proudly display the “Thinking Blogger Award” with a link to the post that you wrote (there is a silver version if gold doesn’t fit your blog).
4. Your chosen blogs cannot have been previously awarded.

"Cogito, ergo sum" (Latin: "I think, therefore I am" ) or "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" (Latin: "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am") - Descartes.

These people think and therefore they are as well. (If you have been tagged before, please let me know so that I can tag someone else.)

KA from Biblioblography - (An atheist's viewpoints on religion, government, culture, adding friction to the fray. Will be talking about books occasionally, hence the title. Blunt, mocking (gently & otherwise), shootin' straight from the hip (hopefully), a dash of humor w/liberal doses of cynicism.)

PZ Myers from Pharyngula - (Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.)

Ted from Plonka's Blog - (A cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured, then quietly strangled.)

BEAJ from The Atheist Jew - (If you want BS or Political Correctness you have come to the wrong place.)

Steve G from The Philosopher's Playground - (One Part Sandbox, One Part Soapbox -- An on-going game of intellectual tag concerning ethics, science, politics, and all topics philosophical.)

The Ditty Bops- Wishful Thinking

thinking blogger award thinking blogger award blog descartes rene descartes Cogito, ergo sum Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum I think, therefore I am I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am

When The Easter Bunny Goes Feral

2007-04-04T10:32:00.000+10:00

'The Origin of Easter Eggs'

Many of you are aware of the pagan origins of Easter, and I am sure there will be other blogs which will be expressing those origins around this time. So, I am going to basically leave that up to them this year. For anyone interested in a previous Easter post, it can be found here. Now, sit back and relax and watch what happens when the Easter Bunny goes feral.

"When the Easter Bunny Goes Feral" or an extract from Monty Python's "Holy Grail."

easter easter bunny easter rabbit easter eggs christianity christian easter pagan pagan easter vernal equinox spring equinox satire

TEN WARNING SIGNS THAT YOU MIGHT BE IN A CULT

2007-04-02T11:40:00.000+10:00

IMAGE from: Why Fundamentalist Churches are often Cults

The group claims to have received special instructions from one or more "messengers from the sky."
The group uses a special set of rules that you must obey or be cast out.
The group promises eternal life in a paradise if you obey its set of rules, and threatens eternal suffering if you do not obey its set of rules.
The group demands that you give up as much of your assests and your yearly income to it as possible.
The members of the group call each other "brother" and "sister," even when they aren't related at all.
The group is led by a group of enlightened masters who wear strange clothes and speak in esoteric parables.
The group demands that you accept its teachings without reservation, even when those teachings are in direct conflict with your understanding of basic scientific knowledge.
The group demands that you select your spouse and your closest friends from its membership.
The group demands that you place your children in its training program.
The group teaches that giving up your life for the sake of the spiritual group may become necessary sometime in the future.

"One man's cult is another man's religion and one man's religion is another man's cult." - Me

Mind Control Cults

cult cults religion religions ten signs cultist cultists

"Now lies the earth all Danae to the stars,"

2007-03-31T09:16:00.000+10:00

Spencer TUNICK : - Melbourne, Australia

"Now lies the earth all Danae to the stars, And all thy heart lies open unto me." is part of the poem 'Now Sleeps the Crimson Petal', by Alfred Lord Tennyson.

So, who was Danae?

In the Greek Mysteries, Danae was a daughter of King Acrisius of Argos and Eurydice. Now, King Acrisius didn't have any male heirs. (Usual story, the guys need a male heir.) So anyway, he asked an oracle what to do. The oracle told him to go to the ends of the earth where he would be killed by his daughter's child. (Doesn't sound too hopeful for the king so far and I figure he might be rethinking the "male heir bit.") His daughter, Danae, was childless and because King Acrisius didn't like the idea of being bumped off by the child of his daughter, he shut her up in a tower, some say cave, so she couldn't well, you know, do the wild thing. But Zeus, the head god honcho came to her in the form of a beam of sunlight, and impregnated her. Others versions of the mystery say that Zeus came to her as a shower of gold. Soon after, their child Perseus was born. So Danae is the virgin mother of Perseus, and Zeus is his daddy. Who's your daddy!

So, what's the point about Danae? Not a lot really, except that I thought the reference might be a good hook to the article I am going to share with you today. Danae, is nearly always depicted in art as naked and waiting in anticipation, I guess, for that beam of sunlight which is going to impregnate her. No doubt she was pretty bored locked up and all that, so she probably had all sorts of time to laze around naked and dream of god superheros who would do the wild thing with her. Now, one night, she must have been lying there "all Danae to the stars," (naked), when in pops Zeus for a bit of sunbeam fornication. The rest is history. Well, not quite, but history and myth seem to intertwine quite often and most people don't seem to worry nor concern themselves with it.

To be "all Danae to the stars" is to be naked, or nude. (You may not be terribly interested in the Greek Mysteries or with poetry, but I bet that got your attention.) Well, I was watching television the other night and I happened upon a documentary exploring the works of the artist photographer, Spencer Tunick. Some of you may have heard of him before. He is a photographer who takes group photos of crowds of nude people. You can see some of his work here. The documentary was about his project where he travelled around the world convincing people from many countries to pose naked for him against or near well-known national monuments or places.

He prefers to use large groups of naked people so that they become like the paint on a picture. In other words, so that their bodies become part of the medium for his installations. What struck me about the documentary was the different cultural attitudes associated with trying to get a large number of people to be part of his photographs. I think the documentary mainly concentrated on work done during the early 2000s, when he wasn't perhaps as well known, because I notice after that, he had less trouble being able to harness a large group of participants.

The brits had no problem posing for the pictures, and a few hundred turned out to accommodate his artistic vision. Even though some people might consider the brits to be uptight, they seem to be not uptight when it comes to art. It was entirely different in Japan, where even though they may have communal bathing houses etc, he was only able to get about 4 people who were willing to pose nude for him. And in France, it was a similar thing, (at least during the filming of the documentary we are talking about), as he found it difficult to get more than one or two people willing to pose nude for him in front of the Louvre Pyramid. There was a kafuffle, and he was nearly arrested. The French may be liberated in their attitudes towards art, but no posing naked without permission. In Russia it was a similar story, there were strong cultural traditions against nakedness, so it meant that only a brave few turned up to pose in their naked glory. In Africa, ditto. In fact, in one long conversation with a woman in the documentary, she would only pose naked if money was exchanged hands. In Montreal, he had much more success, a few thousand turned up to have their picture taken. In some South American countries, he got a lot of people, but not many women. Many South American countries have quite macho cultures and according to some of the men interviewed, a woman would be lowering herself to pose nude at such an event. Which I can only interpret as, "It is ok for a male to show off his pecker."

But in Melbourne, Australia, approximately 4 thousand turned up in the rain, to bare their bums for art. The rain did eventually clear up enough so that some photos could be taken. I have to say that it warmed the cockles of my heart to see so many naked Australian bums praying to the god of sunshine. There were no reports of mysterious sunlight copulations. It must have been Zeus's day off. Or perhaps there weren't any virgins there! :)

Funny :)

Spencer Tunick nude naked art photography installation australia melbourne greek myths danae alfred lord tennyson 'Now Sleeps the Crimson Petal zeus

"Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink"

2007-03-29T13:00:00.000+10:00

"Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink" is a line from the famous poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. In the poem, the narrator or speaker is a sailor on a ship, which is becalmed and surrounded by water that he cannot drink. By extension, this is perhaps how many atheists feel. They are surrounded by religious people and their rituals, none of which make a great deal of sense to them, nor do they feel that they should be compelled to partake in any of them.

One of these religious rituals is baptism. The words "baptize" and "baptism" are of Greek origin. They simply mean to wash or to immerse. (Greek: baptizo, wash or immerse) The word itself takes on a religious context when it is used to describe a ritual, which is specific to the given religion. A water rite is a rite or ceremonial custom in which water is used as the central religious feature, in which a person is immersed or bathed as a symbol of religious indoctrination or ritual purification. So, a baptism can be seen as a water rite or a water ritual, which has religious significance. There are other baptisms, which do not involve water as the purifying element, such as fire, earth, wind and even blood. But I am essentially discussing religious water rituals or rites in this article.

Water has played an important role in many religions and beliefs around the world. It has represented the source of life and the source of birth and rebirth. Water was used to cleanse the body and thus by extension it purified the body. This has lead water to be considered as extremely symbolic and at times sacred. Water is therefore a key symbolic element in ceremonies and religious rites.

Water was and still is in some places perceived as a god, goddess or a divine agency. Once water is assumed or inferred through religious belief to have a divine agency, it ceases to be neutral or passive. Under these circumstances it is considered to have powers and capacities of transformation, removal of sin or to transfer its divine or holy powers to the recipient through religious ceremony. In this way, water often represents the border between the natural world and another supposed supernatural or spiritual world.

The concept of purification with water, either religiously symbolic or as a literal act of cleanliness is probably older than recorded history. Pagans purified themselves with fire, incense, blood sacrifice; they even purified themselves with a winnowing fan. But the most used, most widespread tool of pagan purification was water. A pagan is basically anyone who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. So pagans were anyone who pre-existed or lived outside the religious constructs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This of course includes the ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, the ancient Romans and the Greeks, and anyone else who lived in any other part of the world who wasn't one of the Abrahamic religions. Prior to the foundations of the "big 3" this word, "pagan" would have described everyone who existed in the world, or who had ever existed. (Though it wouldn't have been a term they would have used to describe themselves. They would have called themselves whatever was the appropriate term for their religious practices.) After the foundations of the "big 3", the word, "pagan" is used to describe everyone else who ISN'T a member of the "big 3."

Pagan water purification rituals were used in the ancient world and are written about in the Old Testament. Homer mentions the washing of hands before prayer, and the purification of an entire army with water (Iliad, 1.313). The Greeks even had priests, kathartai, who specialized in purification with water. After the conspiracy of Cylon in Athens in 632 BC, a fellow named Epimenides of Crete purified the entire city with water. (Diogines Laertius 1.10.3)

Those of us who live in a predominately christian nation, or who have a predominately christian worldview, find it difficult to consider these religious water rites as baptism. Yet the intention, motive and action are in many instances identical. It is only that this actions or intents were not performed invoking in the name of the Abrahamic god/gods.

The mystery religions of that period often included ablution rites of either immersion or a washing of the body for the purposes of purification or initiation. Other concepts said to have been associated with these forms of cultic baptisms included the transformation of one's life, the removal of sins, symbolic representation, the attainment of greater physical vitality, a new beginning, spiritual regeneration. It is believed that all ancient religions recognized some form of spiritual cleansing, renewal or initiation that was accomplished through a washing or immersion in water.

So why were water rituals or baptisms performed in the ancient world? Basically for the same reasons that they are performed now. They are performed because of the belief that water can be or is embued with special divine properties.

These divine or religious properties are considered to have the power to either literally or symbolically: -

1. purify the individual, or the object of evil forces or sin.
2. purify the individual or object in preparation for death or for an afterlife.
3. symbolically represent initiation into a specific religion and its tenets.

In many cases, it is all of the above. What is the main difference is the divine power. or religion to whom the ritual is attached.

So, let's have a look at some of these water rituals/rites or baptisms.

1. Hindus believe that bathing in the waters of a holy river, such as the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh and the Ganges in India, will purify one's life of past sins.
a. Sprinkling of holy water on persons is called prokhshanam. In order to purify places and persons, consecrated water or punyaaham is sprinkled. In purificatory rites, water is sprinkled on the object to be purified.

2. The ancient Egyptians believed that the Nile had regenerative powers, and was used to baptize the dead in a ritual based on the Osiris myth. Egyptian cults also developed the idea of regeneration through water.
a. The Book of "Going Forth by Day" (Egyptian Book of the Dead) contains a treatise on the baptism of newborn children, which is performed to purify them of blemishes acquired in the womb. " He has made an end to hours, and likewise, counted them. In the morning, earth fills with light. Law and baptism. The one of us all, endures. It is our work under the sun." - from "The Egyptian Book of the Dead"
b. Egyptians who lived by the laws of Ma'at took a sacramental drink, which conferred ritual purity. Ma'at's potion brought life after death to the peaceful and law-abiding citizen, but death to violent persons. Ma'at Responsible For: Justice, Law and Order, Immortality, Primordial Being
c. Egypitan priests were initiated into their temple duties through baptism in a sacred pool. This pool was symbolic of the waters of Nu, (the Cosmic Ocean), which washed away all evil. The Purification Ritual for officiating priests is contained in a papyrus of the Berlin Museum, whose analysis and table of chapters has been published by Herr Oscar von Lemm, Das Bitualbuch des Ammonsdienstes, p. 4, et seq.
3. In Buddhism, water is sometimes used in funeral ceremonies. It is poured and overflows into a bowl placed before the monks and the dead body. As it fills and pours over the edge, the monks recite ‘As the rains fill the rivers and overflow into the ocean, so likewise may what is given here reach the departed.’
a. Water, which has been through religious ritual, purified or made sacred, is used in some Buddhist ceremonies to initiate priests and in ceremonies when a priest leaves the priesthood.
4. In Zoroastrian initiation, the rite of baptism was performed through the use of either blood, urine, or water.
5. In Judaism, the mikvah, which translates from Hebrew to mean a "collection of water," is a body of water where a person immerses herself or himself to become "ritually pure." The mikvah is used by some religious men before prayer, a bride before she is married, and by a person in the final stages of conversion to Judaism.
6. In ancient Japan, Furo, or the Japanese hot bath, was originally part of a religious rite in which man merged with the divine through purification in the bath.
7. The ancient Greeks had various religious rites, which involved the use of water. These religions were what are described as the "Eleusinian mysteries" as they occurred in, or were originated in Eleusis. "Thus were men initiated into the mysteries of Eleusis, and he who initiated them was called "Hydranus, the Waterer'" Tertullian says that thus men were initiated into the mysteries of Isis and Mithra; and Apuleius describes purification by water as part of the ceremonial of the Isiac initiation. Those initiated into the mysteries of the Goddess Cotytto were called Baptes, from the ceremony of Baptism, which was part of the initiation; and Eupoles, rival of Aristophanes, wrote a comedy called The Baptes, ridiculing them. That was in the time of Socrates." The Reverend Mr. Reeves. The Eleusinian Mysteries
a. The mystery followers were bound by an oath to keep the mysteries secret. The actual initiation was preceded by numerous rites of purification such as fasting, baptism, and confession. The Christian theologian Tertullian (ca. 155-220 CE) wrote, "In certain mysteries, e.g. Isis and Mithra, it is by baptism [Latin: per lavarum] that members are initiated ..." Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-211 or 215 CE) wrote, "... in the current Mysteries among the Greeks ceremonial purifications hold the premier place."
b. The Greater mysteries included baptism in the sea, three days of fasting, and the completion of the mysterious central rite. These acts completed the initiation, and the initiate was promised rewards in the life after death. Esoteric Christianity: The Greek Mystery Religions and Their Impact on Christianity
c. The mystery religions often included ablution rites of either immersion or a washing of the body for the purposes of purification or initiation. Other concepts said to have been associated with these forms of cultic baptisms included the transformation of one's life, the removal of sins, symbolic representation, the attainment of greater physical vitality, a new beginning, spiritual regeneration.
d. A bath in the sanctuary of Trophonion procured for the initiate a blessed immortality even while in this world. Before entering the cave where the god Trophonios dwelled, the person would receive a bath and was anointed with olive oil. The priests then took him to water springs where the water of forgetfulness (for the loss of memory of all that was past) and the water of memory (to recall all that would be seen) were consumed. Baptism: A Pre-Christian History
8. Isaac de Beausobre, best known for his history of "Manichaeism, Histoire Critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme" says that "The Persians carried their infants to the Temple a few days after they were born, and presented them to the priest, before the sun, and before the fire, which was his symbol. Then the priest took the child and baptized it for the purification of the soul. Sometimes he plunged it into a great vase of water, and it was in the same ceremony that the father gave a name to the child." The Manichaeans
9. New members into the Mysteries of Isis / Osiris began their initiation with a sprinkling of purifying waters brought from the Nile. The result of the baptism and initiation? "a kind of voluntary death and salvation through divine grace." (Apuleius, Metamorphosis, Book 11, 21), and "..we shall have salvation" (Firmicus Maternus, The Error of Pagan Religions, 22.1).
10. Pagans at Gerasa celebrated the Maioumas, rites in which women bathed and were purified in a sacred pool outside town.
11. The religious ceremony to the ancient Greek Goddess Persephone, began by ritual purification in the sea.
12. The act of ritual washing is the beginning of the idea of Misogi, the physical act of ritual purification in water which is the prototype of the Shinto ritual of O-harai or purification. Misogi is a Shinto practice involving purification in a waterfall or other natural running water. Misogi
13. And of course there is perhaps the best known religious water ritual, that of Christian baptism.
14. In Islam, purification through ablution is an obligatory component of the Islamic Prayer ritual and prayers carried out in an impure state are not valid. This means Muslims are obliged to carry out ritual ablution before each of the five daily Prayers. In addition, a more thorough ritual is required on specific occasions.

Not all the water rituals listed here preceded the concept of christian baptism, but many of them do. What is shown is that many ancient religions recognized some form of spiritual cleansing, renewal or initiation that was accomplished through a washing or immersion in water. What they all have in common, is the belief that water, through religious ritual, can confer either literally divine properties upon people or objects, or that water can symbolically represent, through religious ritual, the initiation into a specific religion or cult. The practices have many things in common. What they DON'T have in common in most instances, is the deity or divine power, which is represented through the ritual. So when a person refers to baptism as if they invented it, they are essentially ONLY referring to the water rite associated specifically with their religion.

What has Christianity to say concerning religious water rites or ritual baptisms which preceded Christianity?

"We know of an ablution in the ritual of Eleusis; the laurel-wreath oration of Demosthenes speaks of purificatory ablutions in the mystery of Sabazius; the cult of Attis had its taurobolium, and the mystery of Isis knew a sanctifying baptismal bath, as did the mysteries of Dionysus and of Mithras. Upon mature consideration modern scholarship has rejected the ideas that such rites exerted an influence on the baptismal doctrine of the New Testament," (Hugo Rahner, The Christian Mystery and the Pagan Mysteries, section 3, in The Mysteries; Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks, edited by Joseph Campbell)

Yeah right... And the person who invented the first wheel, didn't have an influence on the latest Mercedes Benz.

Religious Water Rituals Etc

water water ritual water rite baptism history of religion history religion religious rituals the rime of the ancient mariner coleridge