Tuesday,
March 17, 2009 at 1:39am
We'd
never try to change you on your opinions. "I don't like the
thought of people going to hell." Lie to Me. We are wretched
horrible people. When Jesus died for me, he took away my sins.
I
think I'm writing to hear myself repeat things I've said countless
times, and because I'm feeling the exhaustion of watching my religion
documentaries, news stories, and lectures. One of the things that
will endlessly frustrate me about "religious" people or
those that wish to proselytize, is that they do not change. If the
foundation to every living thing is adaptation and survival, these
people are the most drastic point of disjunction.
Why is this
such a problem for me? If I'm going to be perhaps meanly blunt, I
think when you preach or make some claim about your god you are a
liar, you are lazy, and flatly ignorant. I feel like I lie to myself
when I say I can respect someone who makes some unsubstantiated and
naive claim about a god or their religion. Now I said I think these
people are liars, lazy, and ignorant. If your not downright offended,
and even if you are, permit me the time to elaborate.
I'll
start backward. Ignorance is at the heart of the human condition, not
just the religious. For every answer we get ten more questions. Many
times we think a problem has been fixed, new ways come in to fuck
things up. I wish to put everyone on the same playing field of
ignorance for a simple reason. Some have developed ways of keeping
their ignorance in its proper place, and others have decided to live
in sheer defiance of it. One of the main difference of character when
I'm deciding who I can or can't trust is a simple statement; I don't
know. For a species that never wants to be wrong about itself or its
claims, when you can swallow your failure to understand and say it
loud enough for all to hear, you deserve respect for your honesty.
Where this ability becomes important is when it can be applied to our
convictions. How does a Gamecube work?: I don't know, isn't as worthy
as, Is there a god?: I don't know. There's a simple check to see if
your on the path to becoming "less ignorant." Catch
yourself saying incorrect things. Acknowledge when your position on
something is failing or in complete. Doubt that what you said and
what you meant are always the same.
One should think the next
logical step would be to get off our lazy ass and go out and learn
something. Again, there is a point of disjunction between when an
honest person reads and learns something, and when a convicted person
reads and "learns" something. Part of the reason people get
egos about a particular subject or develop an air of asshole is
because they understand what it took to get them so "far"
in their knowledge. There is a difference again between just being an
asshole with a conviction, and being pompously plump with knowledge.
Be advised, that when I talk about laziness, it isn't just your
ability to go out and pick up a book or sit through a lecture. You
have to endure the mental fight that comes with changing your mind.
You have to adopt rules of thought independent of your opinion.
Indeed too many apologetics claims to have read all the "new
atheist books" and wrote their own books in response. Turning
the pages of one of those masterpieces reveals the lazy asshole who
only knows how to sling personal attacks and ignore evidence. This
screams the underlying tragedy in their character and thought
process. They have only "learned" what it is next they have
to scream at. They hear the words but don't listen to what they say.
I find this inexcusable.
So now onto the biggest one for me.
The lying. I'm going to ask you to read really carefully and fully
distinguish what and how this goes down. Do I think they are lying
about their opinion? Obviously not. Do I think they are trying to be
deliberately deceptive in their words and actions? In the everyday
person not so much, in the professional proselytizer, it gets more
complicated. When I watch a debate or speaker, they all tend to
assume the same kind of trend or pattern of speaking and laying out
their arguments. What bothers me, is that by no real excuse I can
surmise, when I hear an apologetic speech, they tend to pepper in
statements analogous to "Oh by the way, Hitler was an atheist."
This an obvious lie, but for more important reasons than just getting
a factual claim wrong. This is a lie I suppose we can refer to as a
compound lie. One that is made worse because it is based on a
previous lie or lack of knowledge frequently having nothing to do
with the statement in question. I can't tell you how many times
someone will rant about "atheism" then just kinda ramble
off Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, having done ZERO research or
reading about any of them, social psychology, or even the very word
atheism.
Apart from these annoying, but easily fixable once
unpacked, kinds of factual fuck ups, is the more insidious lie. This
is the one I have more "hope" exists because I don't see
overwhelming evidence for it. This is the lie to themselves. This is
when you hear a perfectly logical analysis, analogy, or statement,
know in your "heart of hearts" it does indeed make sense
and is a good point, and choose instead to write it off or go on some
tangent that has nothing to do with what the person said. These I
hate more than anything. If someone can't be honest enough with
themselves to relinquish a meager bad fact about their position, what
can they even begin to know about themselves as an individual human
being? I said above that I have yet to hear any real change in from
these people. Hundred year old arguments, word for word recitations,
and a desperate attempt to beat their favorite passages over ours and
their heads because the longer and louder you say it, the more true
it becomes.
Their religion is their supplement for change. If
life teaches anything it is that which does not change is bound to
perish. People who've "adapted" to remain complacent in
thought are allowed to survive under the veil of religion. Tell me
why this is acceptable? Tell me what good has come from holding ideas
which are obviously wrong for obvious reasons indefinitely. Is it
because we just want them to be happy? What a fucking joke of a
statement. Retarded people are happy. Psychopathic serial killers
find their happiness in an array of styles. I think this ridiculous
statement is given by the person who is so unhappy their last result
is to try and see it and feel it through someone else. The majority
of my friends seem and act happy when they get drunk and party. Do
you think I would give one fuck about their happiness if all my shit
was puked on, the apartment destroyed, and the cops were at my door?
Happiness is a responsibility to yourself and others. It is not just
some ephemeral ideal we should strive for beyond all reason.
When
you are unable to change something like a view that everyone you meet
is filthy and a sinner and deserves to rot in hell for an eternity; a
concept our minds aren't able to even fathom, you are a cancer on
society. You are destructive. You need to change. Any time you make a
divisive comment that isn't predicated on someone's divisive action,
you need to change. When you can't let yourself accept information,
just pure and simple opinion free information, you need to change.
I've been thinking for a while now that the secret to life and
everything in it is irony. What kind of sick dramatic irony lets
someone exist where styles, gadgets, information, people, and their
very own religion can all frequently and endlessly change, but they
refuse to. They have bypassed the selection pressure and avoided all
competition, albeit through denial, but nonetheless avoided. What
kind of joke would a god play by allowing us to become emotionally
entrenched with people who are able to hold such despicable ideas
about themselves, family, and friends, but still claim to be
motivated by love? Why do we indulge them in this fantasy? Why do you
want to call such a person friend when they believe you should burn
for eternity?
Of course the quick jump is always, "it's
not me, it's god" which if I have to rant about please just stop
reading my blogs.
Ultimately, I always find myself trying to
reconcile the relative fact that nothing will get "better"
because people don't recognize what it is about themselves or the
world that needs to be fought against. I love the show Lie to Me
because it is a simple analogy to what I'm talking about. The
underlying message. The real truth. The stuff you may be able to
naturally recognize, but still need to study and refine to know how
to work with it. I wonder how many people are really capable of
seeing things like the ones I call "on the level." More
than that I wonder what it would take, or if its even possible, to
teach someone how to think that way. I think until you can your not
really my friend. Your not someone I can trust, and your definitely
not something I respect. But hey, what does my opinion
matter anyway?
Written
about 3 weeks ago · Comment · LikeUnlike
You
like this.
This
is excellent.
I like that you recognize that the natural human
tendency to use fundamental opinions as a way to solidify personal
beliefs, values and traditions is something that needs to be
challenged AND changed.
I think it is very frustrating when so
many"pundits" who call themselves leaders, pioneers of a
movement (example Ann Coulter) ... Read Morevoice their
opinions loud and proud, successfully gain momentum through
fanaticism, and establish a loyal audience but absolutely refuse to
obtain facts and do the research necessary to support their opinions.
You're right when you say that it boils down to laziness. We live
in a right-here, right-now society that doesn't encourage active and
deep thinking unless it can be handed to you immediately or bought
somewhere in a store (which by the way, is a direct result of OTHER
people working toward a solution, and more than likely in a sweatshop
in a third-world country).
Then again, these are all opinions.
Does that make me a hypocrite?
I'm
not sure Ann Coulter's cunt level is an opinion so your probably safe
from the hypocrite charge.
I
would like to comment on the last paragraph. You said that until
"friends" can see the little things that the people on the
level see that they are not really your friends and they are not
trustworthy. I would like to say that your logic is flawed. If your
friends can see the signs like in Lie to Me. Then they can learn to
hide those signs. Which... Read More would make them less
trustworthy.
Whereas your friends that cannot see the signs
as in Lie to Me, they don't know what they are so they will show
them. Which makes them better to read, and easier to control, and
predict. They would be more trustworthy.
I
find that extremely offensive, Steev. To state that you only believe
those who are easily manipulated are trustworthy is ridiculous. I
would like to think of myself as a very trustworthy person, and I do
not believe that I am one of these people that you can read and
control. However, I do believe that everyone has some level of
predictability.
I
am sorry that you find this offensive. But i trust you because i can
read you.... Just because i know how people are feeling doesn't mean
that i feel the need to control them. I would have hoped that you
would have known that. Again... sorry if this hurts you.
This
all makes me smile in amusement.
Steev,
you have an extraordinary ability to read people. However, I do not
believe that you have me pinned as well as you might think. And no, I
don't think that you feel the need to control me or anyone else.
However you did say that you find people that are easily controlled
more trustworthy. It would seem to me, that if someone is easily
controlled by you, that they would also be easily controlled by
others, thus making them less trustworthy due to outside influence.
I
think what Steev means is just that if you can completely predict or
completely control someone, you can trust them more easily then
someone you can't control or can't predict, for the simple reason of
being able to predict or control if/when they will betray you.
Let's
not get too confused everybody. We're talking about a level of trust
that is more than just between acquaintances. This is a trust that
doesn't come from reading people or controlling them. It's more of a
mutual understanding independently arrived up, but says the same
thing. You know its there when your able to "read" that
persons actions from then on.
