To Blog or Not to Blog, or Why Edwin Hasn’t Posted Recently..

Why blog anyway? Surely, there are other things to do. This cannot happen without the consent of the victim.

Possible reasons: expressions of narcissistic attention getting; to make money; to educate and inform; for fun; for diversion. There are probably a lot more. Ask a shrink.

I haven’t blogged for a while because I have not wanted to.

There are too many things to say to say anything. There are plenty of blogs to report news and religious scandals.

And the most thoughtful of blogs, I have learned, can be trashed by morons who do not seem to even understand that which they are attempting to condemn. These commenters, with their limited vocabularies. who haunt blogs they do not appear to even vaguely comprehend, can be unconsciously funny.

This phenomenon has resulted in some exchanges with more rational blog readers that are high comedy to readers who understand what is being said.

It was in this context that I learned about “Poe’s Law.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law . Poe’s Law relates to our conversation in that it can, I think, be understood to mean that no blog can possibly be so satiric, so obviously metaphoric, and other things English professors talk about, that some fools won’t actually believe that the information thereon is correct or the author serious.

The law appears to cover those readers who believed that my “Should Males Be Eliminated from the Human Genome?” was a serious proposal. http://freethoughtblogs.com/kagin/2012/09/14/should-males-be-eliminated-from-the-human-genome . That is hard to beat for high comedy.

These comments, and these posters, do not “hurt” me or anything like that. I have been subjected to the scorn of experts and lived. And these commentators, these Masters of One Word, ain’t them.

Readers who saw the absurdity, and took the commenters to task, were, and are, greatly appreciated. They give hope in the uncaring word of the blog. It is for such people that I will keep on blogging.

When I want to.

Poe was a genius.

Edwin
© Edwin Kagin, 2012.

The Heretic

The following is reproduced from www.beliefnet.com.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2001/08/Heretic-Humor.aspx

If you have not read or heard this wonderful tale, enjoy. If you have encountered it before, here it is again. Enjoy.

 

The Heretic

Emo Philips

2 0 0 0

I was in San Francisco once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge
about to jump. So I thought I’d try to stall and detain him, long enough for me to put the film in. I said,

“Don’t jump!” and he turns…

He said, “Nobody loves me.”

I said, “God loves you, you silly ninny.”…

He said, “I do believe in God.”

I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”

He said, “A Christian.”

I said, “Me too. Protestant or Catholic?”

He said, “Protestant.”

I said, “Me too! What franchise?”

He says, “Baptist.”

I said, “Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”

He says, “Northern Baptist.”

I said, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He says, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”

I say, “Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reform Baptist?”

He says, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist.”

I say, “Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?”

He says, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region.”

I say, “Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”

He says, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”

I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

 

Should Males Be Eliminated from the Human Genome?

Female humans are superior to male humans. Get used to it. They live longer, endure most unpleasant things better, and, with notable exceptions, do not start wars. They do better than males in law and medical schools. If women ran things, things would run better. So, to create a better world and a brighter future, human males should be eliminated from the human genome.

The trick is to master and practice parthenogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis) . This generates pregnancy without the necessity for male participation.

In the human species, the un-fertilized embryo is a clone of its mother and always produces females. Interesting take on the Baby Jesus story.

So, once this sexless skill of females only producing female children is mastered and practiced universally by women, the matter of the future of humankind will be settled. The only living humans will be female, and things will run as they should.

Males now living can be cut and tied. They should have this done immediately. The government must pay for the procedures.

It matters little if the person being neutered identifies as a male or as something else. If the human has testicles, that human must be cut and tied. Better safe than sorry.

While waiting for living males, who should be treated humanely, to grow old and die out, women can use them for heavier work and for any pleasure purposes they see fit.

In one generation, the human race can be rid of them.

Then there will be no further worry about male humans deflowering female humans, and the great goal of religion, reproduction without sex, can be achieved.

Edwin.
(c) 1212 by Edwin Kagin.

There Is No Such Thing As “New Atheism” Either.

There have been ads hawking buying or selling “new gold” or “old gold.” There is no such thing as new gold or old gold. All gold has been here since it was first formed on our planet.

Similarly, there is no such thing as “new atheism.” Atheism means the lack of a belief in a god. That is all it means. There is nothing “new” about it. It has been around as long as there has been a belief in gods.

It is certainly true that language goes through changes. Often, big changes. But that has not yet happened to the English work “atheism,” which means, at present, nothing more than not having a belief in a god or gods. Sorry if you don’t like that—I didn’t make the rules.

We are now experiencing a most divisive phenomenon where some atheists are viciously excoriating other atheists for not embracing loudly enough certain of a list of worthy causes to which they are joined. Different inclinations champion differed lists.

One can be an atheist and like chocolate chip ice cream. This does not mean that it is a good idea to form a club that excludes, and sees as enemies, anyone who does not like chocolate chip ice cream, or who actually prefer some other flavors.

How many bloggers, laid end to end, would it take to bridge the gap between science and religion?

Lord dog, the Religious Right certainly need have no worry over us. We will self-destruct without their help.

A population that eats its own young will probably not long survive.

Maybe years from now your grandchildren will ask “What did you do in the great American Religious Civil War?” Do you suppose the answer, “Well, I got some atheists to condemn other atheists for not thinking the way they should” will be an entirely satisfactorily answer?

Edwin
© Edwin Kagin, 2012.

Could Nudist Atheists be an Atheist+ Group?

There are Christian nudists and there are atheist nudists. Some Christian nudists have even formed groups announcing that they are both Christians and nudists.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_naturism ; http://www.naturist-christians.org/ ; http://www.christiannc.com/.

To my knowledge, atheism has not yet formed such an alliance. But nudism is good, healthy, and liberal, so maybe we should. But composed of a group of nudists tending to attract atheists not Christians.

Certain blog commenters seem to have neither read nor thought carefully on this issue. The point of my blog on Atheist+ is not intended to say anything bad about Atheist+ or those who embrace it. People can form the “Atheist+ All Things Fall Up When Dropped Club” if they want to, without complaint from me.

My only objection would be if such were to become an official policy of American Atheists. That would be not so good. Organizations have schisms. It may be part of universal law. AA has certainly had schisms in the past. Indeed, that is exactly why we have many of the larger freethought organizations that exist today.

It has been said that the present Atheist+ movement is not a schism, but a response to a schism that has already occurred. Probably lots of schisms say that.

American Atheists remains the Marines of Freethought. We protect and defend the civil rights of Atheists and we work for the total separation of Church and State. That keeps us fairly busy.

One can, of course, be a part of American Atheists and of anything else they want to belong to, so long as it is not thereby connected to AA. And it is certainly fine to form clubs largely limited to those who share one’s world view.

The problem is that not all atheists share this view. There are, for example, among atheists, the “carnivore humans” and the “grass clippings and tofu humans,” each perfectly able to have their own opinions and to form their own groups. And to call the result an A+ organization.

But suppose there were to arise (as there will) schisms within say the grass clippings and tofu group(s). And if some members of this splinter group thought it was okay to eat hummingbird eggs and others thought not should we then carve out another new division within the “Atheist+ Grass Clippings and Tofu” Group? What should we call this new vision?

Perhaps it should be an Atheist++ group, or an Atheist+V group. Or an Atheist—Hummingbird Speed of Light Squared Group.

Then the new group could feel superior to the group from which it parted and it could then heap invective on the Anti-hummingbird Atheist+? people who remained in the parent organization.

In brief response to the absurd charge that AA is a misogynistic outfit run by old men, please know that as of this writing the following are some of the positions in AA that are held by young women: three board of directors positions; bookkeeper; public relations director; managing director; development director; editor of American Atheists Magazine.

American Atheists. When you are ready to quit fooling around.

Edwin
© Edwin Kagin 2012.

Should Atheism Take Stands On Social Issues?

There is much talk these days about a phenomenon called Atheism+. This is the notion that atheism is not just a definition but a weltanschauung that should and, it is thought, necessarily does, encompass the taking of stands on a variety of social issues. Those who think this are being recruited to the new, and growing, ranks of adherents to the concept of Atheism+. Some worry that the arguments being advanced for both sides of the issue will create a schism in atheism.

Will it? Of course it will. That is why it is a bad idea.

I have seen this happen before. Been there, done that, bought the T shirt, wrote the book, working on the sequel.

Atheism means without a belief in a god. That’s it. Within that shell are many many different points of view. This became clear a few years ago when several life members quit the organization American Atheists because it’s then President was actively working for the defeat of President George Bush. The quitting life members liked Bush and thought the organization had no business being against him, or for or against anyone else for that matter. I know this because they told me.

I could not imagine any atheist being in favor of Bush. But these folks were. I have also met atheists who are members of American Atheists and who oppose a woman’s right to choose. And who are opposed to gay marriage. And all sorts of things like that. The only thing that they all have in common is being atheists. Start taking sides on social issues and learn what chaos is all about.

I am a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) unless my membership has lapsed. I am also an NRA Certified Handgun Instructor. And I know some of our members don’t like that. Anyhow, a few years ago the NRA went against its own policy of being a single issue organization and took a stand on an abortion issue. In consequence, the NRA immediately lost about half of its members. Members who were in the NRA to protect gun rights, not to legislate women’s health issues, quit the organization.

The NRA changed their policy in a hurry, became a single issue organization again, and got its members back.

American Atheists is a single issue organization dedicated to complete separation of Church and

State and to fighting for the rights of atheists to equal protection of the laws.

That’s quite a bit.

It should stay that way.

Every generation does not have to re-invent the wheel.

Edwin
© 2012 by Edwin Kagin.