Relevant? Anti-Theist content? Brother Hitchens? It's certainly worth the watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_lM61aDyPg
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Hitchens does the ten commandments
Commandment #6
So it continues, here is number six. Yet another useless order:
"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."
Alright, this one is just a little less useless than the previous six; but still, not one single mention of morality in six orders. I think we could do better. No mention of murder, rape, theft, child abuse, etc. No advice about how to live a good life. No plan that will guide you to truth, or knowledge. Not one word about right action, and responsibility. Instead, we get orders barked at us about how we're supposed to fall in line.
Who gives a shit about us using the Lord's name in vain? Using John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle" -- which seems to me to be a very reasonable benchmark -- we see that no one is harmed by us doing so. If there is no injury, why would it matter? Insecurity on God's part? What kind of God would be so crazy as to advise us against using his name in vain before advising us on basic human solidarity? This is more of the same: another nonsensical and petty command from an imaginary deity who has no sense of punishments that fit the claimed injuries.
Number seven isn't looking any better either.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
More jihad!
Muslims declare jihad on... Switzerland? I await the excuses and contradictions of moderate explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1IWbu4ky0o
#5 is not looking any better...
The fifth commandment -- well, this particular version of the fifth commandment -- doesn't show much more promise than the previous four.
"but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."
More of the same really -- another half-baked promise of love for those that will allow themselves to be broken by this revolting and immoral ideology. What this command is saying is something like:
"In trade for you surrendering your personal responsibilities, your mental faculties, your free will, and your dignity as an individual, I will give you and your children lots of love."
I'm going to have to pass, thank you very much. I rather enjoy my ability to make decisions, reason, and accept the consequences of my actions. I don't want to surrender the best parts of myself in order to gain the love of a bipolar half-wit who's opening commands are to love him, and only him. I'm not a serf, I won't be commanded about by anyone unless I choose to make it so; and I'll never allow an invisible man who murders babies to command me as his servant, as that man has demonstrated that he is not up to the task of morally guiding my actions.
Also, the whole "love" part of that commandment is a bit of a nonstarter. This god's love is, at times, not much different than willful neglect. I've noticed people that have this god's love don't seem to enjoy much of an advantage in life. I've seen this god's loved ones put out of a home for example, and that's just not something a person does to someone they claim to love. The least god could do would be to offer these beloved homeless people his couch for a night.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
#4 and still going strong
Alright, after a small break I'm back with more heretical blabbering. I love living in a country that supports this kind of expression in word as well as in print; it tastes like freedom.
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me..."
Now, we've all had experience with an overly possessive girlfriend/boyfriend, what's our approach to dealing with this kind of nonsense?
Kick that shit to the curb.
I shouldn't have to instruct a grown woman/man on basic respect for other people, and the same goes for megalomaniacal deities. If you haven't learned to act right, that isn't my problem.
This commandment is very revealing in that god is acknowledging the terrible traits that many christians would have you believe he doesn't have; he is confirming that he's a absolute dictator with a real hair up his ass for questioning personalities and those who choose to walk without him. This is pretty far from the image presented by christians currently; I was led to believe god was a benevolent type, not Stalin on steroids.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Series #3
Part 3 go go go!
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
This is just a waste of a spot, a complete waste of the third place; but, what would you expect from some humans authors back in the iron age. They weren't concerned about passing on morality, they have to put the people in line first!
What kind of image does it present when you're the Greatest Conceivable Being, perfect and all knowing, but you have to order your underlings to not mess around with idols? Does Chuck Norris have to remind the workers at subway to go light on the mayo? No, There's a thing called presence, well, I suppose you have to be real to have presence.
I wonder why none of the objects in space were mentioned? I mean, the cosmos is MUCH bigger and contains MUCH more matter than our little spec of a planet, why weren't the stars, planets, nebulae, black holes, comets, moons, galaxies, or any of that stuff mentioned by god? Probably the same reason that the germ theory of disease and the atomic theory of matter are not mentioned; the writers of the bible didn't know about this stuff, so they couldn't act like god knew about them.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Series #2
More of the "ten" commandments, and a dose of rationality. moving onto the second:
"Do not have any other gods before me."
This stinks of authority based leadership, if you were the one "true" god, why would you have to command it? We trust our doctor's abilities not because they demand we do, we choose to, based on their track record and accomplishments. If I walked into a doctor's office and he commanded me to trust/believe in him, and to not take any other doctor before him, I would trust/believe my ass right out the door and find a non-retarded doctor. Seems pretty sensible to me.
I think it revealing that god would command us about like children. Religion takes this even further, using the same kind of relationship type. We call our religious leaders "father" in the same way we call our gods "father"; it's also fitting since women were not allowed (and still are not allowed) to hold high office within the church, same with blacks -- until the churches had a "revelation" right about the same time as the civil rights act. Humans are far from perfect, and still need some kind of structure, but it doesn't follow that they need to be treated like children and have right action commanded to them.
Lastly, and this will be a recurring critique: is this really important enough to occupy the spot it was given? (at least, in some versions) Don't you think rules about murder, rape, theft, torture, or child abuse, would be more fitting for the first or second position on the list? Do the first couple/few commandments have to be about a seemingly vain and jealous god demanding you fall into line? I might suggest a results based approach, or one based on relevancy; because the current mafia style strong-arm tactics is one of the reasons religions and gods force themselves into the margins.