Saturday, August 28, 2010
Fucking Glenn Beck
I'll probably take this down at some point because I don't want to even give recognition to this fake. I just want to briefly point out the characteristics of a compulsive liar.
1) A compulsive liar gets off on lying
2) He makes grandiose statements to get attention from the gullible
3) He gestures toward symbols which meant something to someone at some time, rewriting the meaning of said symbols to adhere to his personal agenda
4) He conditions the tone of his voice and adds dramatic pauses in his speech mimicking emotional expression
5) He makes reference to a single historical truth and then attaches lies to it to give the illusion of education
Glenn Beck is a compulsive liar. This video oozes of trained acting and practiced queues of decisive intention. His intention has nothing to do with this country, or the idea conservatives covet as patriotism. His intention is simply to enjoy lying, to enjoy the attention his fallacies attract, to create conflict where there might well have been prosperity. He is leading people, leading sheep, toward mindless aggression, hate and inhumanity.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Book: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
It's about time I got around to reading this, with the reputation it has as the definitive reference for modern atheism. Generally speaking I'd rather spend my time reading fiction, but the irony of stumbling upon this book for $1 at a church sponsored book sale was too much for me to ignore.
The first thought I had while turning the first few pages was how similar his written word was to his spoken word lectures. He somehow infuses the same tone in each, a tone of patience and charm, but with bold sometimes tongue in cheek statements interspersed to grab the attention of his audience. I immediately understood that this wasn't going to be an unbiased reference, but rather an emotional and passionate presentation of why religion is ridiculous. This is the source of my first criticism. Being an atheist, I don't need to be convinced that faith is irrational, but for someone looking for a book to lead them away from faith, The God Delusion may seem too abrasive, too matter of fact. Dawkins has no patience for believers of any sort and wastes no time discrediting anyone with any belief in the supernatural, from noted scientists to poor farmers of the mid-west.
To go even further, Dawkins even turns his back on agnostics. He has the personal belief that agnosticism is a cop out, an easy answer to a difficult question. He says that if evidence were to be presented of the supernatural he would have no issue judging the evidence objectively and changing his mind, but since no evidence exists it's ridiculous for agnostics to hold out hope and believe in something undefinable, it's more logical to be an observant, open-minded atheist.
One of the major topics that stood out for me was an in-depth explanation of the anthropic principle. The principle basically says that if we're here to observe the universe, then it would make sense that certain universal constants were perfect for life to exist and to evolve to the point of cognition. This explanation is followed by several theoretical explanations for how other universes might have failed at producing cognitive beings. Either this universe is just one of many in a long timeline of universes going back to infinity, or existence is based on a multiverse model in which an infinity of universes exist all at once and we just happen to be existing and aware of one that was perfect for human life. These are really interesting topics to think about and discuss and I'm glad Dawkins spent some time explaining it all with several references to sources of related theoretical science.
The argument that I sometimes bring up in conversation when talking about the "benefits" of religion is that it presents morality in a fun, colorful way and that if society did away with religion, some accessible moral construct would have to fill the void left in religion's absence. After reading the applicable chapters on this topic I'm going to have to reassess my opinions slightly but not completely. Dawkins makes the argument that it's not the bible that is responsible for the moral construct taught to children, it's the interpretation of the bible by biased ministers. If it was the bible directly, morals found in the Old Testament would teach children to kill and seek revenge and make sacrifices etc... The New Testament is considerably more PC, but still not a good guide of moral responsibility considering the views of homosexuality and women's rights. Dawkins thinks that morality shouldn't be the product of literature, but rather based on the success of a society. It's a very utilitarian view to think that you shouldn't kill, not because someone told you not to but because it's obvious that killing reduces the chances of the survival of a society. This leads to another criticism though. Morality is extremely complex and oftentimes the right decision isn't as black and white as kill or don't kill. It takes a very involved construct to explain all of these moral issues and there needs to be something to replace all the adapted stories of the bible; stories that nowadays hardly have any resemblance to the original scripture, but would not exist if not for religion.
The next topic worth talking about is, in my opinion, Dawkin's most controversial argument. He states very clearly that bringing a child up under a religion they had no power in choosing is more abusive than sexual assault. You might ask why he would make such an insanely ludicrous statement and it is basically a response to all of the sexual assault cases committed by priests. He says that sexual assault, while horrible and scarring, is nothing compared to the reinforcement of the idea that the supernatural exists. He describes how grown men and women are tortured by the possibility of the existence of hell, experiencing horrible nightmares and severe depression because they feel they very well might be doomed for an eternity.
On this point I can see why Dawkins made the argument but that doesn't make it a tactful relation. Sexual assault is horrid. Bringing up a child in an environment where the only motivating factor is fear is horrid. Neither is more horrid.
However, after setting a somewhat sour, unsettling tone for the last portion of the book, Dawkins comes back to what he's most passionate about, which is the idea that Atheism is the only path to reason, and that there is no gap that needs to be filled if religion were to be abandoned. Arguments have been made about the wonder of religious art, but people too often forget that artists are wonderfully imaginative. They don't need a book to tell them what to write or paint or compose; they'll always find a muse and a subject. I sort of wish Dawkins spent a little more time talking about mortality, because it's the issue I've spent the most time grappling with. But, he believes no gap is left by religion here because of the idea proposed by a simple quote from Mark Twain: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." It's a refreshing way to look at it, as long as you can accept that your existence is a speck, a molecule, an unremarkable blip in infinity.
Overall a fun, entertaining read. I would certainly recommend The God Delusion to any atheist or even any believer who was on the fence. But the myriad God-fearing people out there would do nothing but wail and curse which will cost you a point Dawkins. I'll be waiting for an example of atheist literature that actually tries to approach convincing believers to reassess their beliefs in a tactful, effective way for such a book does not yet exist.
4/5
The first thought I had while turning the first few pages was how similar his written word was to his spoken word lectures. He somehow infuses the same tone in each, a tone of patience and charm, but with bold sometimes tongue in cheek statements interspersed to grab the attention of his audience. I immediately understood that this wasn't going to be an unbiased reference, but rather an emotional and passionate presentation of why religion is ridiculous. This is the source of my first criticism. Being an atheist, I don't need to be convinced that faith is irrational, but for someone looking for a book to lead them away from faith, The God Delusion may seem too abrasive, too matter of fact. Dawkins has no patience for believers of any sort and wastes no time discrediting anyone with any belief in the supernatural, from noted scientists to poor farmers of the mid-west.
To go even further, Dawkins even turns his back on agnostics. He has the personal belief that agnosticism is a cop out, an easy answer to a difficult question. He says that if evidence were to be presented of the supernatural he would have no issue judging the evidence objectively and changing his mind, but since no evidence exists it's ridiculous for agnostics to hold out hope and believe in something undefinable, it's more logical to be an observant, open-minded atheist.
One of the major topics that stood out for me was an in-depth explanation of the anthropic principle. The principle basically says that if we're here to observe the universe, then it would make sense that certain universal constants were perfect for life to exist and to evolve to the point of cognition. This explanation is followed by several theoretical explanations for how other universes might have failed at producing cognitive beings. Either this universe is just one of many in a long timeline of universes going back to infinity, or existence is based on a multiverse model in which an infinity of universes exist all at once and we just happen to be existing and aware of one that was perfect for human life. These are really interesting topics to think about and discuss and I'm glad Dawkins spent some time explaining it all with several references to sources of related theoretical science.
The argument that I sometimes bring up in conversation when talking about the "benefits" of religion is that it presents morality in a fun, colorful way and that if society did away with religion, some accessible moral construct would have to fill the void left in religion's absence. After reading the applicable chapters on this topic I'm going to have to reassess my opinions slightly but not completely. Dawkins makes the argument that it's not the bible that is responsible for the moral construct taught to children, it's the interpretation of the bible by biased ministers. If it was the bible directly, morals found in the Old Testament would teach children to kill and seek revenge and make sacrifices etc... The New Testament is considerably more PC, but still not a good guide of moral responsibility considering the views of homosexuality and women's rights. Dawkins thinks that morality shouldn't be the product of literature, but rather based on the success of a society. It's a very utilitarian view to think that you shouldn't kill, not because someone told you not to but because it's obvious that killing reduces the chances of the survival of a society. This leads to another criticism though. Morality is extremely complex and oftentimes the right decision isn't as black and white as kill or don't kill. It takes a very involved construct to explain all of these moral issues and there needs to be something to replace all the adapted stories of the bible; stories that nowadays hardly have any resemblance to the original scripture, but would not exist if not for religion.
The next topic worth talking about is, in my opinion, Dawkin's most controversial argument. He states very clearly that bringing a child up under a religion they had no power in choosing is more abusive than sexual assault. You might ask why he would make such an insanely ludicrous statement and it is basically a response to all of the sexual assault cases committed by priests. He says that sexual assault, while horrible and scarring, is nothing compared to the reinforcement of the idea that the supernatural exists. He describes how grown men and women are tortured by the possibility of the existence of hell, experiencing horrible nightmares and severe depression because they feel they very well might be doomed for an eternity.
On this point I can see why Dawkins made the argument but that doesn't make it a tactful relation. Sexual assault is horrid. Bringing up a child in an environment where the only motivating factor is fear is horrid. Neither is more horrid.
However, after setting a somewhat sour, unsettling tone for the last portion of the book, Dawkins comes back to what he's most passionate about, which is the idea that Atheism is the only path to reason, and that there is no gap that needs to be filled if religion were to be abandoned. Arguments have been made about the wonder of religious art, but people too often forget that artists are wonderfully imaginative. They don't need a book to tell them what to write or paint or compose; they'll always find a muse and a subject. I sort of wish Dawkins spent a little more time talking about mortality, because it's the issue I've spent the most time grappling with. But, he believes no gap is left by religion here because of the idea proposed by a simple quote from Mark Twain: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." It's a refreshing way to look at it, as long as you can accept that your existence is a speck, a molecule, an unremarkable blip in infinity.
Overall a fun, entertaining read. I would certainly recommend The God Delusion to any atheist or even any believer who was on the fence. But the myriad God-fearing people out there would do nothing but wail and curse which will cost you a point Dawkins. I'll be waiting for an example of atheist literature that actually tries to approach convincing believers to reassess their beliefs in a tactful, effective way for such a book does not yet exist.
4/5
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Christopher Hitchens update
Situations like this test the resolve of atheists everywhere and make us question whether or not there's anything we can do. I'm filled with hope for your eventual victory over cancer Mr. Hitchens, but understand wholeheartedly that it is your personal strength that's going to be the variable. Luckily, I know there are few men stronger.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Music: Questioner - s/t
I've been without words, distracted, busy, frustrated with 2010 for some reasons, excited for others. One of my major concerns is for the music of this year. As I said in a previous review, metal music at large had betrayed me with poor offerings one after another for about 6 months... So I dabbled elsewhere, into the avant for a while, but found little that was comparable to the album that sparked my interest, that redirected my attention. So I'm back with an album, and oh boy... what an album it is.
Questioner, previously known as Isthmus, were unknown to me. And they have a very small presence in a commercial sense. All I could find was a myspace and a bandcamp website where you can download the album for a modest price. After sampling the first 30 seconds of the first track I immediately went for my wallet. Giving the album a full spin I can honestly say my gut instinct on music is still as sharp as it ever was. (mind you this only concerns music that i might enjoy, as for anyone else my instincts generally fail miserably)
At first I wanted to describe each part of the album but that's not feeling right. I want to approach this as one entity because that's the perspective the composition lends itself to; so I'll describe the tone of the album. Questioner flows organically, but not in the sense that it's warm or comforting, in the sense that it's raw, unassuming, maybe a little rough around the edges. In a world where crystal clear production reigns, Questioner is deliberately muddy, but not to any detriment. The slightly mid-range heavy mix gives every nuance a sort of subtlety, a hint of modesty. The percussion is aggressive and seems to be the leading instrument with the guitar following close behind with a touch of reverb. The second spin is revealing minor tonality, but the resolutions are a little confusing. There's a lot hope in this which means they're taunting the listener with a few temporary resolves into the relative major. This approach gives Questioner a really nice emotional balance having sorrowful intervals resolved by big complex rhythm sections. I hear a bit of death metal, a bit of blasting black coming together in a nice posty blend of metal goodness.
Please let this be the turning point of 2010. Please.
5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)