Category : Administration
Splitting of the Adam has become a proud new addition The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar which lists over a thousand Atheist and agnostic centric blogs from all over the blogosphere. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist and Agnostic bloggers, so that they may share their opinions with the world. If you would like to join please visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts, who spearheaded this initiative, for more information.
I hope that this will bring a few new faces to this blog and bring you a few new blogs to show your face at.
~E pluribus unum ~ Out of many, one
Tuesday 27 July 2010
Saturday 24 July 2010
Karma Chameleon
Category : Strange Beliefs
I'm not exactly sure why I've been thinking about Karma recently, maybe I just want an easy target to vent some frustration on, maybe I subconsciously feel that the last time I encountered the subject of Karma I didn't shine a big enough light on the flaws I saw. Who knows? What I do know is that, if Karma does exist, Karma must of done something really bad to deserve the whooping it is about to receive.
First, however, I need to verify what version of "Karma" we're going to be discussing. Just like with gods, there are many different types, some of which barely fit the description of "God", some are supremely vague and some are curiously specific (such as knowing what gender God is, or what God thinks about 'Family Guy'). So, just so there's no confusion, I will be dealing with westernised Karma because It is the version I hear described the most often and the version I mainly encounter. I'm well aware that this version of Karma can be very different from other versions of Karma, but if Karma wasn't so bleeding vague it wouldn't have to worry about being misrepresented, would it?
westernised Karma is, as I've said, what I've encountered the most frequently and its traits are seemingly agreed upon by those who share the belief (IE, of all the people I've encountered who believe in "Karma", none of them have dismissed or challenged the following description as inaccurate), These traits are as follows
And that's pretty much it. Westernised Karma is pretty shallow and bland. Though, from what I've been reading about eastern views on Karma, what it lacks for in mysticism and "depth" it makes up for in being straightforward. It is easily tested, easily examined, easily disputed at length...So easy, in fact, that It should be embarrassing to anyone who actually believes it.
But, alas, people aren't embarrassed to believe it and here are some "Examples of karma" that have been given by believers. These are all true testimonials but have been paraphrased.
- 2 High school kids gang up and beat up another kid because he's gay (once, minor injuries). The next day one of them had a trip, broke his arm and had a severe head injury resulting in minor brain damage, at some other unspecified time the other broke his leg in a motorcycle accident.
- Having helped tutor failing students for 18 weeks, some of who were mentally challenged, they find a $100 bill on their drive way.
- Employee 'A' was talking badly about employee 'B' behind their back, Employee 'A' was also stealing from the business. Employee 'A' was fired, lost her home, became bankrupt, is now living on the streets and (judging from a description) has had a complete nervous breakdown due to those circumstances.
- Girlfriend cheats on boyfriend, then dumps boyfriend. Later gets herpes from new boyfriend.
Quite a diverse list, isn't it? Though it doesn't take much critical thought to spot some common themes.
First of all, they're all completely disproportionate. A girlfriend is unfaithful and Karma gives them an incurable disease. A co-worker is bitchy and a thief, so Karma takes absolutely everything from them; their job, their home, their money, their mental health, everything. 18 weeks of selfless work, rewarded with someone else's money. If Karma existed and these were examples of Karma in action then to call it a force for "Justice" or "Balance" would be outrageous, It would be more accurate to call it a force of merciless vengeance or shallow bribery. Which brings me to observation two.
Karma is as sadistic as the sadists who believe in it. In all of the negative cases (IE bad things happening to the "bad"** people) the individuals who described them were all happy those things happened, some were overjoyed, practically high fiving themselves. They were unashamedly taking pleasure in the suffering of others and expressed exactly zero problem with the consequences or the nature of their suffering. To break it down into something more specific, something was injuring, infecting, stealing and destroying people on someone else's behalf without any given consent, without there being any form of recourse and those who are having this force act on their behalf are perfectly okay with this system.
Apply those actions to a human being, rather than some ineffable cosmic magic, would we see those actions as just? Would we hold them up as morally idyllic? Would we be happy to let this person carry out these judgements and actions?
NO
We would quite rightly condemn them as a tyrannical, amoral, psychopathic, egomaniacal Vigilante. Hell I wouldn't be so sure that "Terrorist" sounds so out of place.
And therein lies the source and the major fault with believers of Karma; None of them have thought about it for the minutest of moments and it is as obvious as these straightforward conclusions. Karma appeals to our feral nature, our mob mentality, our innate desire to see a version of "Fair" that selfishly favours ourselves and it plays directly to our pattern seeking brains. It is a base belief that is easily thrown off, but only if believers attempt some higher thinking.
To draw back on the examples, and in fact almost all examples of karma I have ever been given, they always amount to very localised, very minor occurrences in the believers life. But what about the rest of the world? If Karma were a truly universal force, it would not be localised, it would not only work some of the time. In a universe where Karma existed as anything more than a sadistic, selfish delusion, it would be impossible for "bad" people to get ahead in life and it would be impossible for a "good" person to be left behind. No tyrant could kill and destroy his way through life, selfishly hoarding everything for himself whilst others suffer, only to die happily at a ripe old age without ever having to suffer a single consequence. No innocent child could suffer for their entire life, only for it to end without respite, without a happy ending.
Yet, that is undeniably the unfair, unfeeling, uncaring, reality with live in; A reality which cannot be explained or co-exist with Karma as described. Personally, I'm glad we live in this reality rather than one governed by the malicious, unbalanced, unaccountable force that people call Karma.
Perhaps if we lived in a universe governed by the Karma they describe rather than the Karma they present then perhaps I would wish to live in it. Perhaps.
But in this reality? In this universe? There is no Karma. There is only the selfish, wishful, uncritical thinking of Sadists and the cold unfeeling nature of chance.
** I'm aware things like "Bad" and "good" are purely subjective, but I will qualify it as actions which negatively or positively, but demonstrably, affect a persons rights, well being, prosperity, success or relationships.
- - -
If you'd like to see posts more often e-mail me with topics/stories/articles/discoveries you'd like me to cover! You can reach me at splittingoftheadam@hotmail.co.uk
I'm not exactly sure why I've been thinking about Karma recently, maybe I just want an easy target to vent some frustration on, maybe I subconsciously feel that the last time I encountered the subject of Karma I didn't shine a big enough light on the flaws I saw. Who knows? What I do know is that, if Karma does exist, Karma must of done something really bad to deserve the whooping it is about to receive.
First, however, I need to verify what version of "Karma" we're going to be discussing. Just like with gods, there are many different types, some of which barely fit the description of "God", some are supremely vague and some are curiously specific (such as knowing what gender God is, or what God thinks about 'Family Guy'). So, just so there's no confusion, I will be dealing with westernised Karma because It is the version I hear described the most often and the version I mainly encounter. I'm well aware that this version of Karma can be very different from other versions of Karma, but if Karma wasn't so bleeding vague it wouldn't have to worry about being misrepresented, would it?
westernised Karma is, as I've said, what I've encountered the most frequently and its traits are seemingly agreed upon by those who share the belief (IE, of all the people I've encountered who believe in "Karma", none of them have dismissed or challenged the following description as inaccurate), These traits are as follows
- Karma Is a natural force of justice/balance that exists in the universe.
- Karma affects people while they are alive, not after death
- The affect of Karma is that good actions lead to good rewards, bad actions lead to bad consequences. IE If you do something good, Karma will see to it that something good happens to you and Vice Versa.
- In some variations the consequences of actions are "Multiplied". Some state that something "3x better will happen to you if you do something good" some state that "3 good things will happen to you for every 1 good thing" and Vice versa.
- There is no time limit on Karma, the consequences can happen whenever, but they will always happen.
And that's pretty much it. Westernised Karma is pretty shallow and bland. Though, from what I've been reading about eastern views on Karma, what it lacks for in mysticism and "depth" it makes up for in being straightforward. It is easily tested, easily examined, easily disputed at length...So easy, in fact, that It should be embarrassing to anyone who actually believes it.
But, alas, people aren't embarrassed to believe it and here are some "Examples of karma" that have been given by believers. These are all true testimonials but have been paraphrased.
- 2 High school kids gang up and beat up another kid because he's gay (once, minor injuries). The next day one of them had a trip, broke his arm and had a severe head injury resulting in minor brain damage, at some other unspecified time the other broke his leg in a motorcycle accident.
- Having helped tutor failing students for 18 weeks, some of who were mentally challenged, they find a $100 bill on their drive way.
- Employee 'A' was talking badly about employee 'B' behind their back, Employee 'A' was also stealing from the business. Employee 'A' was fired, lost her home, became bankrupt, is now living on the streets and (judging from a description) has had a complete nervous breakdown due to those circumstances.
- Girlfriend cheats on boyfriend, then dumps boyfriend. Later gets herpes from new boyfriend.
Quite a diverse list, isn't it? Though it doesn't take much critical thought to spot some common themes.
First of all, they're all completely disproportionate. A girlfriend is unfaithful and Karma gives them an incurable disease. A co-worker is bitchy and a thief, so Karma takes absolutely everything from them; their job, their home, their money, their mental health, everything. 18 weeks of selfless work, rewarded with someone else's money. If Karma existed and these were examples of Karma in action then to call it a force for "Justice" or "Balance" would be outrageous, It would be more accurate to call it a force of merciless vengeance or shallow bribery. Which brings me to observation two.
Karma is as sadistic as the sadists who believe in it. In all of the negative cases (IE bad things happening to the "bad"** people) the individuals who described them were all happy those things happened, some were overjoyed, practically high fiving themselves. They were unashamedly taking pleasure in the suffering of others and expressed exactly zero problem with the consequences or the nature of their suffering. To break it down into something more specific, something was injuring, infecting, stealing and destroying people on someone else's behalf without any given consent, without there being any form of recourse and those who are having this force act on their behalf are perfectly okay with this system.
Apply those actions to a human being, rather than some ineffable cosmic magic, would we see those actions as just? Would we hold them up as morally idyllic? Would we be happy to let this person carry out these judgements and actions?
NO
We would quite rightly condemn them as a tyrannical, amoral, psychopathic, egomaniacal Vigilante. Hell I wouldn't be so sure that "Terrorist" sounds so out of place.
And therein lies the source and the major fault with believers of Karma; None of them have thought about it for the minutest of moments and it is as obvious as these straightforward conclusions. Karma appeals to our feral nature, our mob mentality, our innate desire to see a version of "Fair" that selfishly favours ourselves and it plays directly to our pattern seeking brains. It is a base belief that is easily thrown off, but only if believers attempt some higher thinking.
To draw back on the examples, and in fact almost all examples of karma I have ever been given, they always amount to very localised, very minor occurrences in the believers life. But what about the rest of the world? If Karma were a truly universal force, it would not be localised, it would not only work some of the time. In a universe where Karma existed as anything more than a sadistic, selfish delusion, it would be impossible for "bad" people to get ahead in life and it would be impossible for a "good" person to be left behind. No tyrant could kill and destroy his way through life, selfishly hoarding everything for himself whilst others suffer, only to die happily at a ripe old age without ever having to suffer a single consequence. No innocent child could suffer for their entire life, only for it to end without respite, without a happy ending.
Yet, that is undeniably the unfair, unfeeling, uncaring, reality with live in; A reality which cannot be explained or co-exist with Karma as described. Personally, I'm glad we live in this reality rather than one governed by the malicious, unbalanced, unaccountable force that people call Karma.
Perhaps if we lived in a universe governed by the Karma they describe rather than the Karma they present then perhaps I would wish to live in it. Perhaps.
But in this reality? In this universe? There is no Karma. There is only the selfish, wishful, uncritical thinking of Sadists and the cold unfeeling nature of chance.
** I'm aware things like "Bad" and "good" are purely subjective, but I will qualify it as actions which negatively or positively, but demonstrably, affect a persons rights, well being, prosperity, success or relationships.
- - -
If you'd like to see posts more often e-mail me with topics/stories/articles/discoveries you'd like me to cover! You can reach me at splittingoftheadam@hotmail.co.uk
Friday 16 July 2010
Female Priests are as bad as Child rapists
Category : Religion
That, at least, is the now official stance of the Catholic church
After all, a priest now caught trying to ordain a woman will now be excommunicated, whereas priests caught sexually abusing a child are just sent to a new parish! And what about in cases where it's not a priest? Well THEN there are excommunications...of the victims family.
But the most disheartening part of this whole story? That the introduction of this rule means that there are women, catholic women, who want to be an official part of this unashamedly misogynistic organisation. I can't grasp how any sentient person could be so taken in, so enveloped by their indoctrination, that they would not see this for what it is; It is like a Jew wanting to join the KKK, it's like a Vegan running a Slaughterhouse.
But that's not the only thing.
Charming eh?
This is just another Item on a long list of reasons why I am amazed that there are regular people who are catholic. If I was catholic, and had a sense of morality, I would be deeply ashamed of my church and vocal in opposition to its hateful stances. Sadly, Catholics are seemingly neither.
That, at least, is the now official stance of the Catholic church
The Vatican today made the "attempted ordination" of women one of the gravest crimes under church law, putting it in the same category as clerical sex abuse of minors, heresy and schism.Yes it seems that The Vatican has made another step towards its vision of a world time-locked somewhere in the mid 14th century by making women in the priesthood a notion that should be greeted with the same disgust as the rape of children. It's also worth pointing out that, considering the RCC's recent conduct, the RCC likely finds the ordination of women a much more heinous crime of that of child rape.
After all, a priest now caught trying to ordain a woman will now be excommunicated, whereas priests caught sexually abusing a child are just sent to a new parish! And what about in cases where it's not a priest? Well THEN there are excommunications...of the victims family.
But the most disheartening part of this whole story? That the introduction of this rule means that there are women, catholic women, who want to be an official part of this unashamedly misogynistic organisation. I can't grasp how any sentient person could be so taken in, so enveloped by their indoctrination, that they would not see this for what it is; It is like a Jew wanting to join the KKK, it's like a Vegan running a Slaughterhouse.
But that's not the only thing.
The pope's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, stressed that the changes applied solely to canon, or church, law. They had no bearing on whether suspected offenders should be reported to the civil authorities.To translate that from PR-code into regular spoken English, The Church has no opinion on whether crimes, or people suspected of committing crimes (like child rape) should be reported to the police/civil law/Secular law. An organisation which prides itself on morals (lol) and justice, does not care either way if child rapists ought to be reported to the police.
Charming eh?
This is just another Item on a long list of reasons why I am amazed that there are regular people who are catholic. If I was catholic, and had a sense of morality, I would be deeply ashamed of my church and vocal in opposition to its hateful stances. Sadly, Catholics are seemingly neither.
Tuesday 6 July 2010
Atheism Myths #1
Category : Atheism
So it has been a while since I've (metaphorically speaking) spat into the ocean of opinion that is the internet blogosphere and I thought the best way to remedy this would be, rather than wait for inspiration to hit me or to stumble across something that hasn't already been pounced upon by PZ Myers, to start a little series of posts that I can churn out fairly quickly that deal with popular and/or commonly accepted myths about Atheism. Without further ado, lets look at myth #1!
"Atheism Requires Faith!"
Now I'm sure that any atheist who happens to be, or is in close proximity to an atheist, involved in a debate with a theist then the above sentiment is almost bound to come up at some point. Usually right around the time when the whole unfortunate (for the theist) reality of "You have no evidence for any of your God claims" rears its, frankly, beautiful head. Perhaps you've heard it expressed in a different way, possibly with more expletives, possibly said in a tone dripping with condescension. Rest assured, it is said with exactly zero understanding of atheism and from a position of complete ignorance.
Atheism, in and of itself, is not a claim. Atheism, in and of itself, is nothing more than lacking belief in theism; A- (without) -theism (a belief in God). You would think, considering the clue is in the word itself, that people would not make this aggressively stupid mistake over and over again.
But, as we will go into in subsequent 'Atheism Myths' posts, this is but one of the many tactics that apologists use to smear atheism as being "No different than us". A tactic that only works in the minds of theists.
In terms of faith, Atheism cannot be described as being a position of "Having faith in the claim that there is no God" because that asserts that atheism is, falsely, making a positive claim rather than rejecting/not accepting a positive claim. Atheism, therefore, could be more accurately described as lacking faith in the claim that there is a God. From this we can deduce that anyone claiming that Atheism requires faith is essentially claiming that you need faith to lack faith; A notion that truly is a stupid as it sounds.
Atheism does NOT require faith - QED
Stay tuned for more
PS. If you'd like to see posts more often e-mail me with topics/stories/articles/discoveries you'd like me to cover! You can reach me at splittingoftheadam@hotmail.co.uk
So it has been a while since I've (metaphorically speaking) spat into the ocean of opinion that is the internet blogosphere and I thought the best way to remedy this would be, rather than wait for inspiration to hit me or to stumble across something that hasn't already been pounced upon by PZ Myers, to start a little series of posts that I can churn out fairly quickly that deal with popular and/or commonly accepted myths about Atheism. Without further ado, lets look at myth #1!
"Atheism Requires Faith!"
Now I'm sure that any atheist who happens to be, or is in close proximity to an atheist, involved in a debate with a theist then the above sentiment is almost bound to come up at some point. Usually right around the time when the whole unfortunate (for the theist) reality of "You have no evidence for any of your God claims" rears its, frankly, beautiful head. Perhaps you've heard it expressed in a different way, possibly with more expletives, possibly said in a tone dripping with condescension. Rest assured, it is said with exactly zero understanding of atheism and from a position of complete ignorance.
Atheism, in and of itself, is not a claim. Atheism, in and of itself, is nothing more than lacking belief in theism; A- (without) -theism (a belief in God). You would think, considering the clue is in the word itself, that people would not make this aggressively stupid mistake over and over again.
But, as we will go into in subsequent 'Atheism Myths' posts, this is but one of the many tactics that apologists use to smear atheism as being "No different than us". A tactic that only works in the minds of theists.
In terms of faith, Atheism cannot be described as being a position of "Having faith in the claim that there is no God" because that asserts that atheism is, falsely, making a positive claim rather than rejecting/not accepting a positive claim. Atheism, therefore, could be more accurately described as lacking faith in the claim that there is a God. From this we can deduce that anyone claiming that Atheism requires faith is essentially claiming that you need faith to lack faith; A notion that truly is a stupid as it sounds.
Atheism does NOT require faith - QED
Stay tuned for more
PS. If you'd like to see posts more often e-mail me with topics/stories/articles/discoveries you'd like me to cover! You can reach me at splittingoftheadam@hotmail.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)