aesmael

(after this)


( We'll also cut this )

Doing these weekly is easier for me, less timely for thee.

( Of course it gets cut )

    I am up too late and Christian programming has come on television. Just now I have listened horrified to a man telling a story in which he stated outright that it was because the man in the story had remained faithful to his church that his son had returned alive from a war. He stated outright that if that man had left his church, his son would have come back in a box.

    People are people! They are not object lessons for others to learn from; they have lives to live in their own right. I am so very sick and tired of people talking about the hardships of others as a lesson for them, it makes me want to scream. Any god that would torment or kill someone - or refrain from doing so - for the education, reward or punishment of a third party is a disgusting, immoral creature and deserves our scorn.

    To calm down, please enjoy these images of Jesus beating up the Greek gods.

Cross-posted to atheist_rage

    Prime Minister promises that, if re-elected, he will hold a referendum on whether reconciliation with aboriginal people should be included in the constitution. Still refuses to say sorry for their poor treatment. This, as tension about the still-unannounced election date rises.
    Arguments presented against: 'Australia wasn't ready', 'don't push policies millions of Australians find offensive'. Also claims that individual people these days don't need to apologise for things they did not personally do.
    Arguments for did include an unfortunate comparison of the Prime Minister as being like an atheist who lacks conviction and calls for a priest on his deathbed. I don't think that analogy maps very well - I doubt anyone believes Howard actually supports reconciliation for its own sake - but it does unfortunately associate again the idea that the godless deep down really believe. Otherwise I did not find his arguments very strong and would likely not have been convinced if I were not already 'on that side'. The strongest argument I recall him making was that Labor governments have been pushing reconciliation for years and the sky has not fallen down. although I have no knowledge of the actual facts of the situation.
    The sharpest single point came when the Liberal spokesperson was making his speech about "John Howard has not done anything to hurt the aboriginal community, you [the interviewer] have not done anything to hurt the aboriginal community..." etc and the Labor spokesperson interrupted with "You didn't fight at Gallipoli either but I'll bet you still attend ANZAC services." [Quotes approximated from memory]
    I suspect that is not the best comparison either but, frankly, I am not capable of working out why now. As far as people not hurting the aboriginal community, I would not be surprised to discover that is false. The recent thing of helping aboriginal communities deal with alcohol and abuse problems by sending in small numbers of police officers comes to mind. I better look up the facts of that and, probably, make corrections.

    New things on the agenda today:

• Look into aboriginal groups and find out what aboriginal people actually say they want, then see what I can do.
• Look into local shelters to find out about their policies wert transpeople and if necessary try to persuade them to improve.
  

Religious belief in Australia is falling, sadly more from apathy than anything else, I think. Our local media seemed not so excited about it but PZ Myers is positively emerald. ^_^

Steinn Sigurðsson|Dynamics of Cats has been to a conference and oh how I envy him. I mean, he has to endure terrible hardships, but just look at the conference highlights he has posted so far here (+!), here (amongst other things, Barnard's Star appears not to have any candidates so far so no Barnardian eels, alas, while Proxima Centauri may with further inspection) and here.

I won't say much because, really, all I have to go on are the quick bullet points he has posted so far, but I have not been so hungry since the last time I was in a really good bookshop. A lot of this is amazing and fascinating and the more information we get on the population of planets out there the more wonders we know.

If I were to go into academia this is what I would study, but alas I lack the skills and the dedication, so I will just sit here on the sidelines. :-P

And now it is off to sleep for me. Keep well, people.

Love,
    Tricia Fakename

    Yes, I was intending to go to sleep after that last post; my head hurts and all. However, I found myself turning over one of shelleybear 's late posts in my mind, trying to understand how it could have happened.
    The thought that keeps returning to my mind is that the jury has been dishonest in reaching their conclusion. At least, I am assuming events occurred as described in the linked article. Even though I was not there and have no access to any of the evidence I have no reason to believe otherwise (I try to be aware of the provisionality of my knowledge in all cases, usually not explicitly and with the optimistic thought that people realise this. This time I could be bothered.) so for now I think any dishonesty must lie in the verdict.
    Have I rambled into a thicket? I think I have. I say dishonesty because how else can they, with video footage of the assault and the admission of the assaulter, still find these people* guilty?

( * )

    There is a disconnect in me. I keep trying and failing to guess at the thought path that would lead people to conclude it is okay to reach the verdict they did. Is there something I am missing? A detail of the trial or law perhaps, if not in the minds of those involved? Perhaps the answer is as simple as 'the jurors were unethical and took advantage of an opportunity to have the legal system punish people they disliked'.
    My mind wandered all the way into how people make decisions about right and wrong and the relatively easy target of Divine Command theory, rubbish idea that it is. The connection is forgotten for now, alas, but I did have a hypothetical debate with a hypothetical proponent of the theory (there are still real ones about) who maintained for the purposes of this train of thought that the killing of human beings is wrong because God says it is wrong.
    Ve attempted to refuse my doubly hypothetical yet based in reality question 'what if God declared it a good act to kill humans of class X (where X is not a category of people who have committed a crime [although if you were to maintain that disobedience toward God were itself a capital crime I suppose they still would be {unless we stipulate also that they have not actually committed any disobedience and merely fall into an identifiable category <parentheticals, whee!>}])?' by claiming 'God would not do that'.
    Of course, I pressed on the matter of, if God's will/decree is what defines right and wrong there is no reason why such a decree should not be made**. Ve claimed, then, that God is eternal, unchanging and necessarily as Ve is or else there could not be existence, therefore such hypothetical questions are invalid because there is no possibility in any reality - it is not a sensible question.
    I consider this to be a concession of the argument since I think it requires some set of principles prior to God which dictate Vis nature and, by extension, what is moral. The original purpose of writing this entire post was to ask if that were a valid objection to my hypothetical question but since in the writing I have concluded it is not I am now asking if I am in fact mistaken. I am sure I have made some unjustified/unjustifiable leap somewhere.
    And of course, one of the dangers of conducting arguments where one takes both sides is a tendency to use weaker arguments for the side not favoured but since there is only one question at stake in this case I have hopefully not been too bad.

**Well, if a previous decree were that right and wrong could not be changed in future there would be, actually. I did not realise this at the time.

    They did come to the door this morning, then were chased off again before I had much chance to chat with them (I grow only slowly bored with the religious so long as the exchange is courteous - as all mine have been to date). I did manage to snag their literature before the door was closed on them, though (Watchtower and Awake!, both for January 2007). Should keep me amused for a while. I mean to post my thoughts on those piece by bloody piece until they are done. ^_^

    Jehovah's Emissaries started with a biblical quote supposedly prophecying the end of sickness, then showed a page from their issue of Awake! illustrating some illnesses not yet cured by Science! [when argued against by the antiscientific (creationists, homeopaths, The Postmodernist and other mythical beasts which frolic freely in the Fields of Fancy) it must always be referred to as Science! and pronounced, just so], apparently in an attempt to undermine Science! by pointing out past failures and prepping me for accepting an unevidenced conclusion. This would have been a good time to mention smallpox and polio but at this point I was expecting to have them for play for a while yet. Plus honesty compels me to admit my doubt that science (not when it is part of my argument, oh no you don't) will eliminate sickness. I try not to underestimate the power of evolution. Sickness will end in the future, mind, I just do not think it will be Science! that does it. So instead I asked why I should take that seriously.

    They said it was a good question. Flattering tactic, praise the other person, make them feel good about themself, think you respect them and their points are sophisticated and they will be more likely to listen to you. That's folk psychology btw, show it is untrue and I will try to drop that belief.

    But I was saying. They asked if I was interested in the Bible and believed in God. My answer was yes and no, respectively, which took him a little thought to process. Oh yes, far's I can remember the woman (there was one of each [N.B. if I said 'the cat' and 'the dog' and there was one of each it would not mean there are no other animals to potentially choose from] did not speak. I don't like that, may mean nothing though.

    Next question I think he was probing for some angle to get to grips with me on and asked why I don't think there is any such thing as a 'God' - was it perhaps because of all the suffering in the world? Of course not. God may after all be evil, and I said as much. I did not laugh in their faces (nor do I recall being tempted to do so, but the absurdity of this conversation as recounted does suggest I might have), instead adding that in fact I never had any good reason to think so. He started asking about my upbringing then, I suppose he might have thought perhaps I had been raised antitheist or some such thing but there the conversation and this post end.

Hypothetical Indexation of Romps Through JW Literature Here

P.S. Speaking of puzzling beliefs, yesterday in the city I came across Deepak Chopra's name a couple of times. I think the universe wants me to have an aneurysm.

P.P.S. Lyricafication for Appropriatude:

You are here alone again
In your sweet insanity
All too calm, you hide yourself from reality
Do you call it solitude? Do you call it liberty?
When all the world turns away to leave you lonely

The fields are filled with desires
All voices crying for freedom
But all in vain they will fade away
There's only you to answer you, forever

In blinded mind you are singing
A glorious hallelujah
The distant flutter of angels
They're all too far, too far to reach for you

I am here alone again
In my sweet serenity
Hoping you will ever find me in any place
I will call it solitude when all my songs fade in vain

In
my voice, far away to eternity