I can haz stimulating ecumenical debate?

I'm sitting here listening to Kaki King's new album. It's fucking excellent, you should all listen to it as soon as you can. And that's that.

Anyhow, I was over at the almighty El Sid's blog You Are Not Special yesterday when I stumbled upon this rather nifty little questionnaire.

Ten Questions Every Intelligent Atheist Must Answer

Now, while I consider myself to be agnostic (sorta, tis a long story), I suppose the term "atheist" is used as a sweeping generalisation for anyone who doesn't:

1. Bomb abortion clinics in the name of Jesus
2. Bomb Americans in the name of Allah
3. Circumcise their kids in the name of Jehova
4. Not believe in anything because they're Buddhist and better than that

So I suppose I fall in there somewhere. Everybody seated? Then I'll begin.

1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?

Morality is subjective to each individual. In other words, everybody has a different set of morals and ethics that they live by. Nevertheless, there are a few basic morals that most people have in common such as 'killing is wrong' and 'frequenting post-op tranny hookers may land you in hot soup' (boy did I learn that the hard way) so these morals must have come from a common source. Since we don't believe in the existence of a God, let's go with a scientific theory borrowed from Darwin: maybe most of us feel killing is wrong because we're purposefully taking out a member of our own species, therefore slowly contributing to the extinction of our race? You see? My knowledge on the Origin of Species is major pimping. I'll save the chapter on pigeons for another time though.
Then again, Dostoyevsky and Nietschze gave an interesting little twist on morality, where they claimed that some people are morally superior to others (see Crime and Punishment or any of Nietzsche's philosophical works) meaning they don't feel guilty about say, killing people.
But no, there's no absolute morality. It's all subjective.

2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?

It's based mostly on faith in science. I find their explanations much more plausible than most theist theories out there. Plus, scientists usually admit when they're wrong. Except for Dawkins.
Besides, Science has Stephen fuckin' Hawking. That's enough to convince me.

3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?

I think it just comes from pure luck. Maybe those cave paintings just came from a couple of throwbacks throwing their own shit on a cave wall then thinking 'holy fuck, that looks like an ox! Groovy!'
Same applies to music. Except for the poo flinging. As for religion, I believe it comes out of the insecurity we all feel about handling death and what happens when we snuff it.

4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, discuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?

Let's ask John Edwards, shall we?

"Kenny! Channel Kenny!"
"Sorry, kids, it doesn't work that way."

5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?

Yar, you'd have a hard time proving otherwise. Just ask the christians.

6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
This question stumped Richard Dawkins, so maybe you have a better answer.

It hasn't really improved my life. Not as much as NEW CILLIT BANG GRIME AND.... Oh, sorry.
But I dunno, I feel better off believing that there's nothing at all up there and being pleasantly surprised rather than believing there IS a god and being horribly disappointed.

7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.

It's more that I'm trying to disprove the existence of God. Instead of trying to prove he's not real, you start off assuming God is real, then working with proof and indications that lead you to said conclusion. Keep yer options open, then people can't accuse you of having a closed mind and soiled underwear.
For instance if I was to disprove Noah's Ark, I would start off by trying to find genuine proof in the Bible or elsewhere that Noah was a real person, that he had spoken to God, etcetera. Then go about studying the logistics of everything; how could he make such a fuck-off big boat, then capture two of every animal without the aid of his Super Best Friend Steve Irwin. Then ask, why two? What if the animals were homosexual? and so on and so forth.

Heh, and they say I trivialize things.


8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?

I think I'll use El Sid's answer for this one:

If all Christians believe the Bible was allegorical, that Jesus wasn't real, that none of these things really happened... well, then the Bible would be proved to be what atheists have been calling it all along... a work of fiction. It imparts moral lessons, sure, but so do a lot of fictional works. And Christianity still wouldn't make sense, because now not only have they named themselves after a fictional character, but they're worshiping and praying to the author of a book. You don't see me setting up an entire religion around The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, though I could if I wanted to, easily.

Yeah, it worked for L.Ron Hubbard.

9. Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?

Erm... It isn't. As long as they don't try to ram their beliefs down my throat, it's all good.

10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?

I sure do. Maybe not as much as Dan Akroyd, but I think it's a possibility.



Yeah, so there you have it. I think I might tag a few people with this one.

Shiv's Brain
Plunger Girl
A Mind Boiling Over

They're some kickass blogs. You should check em out.

Peace,

James

Why the government should re-legalize pot.

I'm not a stoner except for the mindset. Sure, I listen to bands like Kyuss and Bongzilla, but I don't smoke pot. Never seen the point, myself. I'd rather take something that had an effect other than making you dopey, deprived of energy and hungry for seven hours. Nevertheless, I do believe people should be allowed to smoke it and cultivate it without being labeled as "criminals".
I was listening to Jello Biafra yesterday, and on his album I Blow Minds for a Living, he dictates the short history of pot and the legal system.
It's a well-known fact that hemp was a widely-used fabric, used in rope and clothing for centuries. Henry VIII of England made it obligatory for farmers to grow cannabis in order to make ropes and cords. The reason for this is that hemp is an exceptionally durable material, and is very hard to tear or rip. It's also exceptionally cost-effective, as large amounts can be grown in short time, especially today where we have UV lights, meaning we can grow it indoors.
Something I did not know until recently is that hemp was also widely used to make paper, and is a more natural way to make paper. To make paper with timber (I.E. wood) you need to use a lot of pulping chemicals in order to turn it into paper. But I'll get back to that later.
One thing you should know though, is that it was used to write the American constitution and declaration of independence. George Washington and Ben Franklin smoked it, too. Oh, and for all you christians out there? Up to the 19th Century, the King James bible was printed on... yeah, you guessed it... HEMP. Believe it or not, George Bush Sr. once ejected out of a fighter plane in WWII. His parachute was made out of hemp, as the US government had temporarily legalized cannabis in order to compensate for the cloth shortage. Neat, huh?
Among other uses of cannabis, here are a few important ones:

• It can be used to relieve pain, and medical marijuana is legal in some 38 states in the US
• Cannabis seeds can be used in cookery, and contain many beneficial proteins
• It can be used as biofuels, making it more efficient than using vegetable oil, as it can be grown quicker than crops.

So you see, the possibilities are beneficial. So why is cannabis illegal throughout most of the world?
Well, in America it was legal until the turn of the century. People used it for the above purposes, but they also openly smoked it and cultivated it. I mentioned earlier that it was considered far superior over timber as in order to create paper with timber, many chemicals needed to be used. Well, unfortunately the chemical barons got a little antsy about this, as they had just developed a new wood-pulping chemical and didn't want to see themselves go out of business. They pressured the government to make cannabis illegal, as did the tobacco companies.
In his book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer reveals that it was a company named DuPont who played a pivotal role in banning cannabis as they had just created several new chemicals that were challenged by hemp. In his book, Herer states that:

USDA Bulletin No. 404, reported that one acre of hemp, in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres of trees being cut down over the same 20-year period. This process would use only 1/4 to 1/7 as much polluting sulfur-based acid chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds the fibers of the pulp, or even none at all using soda ash. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is avoided in the hemp paper making process, which does not need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper making process requires) but instead safely substitutes hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process. ... If the new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were legal today, it would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags.


Hemp was therefore quite an easy target, as many companies were able to rally against it and call for it's legalization.

Anyway, I've had my say. I'd like to hear your views on the matter, and any research you may come up with!

Stay sane,
James