hobbit-humanist

Humanism, atheism, some politics and lots of common sense.

Archive for the category “Quotes”

Proof !

It will soon be time for the local beer festival and each year they put out beer mats (or coasters as I think they are called over the pond) in pubs/bars a couple of weeks before the event. This years made me smile though being a sceptic I’m not quite convinced! Maybe I ought to post some through the letter box of the local Jehovah’s Witnesses!

Beer Fest

 

Reprehensible

One of my pet hates as an atheist (besides dogs, I really don’t like dogs!) is the indoctrination of young children into the Abrahamic faiths. Children up until the age of seven have minds that are basically sponges and soak everything up, like animals they go through a period of imprinting.
Parents that are serious about their faith like to begin brainwashing their children early and for reasons such as imparting their belief system on a child and of course using certain elements of religion as behavioural leverage. If challenged on this the parents usually react with its our child we do as we wish regardless of the fact the child is its own independent person/mind. Most religions of course seek to do away with independent reasoning early and rationality is replaced by dogmatic doctrine and submission.
Thankfully not all succumb, as children see past the myth that is Santa Claus in due time many see through the illusory nature of religion or at least question it.
Margaret Knight one of the most famous British atheist/humanists of the last century had this to say on the subject of religion and children;
If [a child] is normally intelligent, he is almost bound to get the impression that there is something odd about religious statements. If he is taken to church, for example, he hears that death is the gateway to eternal life, and should be welcomed rather than shunned; yet outside this he sees death regarded as the greatest of all evils, and everything possible is done to postpone it. The child soon gets the idea that there are two kinds of truth. The ordinary kind, and another rather confusing and slightly embarrassing kind, into which it is best not to inquire too closely. Now all this is bad intellectual training.
Religious parents, especially the more fundamental types like to get the ‘Sin’ word understood early but I think this Franz Kafka’s quote covers things nicely;
We are not sinful not merely because we have eaten of the tree of knowledge, but also because we have not eaten from the tree of life.
And of course religious dogma and indoctrination suppresses as much of life as it can. What doesn’t get embedded in the home will almost certainly try to be so in religious schools or mosques. As H.L. Mencken puts it;
Sunday school is a prison in which children do penance for the evil conscience of their parents.
Though I also quite like this quote by Victor Hugo;
There is in every village a torch: The schoolmaster – and an extinguisher: The Parson.
Sycophantic religious people will answer the above with something like its not just their will as a parent but its more importantly gods will for children to know about him, as Ruth Hermence Green puts it;
It’s possible to pull out justification for imposing your will on others, simply by calling your will God’s will.
And how often do we hear God or Allah’s will these days for justification? All the time. I want to draw on another very apt quote in closing from Green which says;
If the concept of a father who plots to have his own son put to death is presented to children as beautiful and as worthy of societies admiration, what types of human behaviour can be presented to them as reprehensible?

Penn Telling It

Penn of Penn and Teller fame telling it like it is !

Penn

Tomorrow

Tomorrow the Hobbit-Humanist is one year old, I suspect WordPress will want to see the colour of my money for another years blogging. During the last year I’ve racked up 115 entries, so basically something every 3-4 days on average, some months busier than others, that thing called ‘life’ often gets in the way!
As Einstein once said ‘Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is never stop questioning.’
I’ve not yet made a firm decision on whether to continue or not, though I think it’s probable. All I can say is it’s been an interesting year and I’ve enjoyed debating with fellow atheists and of course people of faith. There’s some really great blogs out there and lots of talent and I’ve enjoyed reading lots of different ones, the learning never stops! So a hearty thanks for everyone that’s contributed comments and opinions, I’m only a humble little fella with a half decent grasp of my native English but I really value being able to blog and convey my thoughts.

Oh Those Pesky Popes!

If you thought the current Pope Benedict XVI who resigned on the 11th of this month was a bit questionable on some things then lets take a trip through history and have a look at some previous ones.
Pope Stephen VI (896-897).
Something of a nasty piece of work. He exhumed the previous Pope Formusus and put his rotting corpse on trial in January of 897. The corpse was propped up on a throne and a deacon had to answer for him. His crimes? Performing the duties of a bishop when he wasn’t one, among other chargers. After being found guilty the cadaver of Formusus was stripped of all sacred vestments and buried in a grave garbed as a layman with three fingers of the right hand (the so called blessing fingers) being cut off. That wasn’t enough though, the body was dug up again and thrown into the river Tiber. The events caused concern within the ruling powers of the day and Stephen was imprisoned and strangled.
Pope Sergius III (897-911)
Sergius was only pope known to have ordered the murder of another pope and the only pope known to have fathered an illegitimate son who later became pope; his pontificate has been described as “dismal and disgraceful”. The pontificate of Sergius III was remarkable for the rise of what papal historians call a “pornocracy,” or rule of the harlots, a reversal of the natural order as they saw it. A mistress of his gave birth to the later Pope John XI.
Pope John XII (955-964)
If you thought Benedict IX was having all the fun you’d be wrong, enter John XII. On 963, Holy Roman Emperor Otto I summoned a council, levelling charges that John had ordained a deacon in a stable, consecrated a 10-year-old boy as bishop of Todi, converted the Lateran Palace into a brothel (that place again!), raped female pilgrims in St. Peter’s, stolen church offerings, drank toasts to the devil, and invoked the aid of Jove, Venus, and other pagan gods when playing dice. He was deposed, but returned as pope when Otto left Rome, maiming and mutilating all who had opposed him. On 964, he was apparently beaten by the husband of a woman with which he was having an affair, dying three days later without receiving confession or the sacraments.
Pope Boniface (974, 984-5)
Known as an anti-pope, he’s alleged to have put pope Benedict the VI to death. He evidently wasn’t popular and when things went wrong and there were uprisings against him he fled with vast amounts of treasure to Constantinople but came back later to depose pope John XIV. Boniface is said to have died under suspicious circumstances, no kidding?!
Pope John XV (985-996)
The Pope’s venality and nepotism had made him very unpopular with the citizens, as he split the church’s finances among his relatives and was described as “covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts”.
Pope Benedict the IX (1032-1044 then again in 1045, then again in 1047-48)
There’s no doubting Benedict IX was a bit of a character and one of my personal favourites. the only man to have served as Pope for three discontinuous periods, and one of the most controversial Popes of all time. Benedict gave up his papacy for the first time in exchange for a large sum of money in 1044. He returned in 1045 to depose his replacement and reigned for one month. after which he left again, possibly to marry, and sold the papacy for a second time, to his Godfather (possibly for over 650 kg /1450 lb of gold). Two years later, Benedict retook Rome and reigned for an additional one year, until 1048. Poppo of Brixen (later to become Pope Damascus II) eventually forced him out of Rome. Benedict’s place and date of death are unknown. It’s said he knew very little theological stuff but didn’t care because he was well connected. He’s often quoted as being the first homosexual pope and had orgies in the Lateran palace. The Catholic Encyclopaedia calls him “a disgrace to the Chair of Peter”, I call him a party animal. There’s so much more I could say on this one but I suspect you get the idea!
Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254)
Innocent by name but don’t be fooled. Mr Inquisition himself ordered the papal bull ‘Ad Extirpanda’ which basically authorised torture to get so called heretics to confess. One of the most famous people being tortured by inquisitors was of course Galileo or said that the earth revolved around the sun (and was right of course). He also issued papal bulls against the Mongol’s and asked them to stop killing christians (though it was alright for christians to kill fellow christians and none christians), they weren’t impressed and sent a letter back telling him to shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Pope Urban XI (1378-1389)
He was the first Pope of the Western Schism (which ultimately lead to three people claiming the Papal throne at the same time). I guess everyone wanted in on the orgies, torture and murder then? Launched a program of violence against those he thought to have been conspiring against him, imprisoning people at will and mistreating them brutally. Later historians have considered seriously that he might have been insane. He is said to have complained he did not hear enough screaming when cardinals were being tortured.
Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503)
He is one of the most controversial of the Renaissance popes, and his Italianized surname Borgia became a byword for libertinism and nepotism. Pope Alexander’s claims to fame were taking over much of Italy by force with the help of his son Cesare (yes, his son), a racy relationship with his daughter Lucrezia (some say her son was his), and his affinity for throwing large parties, bordering on orgies, that usually culminated with little naked boys jumping out of large cakes.
Pope Leo X (1513 to 1521)
Known mainly for the sale of indulgences (an alleged guaranteed ticket to heaven etc) which the profits were used to rebuild St Peters basilica and to challenge the upstart Martin Luther, evidently you needed cash to thwart rivals back then, having god in your corner wasn’t enough. His decadence pissed people off and an assassination attempt was tried but failed. Leo was no idiot and had the conspirators poisoned.
Pope Paul IV (1555-59?)
Pronounced the Jews condemned to slavery by god, created the ghetto of Rome and is quoted as saying “If my own father were a heretic I would personally gather the wood to burn him.”
 Pope Pius XI (1922-1939)
 Personally blessed Italian planes that went to bomb Ethiopian villages during the 1935 war of imperial conquest. Is quoted to have said “Mussolini is a wonderful man. Do you hear me, a wonderful man!”. Oh dear.
Pope Pius XII (1939-1948)
A professional fence sitter during world war two. Roman Catholics in Poland felt betrayed by him when Germany invaded and he didn’t condemn the deaths of around 1,800,000–1,900,000 Poles. Followed a policy of neutrality though he had many dodgy friendships with German hierarchy and people like  Ante Pavelić. Ignored reports of the holocaust. Enough said. I wrote a blog on Pius XI & XII in more detail here).
And of course we have the outgoing one …. number 265th
Pope Benedict XVI (2005 – gone very soon)
Where do I start? Didn’t like cohabiting which he thought was “gravely sinful” and undermined society (March 2012). Didn’t like condoms “[AIDS is] a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.”(March 2009). Didn’t like gay or lesbian people “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (1986). And of gay marriage “[It's] an offence against the truth of the human person, with serious harm to justice and peace.” (December 2012). If you happily married heterosexual couples think you got off lightly then think again, couples that opt for any birth control method outside of Rick Santorum’s questionable “Rhythm Method” (which successfully created eight children) are “negating the intimate truth of conjugal love.” (October 2008).
And sexual abuse revelations and countless claims within the catholic church? Let’s not even go there because my fingers would fall off with the typing needed!

Slavery

I went to the cinema the other day to watch the new Tarantino movie called ‘Django Unchained’ and very good it was too, albeit a little on the lengthy side. The movie is about a black southern American slave that gains his freedom, wins his wife back and does some killing along the way. Mr Tarantino had obviously done some research into not too distant American history and depicted slavery as the brutal business it was, quite graphically in some scenes.
That fantastical moral book of wisdom called The Bible doesn’t really have a problem with slavery though, in fact it goes into detail about it. Lets take a look;
44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:44-46).
Hmmm no regard for nations around you then, only the people of Israel matter. Anyway moving on to sexual slavery, perfectly permissible but with the odd niceties;
7 If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to go free as male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money. (Exodus 21:7-11).
Charming indeed. In fact the only real restraint God counsels is that we aren’t to beat our slaves so bad that we injure their eyes or teeth, I’m guessing you can beat the crap out of them elsewhere though (Exodus 21).
If we move onto the New Testament you’d think things may improve, sadly no, in fact Jesus makes no reference in objecting to slavery. Ideally if he had existed he might have spoken up about it but as regular readers will know I firmly believe he is a manufactured fictional character, so no objection to slavery doesn’t come as a surprise.
The very odious, miserable and downright liar St Paul admonishes slavery by saying;
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. (Ephesians 6:5).
And to round things off nicely we have;
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves. (Timothy 6:1-4).
Of course back in the formative days of the United States people such as the Baptist Revered Richard Fuller used the Bible to support slavery saying that;
“What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and permitted in the New, cannot be a sin.”
He wrote letters regarding slavery and debated it with others, thankfully slavery would soon be consigned to history within America. We can rightly argue that some in abolitionists in America also used the Bible to make claims but religious people always cherry pick the Bible and nothing has changed. Accepting the Bible to be the word of God obviously must have made it right to abduct, sell, abuse and use people but if people use scripture to argue against scripture regarding slavery this does not make the Bible a good moral guide whatsoever, it just makes it look even more silly. The moment a person realises slaves are human beings that have the same capability for happiness and suffering they understand that it is patently evil to control, own and use people as sexual objects or farm equipment (unless they are consenting of course!).

Pointless?

So the first church for Atheists opened in London this morning and I’m left scratching my head. Sanderson Jones one of two British comedians pioneering it said;
“We thought it would be a shame not to enjoy the good stuff about religion, like the sense of community, just because of a theological disagreement.”
Whilst I think he has a valid point surely there’s lots of ways to do communal things such as clubs or organisations and irony is, its still being held in a church which to me defeats the object a little. If you don’t want a Christian wedding here you go to a register office which obviously doesn’t resemble a church so I guess I have to agree with some Christians (Shock/Horror!) in the fact it is a contradiction somewhat. The Atheist church is only going to happen once a month, so again how is that really communal? If you’re an atheist who likes the communal aspects of a church and the singing then why not go to a church enjoy the bits you like and switch off when they get onto the god stuff? I’m not against what they are doing at all but I just feel its lacking and falls between stools, its neither an atheist group or a religious one and only meets once a month, so pretty pointless really.
Of course the Catholic church isn’t impressed with the Rev. Saviour Grech, of St. Peter and St. Paul Roman Catholic Church saying;
“How can you be an atheist and worship in a church? Surely it’s a contradiction of terms. Who will they be singing to?” he said. “It is important to debate and engage with atheists but for them to establish a church like any other religious denomination is going too far.”
I think the reverend isn’t seeing the fact that there’s literally hundreds of different church types and religions so even though I don’t see the point in it from an atheist perspective they have every right to do what they want. Secondly the ‘Who will they sing to?’ point, they will sing communally for the sheer enjoyment of doing so, you know like they do at football matches and concerts!
I’d be interested to know any readers thoughts?

Hitchens Remembered

It’s been a little over a year since Christopher Hitchens died. Usually I never get upset about people I’ve never met dying but I did with Hitchens. I sat there that day with my head in my hands on reading the news, it was expected because he had cancer but I always thought he might beat it, sadly he didn’t and I felt devastated at his passing because he was a great influence on me. I think it was at that point I resolved to do a Humanist blog, and of course a little later this came into being.
Few people can match his elegance with words, his skill at debating, his brevity and his knowledge. He was a man of extensive life experience, had a ready wit and love the little indulgences in life. I still read his books, watch him on YouTube and use his lines in debate. In short, I miss not seeing more of him.
Here’s an article with some of his many great quotes.

Cyber Wars

Unlike the alleged ethereal domain of heaven and the fiery depths of hell – cyberspace is very real, indeed this blog is proof it. Many religious people think there is some clandestine mythical war going on that we can’t see in which celestial beings, saints and angels are squaring off against Satan and his demonic cohorts. What I find interesting is the current battles going on in cyberspace now don’t so much parallel this thinking but share similarities.
Take for instance the news yesterday in which ‘Anonymous’ the covert group of hackers or ‘hacktivists’ as they like to call themselves issued a chilling video warning (their second I believe) to the now infamous Westboro baptist church. In the warning Anonymous state they will take action which will of course happen in cyberspace but will have results we can all see.
I know very little about Anonymous but do know they’ve hacked their way into some pretty serious stuff. As for Westboro, well, I’ve seen documentaries and news footage and can only come to the conclusion they are a bunch of hate filled delusional idiots. So the stage is set and I suspect events may unfold over the next few days, I’ll be following the news closely and associated websites etc.
What do I think though? I’m pretty sure Anonymous are capable of causing some chaos for members of the odious outfit that is Westboro baptist church.  In turn though and despite cyber attacks taking their websites down Westboro will receive news and press coverage so their vitriolic messages of religious fuelled hate will still appear on screens across the world. Westboro are also picketing the school in Connecticut where children were recently gunned down in what was a terrible tragedy. I saw some footage on the news in which a banner read ‘Pray for the victims’ but I honestly think messages like that are an exercise in futility. Sorry if that seems harsh and I understand people need the comfort of faith in these circumstances but millions of people praying each day wouldn’t have stopped the massacre, as a humanist I’m horrified at events and my thoughts are with the families involved but only action in the real world will contribute to stopping such things happening again, not praying to an unseen one. Of course your sycophantic baptists and evangelists will say the shooting was the devils influence instead of the actual killer having some kind of mental breakdown which to me is the logical answer, the human brain can be a fragile and unpredictable.
To those frustrated at such tragic events either religious or not, that may look skywards and curse, then the words of author Michael Moorcock spring to my mind;
‘Those who curse the workings of the universe curse that which is deaf. Those who strike out at those workings fight that which is inviolate. Those who shake their fists, shake their fists at blind stars.’
The reality of course is we need to forget about supernatural realms and cyber ones when resolving matters. We need to approach things with dialogue and common sense, take real action to prevent hate groups such as the Westboro baptist church through not giving them the coverage they crave and introducing laws to stop them spreading their evil message of hate derived from a book that contains very little fact and very little sense. I’m all for free speech but what they are doing is wrong and the world knows it. I suspect they know it deep down but they are so deluded by religion, so deeply entangled in it that they cannot back down or detach from it, all they can do is quote the bible and bend its words to suit their purposes.
You’ll notice I didn’t link to the Westboro baptist church website in this blog.
*Additional to the above blog, Anonymous are still very much on the warpath as can be read here*

300

There’s a great scene in the movie ’300′ where Leonidas and Xerxes meet for the first time in a parley and verbal sparring match. After the self proclaimed god-king Xerxes has finished his rant Leonidas calmly turns and says;
‘The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many, and before this battle was over, even a god-king can bleed.’
I’m sure the freethinkers, atheists and humanists out there will know what I mean by the quote.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 89 other followers