A Moral Compass

Introduction

Throughout my life, I have frequently reflected on the state of my moral compass, especially after considering the events and choices described in each of the following paragraphs.

Personal Reflections on Morality

My life has been a tapestry woven with both good and bad deeds. The mistakes and wrongdoings of my past, particularly during my teenage years, have brought me regret and embarrassment, prompting me to express these feelings through poetry. While most of my adult years have been unremarkable, certain unhealthy behaviors like smoking and drinking have persisted, though I do not necessarily consider them immoral. After examining these aspects, I check my moral compass.

The subject of sex is often viewed as immoral by many. According to a study from Ohio State University, men think about sex approximately 19 times per day, just one more time than women do. My upbringing in a religion that was preoccupied with thoughts of sex as sin taught me conflicting lessons: that simply having the thought was equivalent to committing the sin, but also that such beliefs were nonsense. These teachings have undeniably influenced my sense of morality throughout my life. Check.

I have experienced being lied to, cheated, occasionally beaten, chosen last for sports, and even sexually molested. It is common for people, myself included, to see themselves as victims more often than as perpetrators. I still harbor desires for revenge against those who have harmed me or my family, but as I approach my 80th birthday, most of them have passed away. Double check.

Complexities of Moral Judgment

My political and social identity is not easily defined; few would call me a bleeding-heart liberal, and being labeled a “snowflake” could have serious consequences. While I do not believe I would harm anyone unless in self-defense, I am not entirely certain. This uncertainty is why I carry a camera rather than a gun. Check.

I strive to be polite and kind, to help others, and to do the right thing simply because it is right, as advised by Catholic priests. I do not tie my values to religious scripture or notions of heaven and hell. Check.

My wife faced a situation where she was advised by a sibling to forgive another sibling based on biblical teachings. She responded that she had forgiven, not because the Bible said so, but because it was the right thing to do. However, she would not resume the relationship without genuine contrition and apology. She checks.

Defining a Moral Compass

Merriam-Webster defines a moral compass as “a set of beliefs or values that help guide ethical decisions, judgments, and behavior: an internal sense of right and wrong.” I pause to reflect on my own compass.

Decisions and judgments are internal, but behavior is what others can observe. Can a person’s moral compass truly be discerned from their actions alone? Words are often less reliable, yet sometimes all we have to assess someone’s morality is what they say. I judge the compass.

Morality and Belief Systems

Many believers view atheists as lacking a moral compass or foundation. In several societies, including the United States, this perception is prevalent, leading to the belief that atheists cannot distinguish right from wrong. If this were genuinely the case, it would serve as an insanity defense in court. Checks record.

Atheists strongly disagree with this assessment. Some atheists and agnostics even claim to uphold a higher moral standard than many believers. I urge caution in making such comparisons. Check.

There are two primary challenges to evaluating morality across groups. First, what is true for some members of a group is not necessarily true for all. Second, definitions and interpretations of morality vary, depending on the perspective and values of the individual in question. Checks dictionary and point of view.

Research and Perceptions of Morality

Social research does compare the morality of believers and atheists, but it often focuses on perceptions rather than behaviors. Standards for interpreting situations differ from person to person; for example, two individuals may have distinct ideas about what constitutes politeness or offensiveness. Calibrates compass.

Studies show that neither believers nor atheists are inherently more moral than the other, but they do prioritize different values. Both groups report high levels of compassion and fairness, though their motivations diverge: believers tend to emphasize obedience to authority and group cohesion, while atheists are more concerned with consequences and preventing harm to individuals. Check.

Quantitative measurement of morality is challenging, and opportunities for behavioral observation are limited. Nods and checks.

Challenges in Moral Evaluation

If a person harms another, setting aside mental health issues and extenuating circumstances, and assuming we are not pacifists, we may judge such harm as immoral. The next question becomes: what should be done? Face palm and checks.

Was the perpetrator a believer? What type? Did their religion forbid such actions? Did they lie? Would lying be expected from someone considered immoral? And how can we know? Points compass at religious minister.

Was the perpetrator atheist? Are they openly atheist or merely non-religious? Did they transition from strong religious beliefs to atheism, or have they always been non-religious? Again, how do we know? Shrugs and holds compass up to the mirror.

Conclusion

The essential question is not who possesses a moral compass, but how that compass is calibrated. Everyone has a moral code shaped by a multitude of influences. The moral code of an atheist and a believer may be more similar to each other than to others within their respective groups. For example, liberal Episcopalians and conservative Evangelical Christians have distinctly different moral compasses. Check.

Atheists do have a moral compass, and often their moral code is equal to or higher than many believers. And yet, I continue to examine my compass to ensure it remains functional.

What is an -ism?

Try this. Think of words ending with the suffix -ism: Paganism, plagiarism, criticism, racism, sexism, alcoholism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. Words tied to -isms include doctrines, causes, theories, attitudes, beliefs, acts, practices, processes, prejudices, conditions, religions, adherence to a system, characteristics, and traits. (merrian-webster.com)

That same dictionary also defines atheism as “a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods” and/or “a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.”

How many -isms are defined by what they are not or do not do? There is no atheist doctrine, theory, belief, practice, process, prejudice, religion, or adherence to anything.

There are certainly atheists. I suspect more than anyone knows. There are also atheist groups and atheist organizations. People use the phrase, “as an atheist…” often. While I often push back on terms like true atheist and all atheists, both believers and atheists use such phrases. I try to avoid saying as an atheist and prefer the phrase because I do not believe any god exists. But what is atheism other than what an atheist does not believe exists?

I realize people say many false things about atheists and define what they call atheism to insult nonbelievers or to threaten, often dependent, closeted atheists, doubting believers, and their friends, family, and neighbors. Those are almost always ignorant lies, and that will not go away.

However, I, along with others, claim that while most -isms exist, atheism does not. While I am atheist, I have no doctrine to either follow or reject. I believe many things, just not that there really is any god. I have no atheist practices and worship nothing (including Satan, which, like any god, is unlikely to be). I have read social research that indicates some atheists believe there is a god. I call them enigmatic, if not confused, atheists.

There are many types of Jews and forms of Judaism. Same for Islamism. Within Christianity there is both Catholicism and Protestantism, but they are all Christians. Mormons claim to be Christians and lord knows they have their own set of practices (and underwear). Within all these groups lie doctrinaire differences, but they still have rules to debate or follow. Atheists have none of that. I, for one, want none of it.

So, how can atheism be a thing if it cannot be defined by what it is?

Happy National IPA, Underwear, Oyster, and Work Like a Dog Day.

Skeptically Yours,

Bill

Woo-woo turns me off

When I say woo-woo, I know it is pejorative. Since I am not trying to make any situation worse, maybe I shouldn’t use the term. Yet, calling something woo-woo gets my opinion across immediately and somewhat humorously (me thinks).

For example, most Catholics believe speaking in tongues and playing with poisonous snakes is woo-woo. Protestants think transubstantiation is woo-woo. To be fair, so do most Catholics these days. But for me, it’s all mystical nonsense and unevidenced claims: woo-woo.

I’ve seen Deepak Chopra lose his shit when the term was used during a discussion/debate with atheists. (Click here to watch the youtube—it’s fun.) His demonstrative demeanor and insistence on his correctness were telling of his deeper persona.

It is in the Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Woo-woo means something is “dubiously or outlandishly mystical, supernatural, or unscientific.”

In bar or locker-room talk, I would normally say bullshit. While that is too strong, it also makes my point. I’m not trying to be a polite member of society when I say woo-woo. I am unsarcastically letting society know that I am skeptical but aware.

For years I wrote what are called morning pages (MP). I like them and I agree with Julia Cameron that they are therapeutic, but not therapy. I think they are also fun, considering it’s a morning thing. I don’t accept claims for MPs being mystical or supernatural. I’ve stopped writing them, but I want to begin writing MPs again.

According to Julia’s web page, “Morning Pages are three pages of longhand, stream of consciousness (SoC) writing, done first thing in the morning.”

She goes on, “There is no wrong way to do Morning Pages – they are not high art. They are not even ‘writing.’ They are about anything and everything that crosses your mind – and they are for your eyes only. Morning Pages provoke, clarify, comfort, cajole, prioritize, and synchronize the day at hand. Do not over-think Morning Pages: just put three pages of anything on the page…and then do three more pages tomorrow.” (juliacameronlive.com)

All good. I recommend, but.

That kind of SoC involves a lot of letting go and much trust. It is not easy, but doable. I have a stack of notebooks full of morning pages writing. My problem is that I do better when I am more emotional, which can happen any time of day. But mornings are what they are. MPs are (for me) not about politics or religion. They are about me, people, and the things closest to me.

But then here comes the word that makes me step back: spirituality. I am good with discussion of the human spirit. I am not okay with invoking woo-woo. I am not okay with others trying to make spiritual things part of my life even if it is part of theirs.

If they want to believe it, fine. If they want me to accept it, they need to prove it is reality. That does not stop them from using spirits or the forces of woo to explain even scientifically explainable phenomena.

By the way, these woo-woo promoting people make a ton of money selling books, doing personal appearances, and on the lecture circuit. They are promising something. Right? Like a religion? Often, their claims are outlandish (more woo-woo).

All we need to do is believe them.

Bill

What is a belief system?

I realize how difficult it is for people who are not atheist or agnostic to understand and accept what either term means. Yet, a reasonable dictionary like Merriam-Webster is a good start. The more religious a person is, the harder it may be to grasp the concept of either, as simple as it may be. This is because so much of their belief is based on religion and nothing else.

Conversely, I never will understand why so many people continue to believe that people who do not believe in any god automatically lack both a moral compass and common sense. Maybe it is too difficult, too simple, or maybe they prefer what they have been told (not usually by a member of any nonbelieving entity) for most of their lives.

I cannot recall a time in my life when I thought less of someone because they did not believe in God. More often, it was some believers who troubled me. I’ve had friends and acquaintances from most large religious groups and even some wiccans and druids.

A theist believes in the existence of a god or gods; specifically, one believes in the existence of a God viewed as the creative source of humans, a god who transcends yet is immanent in the world. A person who lacks that belief is an atheist. Morality and trustworthiness must be discerned separately.

Agnostics claim that an ultimate reality such as God is unknown and probably unknowable. It’s not a halfway point between theist and atheist. This is something theists are more likely to get wrong than are atheists. Many folks are hyphenated agnostics: agnostic-atheist, agnostic-theist. I lean toward the former.

I found this PsyPost article regarding research that had been previously reported on in Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. It was about a published report that claimed to be “new” research. The PsyPost piece is dated May 9, 2022. It is bylined Patricia Y. Sanchez.

According to their webpage, “PsyPost is a psychology and neuroscience news website dedicated to reporting the latest research on human behavior, cognition, and society.” It is funded by advertising and claims to have three million readers.

PsyPost further claims, “We are not interested in over-generalizing or mischaracterizing research to get more clicks. We are not interested in confirming or disproving ideological beliefs. We are only interested in accurately reporting research about how humans think and behave.”

Overall, the subject research proports to investigate stereotype opinions held by various groups about atheists, religious (oddly, they chose protestants as a category), and, mainly, agnostics. The sample size was neither random nor sufficiently large to be statistically reliable. However, investigation of the obvious (my opinion) requires little serious statistical effort.

I thought everyone already knew, at least as far as stereotypes are concerned, that religious people generally favored their own ilk in terms of trust and general morality. But that is not my point.

The first sentence in the PsyPost article said this: “Agnosticism and atheism are often categorized into one “nonreligious” group in research despite these being distinct belief systems.”

It is safe to say that agnosticism and atheism do not compete with each other. One person may be both. It would also be right to say they should not be placed into the same religious category. However, it is wrong to categorize, state, or even to imply that either agnosticism or atheism is (or has) a belief system. Such a bogus first sentence places doubt upon either PsyPost or the researcher’s reporting and makes me question the peer review process of Psychology of Religion and Spirituality.

Sometimes it may seem like hair splitting, but this is how atheists.org said it, and I agree: “Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”

To do research on stereotyping it would seem appropriate to me that one must first stop one’s own stereotyping.

One more important thing. Cher, (Cherilyn Sarkisian) was born on this day (May 20) in 1946.

Happy Cher’s (76^th) birthday, Y’all.

Bill

Essay: (Christian) Religious Music

What many religious folks seem to forget or don’t know is that for more years than most of them have been alive, I identified as Christian and practiced that religion, albeit the Catholic version (as a youth, it was the Irish Catholic brand for Carlin fans). I’ve lived in their church. I did more than my share of pay, pray, and obey. I swam in the deep end of godly religiosity. I was once a pubic hair from being ordained (imagine if I had gone through with that?).

I object when religion is forced on me or others. I decry when money taken from me and used to further any religion’s hold on government, society, culture, or basic freedoms. But religion is forced on us politically and money is taken from us and given to religions.

It annoys me (not offends or insults) when religious people lie about other people. Those others may be people of other religious or denominational beliefs, people of no religious practice (aka, nones), agnostics, and (mostly) atheists, like me. I also see many no true Scotsman lies.

Some folks incorrectly think I’m offended by many things Christian, or God stuff. I seldom am. I’m atheist. I don’t care if that offends anyone. However, I see threats to people and problems created for people (albeit, usually not me directly) by religions. I see the irony when the religious charge me with persecution if I insist that they keep their religion out of my throat.

In all those years of trying to be a believer, I never attacked anyone for not holding my beliefs or who did not believe in God. If fact, I often found myself defending non-believers, either generally as a group or by name. It’s enough to say that I’ve been one and done it.

However, I want to tell y’all right here and now that I still like some religious music (not so much the gospel stuff). I’m talking about some Christmas music, Gregorian Chant, and fun R&R tunes that back in some god squad stuff.

I like Spirit in the Sky by Norman Greenbaum, and observant Jew who excited so many Christians with the song, except for the part about ‘I’ve never sinned’ (we can’t have sinless Jews singing about their friend, Jesus). Whoopsie, Norm. You see man, I don’t think Jesus was God or the son thereof either. That’s the sin: what you believe, not what you do or don’t do.

I also like ‘(Jesus Christ) Superstar,’ (Murray Head); ‘Jesus is Just Alright’ (Doobie Bros.); and even some back atcha stuff like ‘Sympathy for the Devil’ (Rolling Stones). I (we) don’t believe in the devil either. There’s more religiously inspired music I like. But my point’s made.

I don’t get why people would assume anything godly or religious might aggrieve me or any atheist, particularly former believers. I defend my conclusions, but I also accept their lack of universal popularity.

Are believers upset by secular music? Normally, they’re not. But nowadays we have the holiday tradition of accusatory (false) wars on the reason for the season (it’s not the reason) and how awful the Starbucks coffee cups are this year. Here Comes Santa Claus is not the same as here come Jesus right down Mary’s birth canal. But who cares? It’s just a song.

Do folks get their religious panties in a wad over nonreligious songs? Okay, maybe few weirdos do. But come on. Let’s be realistic here. At the end it is just a song or a movie or a book.

Bill

Essay: Let Me Count the Ways

Fifty Thirty ways to leave your lover life

While many religious people credit divinity instead of nature, luck, science, biology, or sex for our being; we can all pretty much agree that life is like a story. It has a beginning, middle, and an end.

We may disagree about when the beginning is, perhaps the middle too. But we all pretty much agree that death is the end of a physical life, at least temporarily. However, there is little consensus about what goes on after we are dead.

Whether or not dying is a new beginning, a continuation of some kind, a simple end, or a mish mash of various afterlife claims; ghostly proposals are a hodge podge of anything goes hypotheses.

There are also a good number of secular concepts of what happens after death. Each is as valid as any of the religious ideas. Add the entertainment category to the list, and anything goes. While anything goes is not a listed concept, it might as well be.

I don’t know what death entails. I have no evidence for any of the life after death hypotheses. Therefore, while I accept that there may be something after death, I don’t know. I am a when you’re dead, you are flat-ass, completely dead and gone kind of guy. Some folks call that disappointing. I call it reasonable reality. I’m not disappointed.

Dan Dennett has said regarding Brights (nonbelievers), “…We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics, and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.”

If a form of consciousness or conscious life exists after physical and mental (as in brain) death, I’ll find out when everyone else does and in the same way. However, I want to kibitz on the 30 afterlife ideas I read about: 30 theories about what happens when you die (msn.com)

I’m loath to say theories because most don’t rise to that level of assurance.

There are not really 30 different after death concepts proposed. Some are essentially the same or overlap. Others are fictional afterlife stories from television shows. I made three categories: Religious, Secular/Universal, and Entertaining.

Secular or Universal Categories:

The cosmic hypothesis claims consciousness belongs to the universe, not to individual bodies. When we die, our consciousness returns to the cosmos. I’m not sure what that means or where it goes. I like the dream thing. It claims that when we die, we will just wake up from a very confusing, vivid, and long dream. It reminds me of Poe’s poem, A Dream Within a Dream.

I fall in among what is called the nothingness concepts. One suggests at death everything turns black, and we’re gone forever. There is also the uncertain idea, which is also me, suggests that all that we know about death is what happens to the physical body. That uncertainty suggestion addresses death as a cold reality leaving other ideas for consideration

Nihilism deems that all values are meaningless and baseless. It’s a dark philosophy. A true nihilist way of approaching death and the afterlife is that there is nothing at all afterwards because life also had nothing. It’s a bit cold, but afterlife it is one thing nihilism may have right.

The solipsism suggestion is new to me. It is valid in both life and death. Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure. It is a philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. Perhaps, when one dies, everything else dies as well. I don’t understand this one.

Those who believe in the paranormal claim that after death our souls remain among the living on Earth. Many also believe communication with these souls is possible through mediums. I don’t buy any of this. This suggestion also fits under entertainment. If I talked about charlatans, this would be their heyday category.

Religious Categories:

Buddhists hypothesize reincarnation after death. There are different realms into which you may be reborn after your good and dead. You could be a god, demi-god, human, animal, or a ghost.

LDS folks believe good and righteous Mormons become gods when they die. Alternatively, non-believers are condemned in the afterlife. Heaven is apparently not good enough for them. Seems narcissistic to me.

Hinduism also holds the belief of reincarnation. A person’s status or form in the next life is determined by their actions during this current life. No news there.

Christians believe in both Heaven and Hell. Good and righteous Christians will enter Heaven. If they lead a life of sin and wrongdoings, it’s Hell after life. However, it is essential to believe in God and Jesus. Do-gooder agnostics, atheists, Jews, and Muslims are doomed (especially the first two, as the last two also want to believe they’re special and thus semi-saved).

Entertainment Categories:

Sci-fi explanations abound. One is the parallel universe idea that when we die, we will be living in the same universe as we were before, just in a different portion of space and time.

Stranger Things followers know what the Upside Down is. The show claims that there is an alternate dimension to our universe that a person can become trapped in, being neither alive nor dead. Not sure you even must die for this one.

The illusion idea claims that the world is created more in our minds than in a literal sense, meaning that it is all an illusion. Following this understanding, death is a human-constructed concept, and when we die, we remain.

The excretion dump is kind of shitty. It claims that the universe is a giant brain in a human body, and individuals are merely cells. When a cell dies in a human body it gets excreted, so perhaps that is what happens to people in the end.

The many worlds claim is that when we die, we are only dying in this world and current universe. There are other universes out there where we can move. See how this idea overlaps others?

There should be no problem with these. Folks should be free to believe as they wish. But not so fast. There appears to be a heavenly problem.

Some believers, mostly Christians, seem eager to participate in bringing on what they believe to be the inevitable end times when all life ends. It’s kind of like in the book of Revelation. Armageddon. They are willing to destroy all life and just get things over with. They see themselves as God’s little helpers. Not good.

Another thing I’ve read about is the killing of children being justified because they are without sin and go directly to Paradise/Heaven. Islamic terrorists have used this logic to justify some of their murderous deeds.

It should not matter what anyone thinks about what happens after we are dead. But it does.

Bill

PS: This list could be molded into parodistic lyrics to the Paul Simon song. Maybe someday.

And They Say I Cliché

Happy Friday, Y’all,

I had nothing, then this mic dropped. It’s an email FFRF posted today. I need to send them some dinero for helping me out.

Now, it is out of “love” that this Gary person sent this. (CAPS, spacing, spelling, and punctuation are all GARY’s). He removed all our excuses (what a jerk).

“I WANT YOU PEOPLE SAVED AND NOT GO TO HELL FOR ETERNITY . SO PLEASE LISTEN TO ME BEFORE ITS TO LATE FOR YOU . YOUR ETERNAL DESTINY DEPENDS ON IT . I MUST WARN YOU PEOPLE – JESUS IS VERY REAL . YOU ARE LOST WITHOUT HIM AND WILL DIE IN YOUR SINS . HELL IS A REAL PLACE – SO IS HEAVEN . DON’T BE A FOOL AND REJECT CHRIST . I PLEAD WITH YOU OUT OF LOVE . HELL IS A PLACE OF ETERNAL TORMENT WHERE THE DEVIL AND HIS DEMONS WILL ALL BE . YOU WILL GO TO THIS MOST TERRIFYING PLACE IF YOU DON’T REPENT . I GUARANTEE YOU WILL HAVE A RUDE AWAKENING IF YOU DON’T LISTEN TO THIS MESSAGE . ONCE AGAIN DON’T BE A FOOL ! THIS IS REAL AND GOD DOESN’T MESS AROUND . YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE NOW – ALL OF YOU . — Gary”

God doesn’t mess around, and Jesus IS VERY REAL: Gary guarantees it. There we have it, right?

Okay, let’s say I repent (for what I’m not sure). I get my Irish ass saved (from Hell I guess). Presumably after I die, I will not have a rude awakening (but I will remain doornail dead).

I am sitting here reading the Ten Commandments wondering which of them Gary thinks I’m going to Hell for. Jesus is not mentioned. I believe in No Gods, so with one exception, I am good for the first one. No false gods and all that. But, the graven image shit may doom us all.

I’m not sure I know what #2 means, but when I swear, I seldom involve deities. Now I am a fan of the late George Carlin, who, presumably, has experienced his rude awakening. In persona, I’ve been compared to him, but I’m not even close to that funny. Anyways, when I cuss, I use four of George’s seven dirty words: shit, fuck, cocksucker, and motherfucker. I don’t consider cunt, tits, or piss swearing when used on their own. Back to Commandments.

I’m good with Mom & Dad. Lately, I’ve not killed anyone without repenting. I have not adulteried (made-up word), stole, false witnessed, or lusted for or with any of the neighbors. I like my stuff better than theirs, so I’m non-coveting. I am not sure what I could do to fuck up a Sabbath anyway, or which day it actually is.

So here’s the thing. I’ll be going to Hell for ETERNITY, according to Gary and his fellow (loving) pacemakers (that was a 1960s band) because I acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the 5,000 or so gods man has created ever existed. Anything else? Nope.

Have a wonderful weekend and stay away from Gary.

Bill

Let’s Talk Bible Poetically

Where the Sun Don’t Shine

Books of myth, fiction, fantasy, and magic,
when truth be told, are wonderous, magical,
fine entertainment.

The darkest are sadistic
lies contained in false truths told,
from pages and pulpits of religious propaganda.

Such cliched moronic nonsense would
make magical mindless fodder if only
some twinkles of truth were told about their
myth, fiction, fantasy, and magic. Of course,
I just did that, did I not?

It Must Be I

To those whose baptisms are no longer valid and to those whose still are (like me):

I know. Who cares? Not the pin-head decision-makers. It’s the fixers who flip out. And rightfully so. They must look into the tearful eyes and sad faces of their faithful and lie because of some Schmutz’s in Rome said “it must be I.”

Here is a quick factsheet on most baptisms and what the Royal Catholic pains in the ass see as three levels of Baptismal judgment.

First is a list of ones they are okey dokey with. (Not a word about I, we, thee, or they.) The second group is a mercifully short list of we got no clues. (Maybe you go to heaven, maybe not.) Third list is of what we consider too fake to count.

If you got baptized in LDS, you need a redo to have a counter as a papist. That third group of no deals includes several religions and denoms who do not baptize at all. I’m Irish, but even I can see why those that don’t baptize ones might be “invalid,” since they don’t freaking baptize in the first place (oh lawdy, what next?).

Anyhow, as a once fully corrupted Roman Catholic (RC) [by some opines], a several times fallen away RC, and now a bona fide and fully convinced atheist (who claims to no longer give damn about such damnation tarnation), I must say that if you feel shocked and dismayed about the RC church bureaucrats tripping over their whacked off foreskins, no matter what you believe, you suffer from diagnosable naivety. This is what they do best. In this case, the office was created for just such purposes. In trying to look ecclesiastically smart (bless their hearts), they succeeded in making the entire RC church and all 1.3 billion members look like as many blind mice. Give them grief. They deserve it!

While the linked list does not appear to include either acceptance or rejection of atheist or agnostic baptisms, it does reject the Bohemian Free Thinkers. What? I did not know of such a group. All the Czechs I knew were RCs or Orthodox. Funny though. They (BFTs) tell ya what to think anyway.

The RC faithful and the semi-not-so-faithful are accustomed to this kind of dribble. It may seem scandalous, but it’s funny, if not silly. Do the bogusly baptized now run down to Father Peterbutt at Saint Flower of the Fold RC church for a redo? Do they sit tight? And what about the dead ones? Oh, I forgot; the Mormons can baptize them. Thank you, BYU. Even Mormon heaven beats the hell out of hades, right?

At the Pearly Gates, good old Saint Peter face palms and says, “Look Lady, I am so sorry. But the dumb shit who did your baptism said We instead of I. We, I mean I, have no record of a redo on you. I checked with JC and He’s adamant that He will not share the glory of your salvation with his Father, the closeted family Ghost, nor with any of the people who thought they were attending a bone fide, blessed event (no refunds, either).”

Perplexed, Peter whispers, “You have been metaphorically screwed by Christ. You need to go stand in line over there with all the atheists, Jews, and Muslims. Here is your ticket to Hell. They still think this is one big party. May someone have mercy on all their embarrassingly happy souls.”

To all you 1.3 billion RCs out there ignoring the rampage of insanity to which you give (much less than 10% of) your hard-earned money every week, you can fix this shit. God does not need your money. The Parish, Diocese, and bumbling snotty bureaucrats in Rome do. In fact, your local poor and homeless need it much more. Must I explain? Good people have been fired and politicians voted out for far less.

Bill

Can It Be Naught?

I forget what I read this week that put me onto this line of thinking. I read a lot of stuff that I do not understand or get. That’s fine. This whole business is crazy. One guy even told me that it was his job to get me to think like him. I am envisioning those of you who know me wanting to see him try to do that. Right?

Just to be clear, he not only wants me to be Christian; it’s with the Evangelical crowd that I must swear allegiance. On top of that, he called me a leftist for no reason. I liked the idea and told him so, but the real lefties might not agree. He wants me to be a right-wing guy. It seems I do not think like an American is supposed to think.

But when I peeked at his blog thingy, I noticed that he supports the creation of everything from nothing hypothesis. I am not sure what drug I need to take to help me comprehend nothingness. They talk about it, but how can they conceive of that? I cannot.

It is all something. We cannot portray or imagine anything but something. The movie clip from The NeverEnding Story attempts to portray the power of nothing, but it is all something. Evil is something. Absence implies something. There absolutely cannot be nothing.

In nothingness there is neither a beginning nor an end. When the Universe came to exist, nothing would cease because something existed. If there ever was a when of nothing, but there was a god or gods, then either god was nothing and still is, or god invented God.

So, all this buzz about creating everything (anything, something) from nothing makes zero sense. But at least that is something. Right?

Bill