Sam Harris defines atheism and the ACA

And if you want to listen to some interesting discussions and phone ins, go visit the Austen Community of Atheists podcasts. I've been listening to them recently, and find them really rather interesting.

blink-blink-SNEEZE

JESUS-MARY-FUCKING-CHRIST what the HELL am I alergic too?

*wipes streaming eyes, blows nose, sniffs and sneezes*

All I did was take some photographs in the backgarden >>

*sniffle*

I fucking hate this time of year




also - BT seems to have forgotten about us for now .. so I'm on borrowed time, internet wise

H

Friday 13th?

(Looks like they're cutting us off later this evening, probably midnight - while I can, I'll make a little update.)

I was going through my inbox on Y!G this afternoon, when I noticed an aquaintance had put up the following poll:

Are You Superstitious?

Today's Friday the 13th. Are you superstitious?

No
A little
Yes

I'm actually quite pleased to note that the majority vote (at the time I voted) was 'No' with 15 votes ('Yes' 1, 'A Little' 5).

And I left my little comment:

Not in the slightest. I understand the law of truly large numbers, confirmation bias and selective thinking. I also don't believe in ghosts, angels, demons, the devil or god (or any particular socieities versions of same). It's just a day like any other - in fact, I didn't even know it was 'friday 13th' today, until I saw your poll.

Honestly? I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks.

Though I now feel like looking up just exactly why people think Friday 13th is an unlucky day.

Getting cut off tomorrow

Just to let everyone know, I just tried to pay the phone bill, but my card was declined.

This means that as of tomorrow - we wont have a phone/internet connection.

Unless of course some miracle happens.

So, I won't be online again until we get to Mom and Dad's at the end of the month - moving date is June 28th.

I will still work on my standing commissions, the one for CG and the one for Rowyne - as well as the one for Mamalucia.

If you need to contact me during the two weeks I'm not online, contact chibibecca.deviantart.com - she has my mobile phone number and will be able to tell me whats going on.

Only do this if it's urgent though, as she's my best friend, not my secretary.

Thanks all. See you later.

Attack of the pain fairies

I've been attacked by the random pain fairy again.

I'm now so drained, I'm having problems staying awake.

I still don't know what his pain is - but try to imagine all your internal organs, simultaneously deciding to SCREAM at you, wrapping their hate all around your torso from just under your breasts to just above your womb (front and back). And it lasts for about half an hour and nothing makes it stop, however you try to position your body.

I ended up sprawled over the sofa, clenching my fists and occasionally smacking the wall in frustration.

I get completely randomly attacked by this - there are no indications of it before it happens and it happens at different times of the day. It's never happened in concordnce with something I've eaten/drunk. It's like I said, completely fucking random.

The last time it happened, it struck at about 6am and I spent an HOUR in the livingroom trying not to cry. When I saw the doctor he said it sounded like muscle spasms and that I should take pain killers.

I had actually taken Ibuprofn for it, but it didn't work. This time I had taken cocodamol just twenty minuets before the pain hit - so fucking painkillers don't affect it.

Though for the most part, I'm happy that it's so far only happened every few months.

Anyway - it happened earlier and now I'm tired and feeling nauseous. So I'ma go relax for a bit.

Peter Hitchens on Abortion

Right. I read P.Hitchens editorial on abortion and 'hybrid' embrios this weekend and have been stewing over it ever since.

As a 25 year old woman and a feminist, I took a great deal of offense at his report. Mostly because he has insinuated that any 'pro-choice' person is actually 'pro-death' , and that any 'pro-choice' woman is simply so because she wants to have as much un-protected sex as she can.

Well, I am a pro-choice woman. Contrary to his implied beliefs, however, I value the loving relationship over the one-night-stand. I also believe in contraception over abortion.

Condoms and Femidoms if you're not on the the pill and if you have a crap memory, like myself, the contraceptive implant (this is the route I have gone down - it's perfectly safe and you barely even know it is there.)

Though I am pro-choice, I believe that every possible route to PREVENT a pregnancy should be in place before sex is even contemplated, and if you do inadvertantly find yourself pregnant, every route other than an abortion should first be explored.

I abhor those women who have had multiple abortions, simply because a baby in thier life is not yet something they want. These 'life-style choice' abortionists should get their bloody heads around using contraception - it really isn't very hard. And any woman who gives the old excuse 'oh, my boyfriend doesn't like condoms' should BLOODY WELL use something else - there are a wide range of choices open for them.

There are many different types of pill you can take. The contraceptive implant is very easy, very effective and has the added bonus of you not having to remember to take a pill every day. There are various types of coil that can be inserted into the womb. And there are even injections available.

So any woman hiding behind the 'boyfriend hates condoms' excuse is a complete idiot and should be told so.

As well as being a firm believer in contraception, I actually think the abortion limit should be lowered - especially considering the fact that medical advances mean any baby born very early these days can, and often does, survive.

I never want to see abortions made illegal again, hoever much I dislike the practice in general, because doing so would ruin many more lives than just those women who fail to properly prevent a pregnancy. Hitchens could not concieve of a viable situation in which an abortion is preferable to adoption or keeping the baby.

I can think of many.

Besides the various medical reasons, there are the rape victims, the pedophile victims, the women who simply cannot afford to carry a pregnancy to term, with all the finacial strains just the pregnancy causes and what about the girls who are too terribly young to be having sex in the first place - why should they be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, when they are still children themselves?

So - while I dislike abortions in general, I support there being a choice available for women to do it if they wish too. But I do think there should be stricter regulations on it (women who have multiple abortions for social reasons, for example, should be punished or made, by law, to take the implant or coil) and a lower cut-off point, of perhaps 18 weeks.

I also, controverstially, believe that a law should be introduced, stating that all teenagers, from the age of say, 13, should be fitted with a contraceptive - both boys and girls. And that this contraceptive should only be removed when they are 18 and considered adult enough to be able to care and provide for a child. But I accept that this is never going tp happen.

I absolutely hate being thought of as someone who supports abortions simply because I want as much contraception-free sex as possible. That is the thought that pisses me off the most about the linked article.


---------
Here are some of my thoughts on the article.

Let's have no more of this footling about over abortion. The issue isn’t how old a baby has to be before you cannot kill it. It is whether you think it’s right to do away with another human to suit your convenience.

On the face of it, I agree with this comment - these days abortions have become so accepted that they are treated as another form of contraception, instead of the last resort that they used to be.

But I do not like his choice of wording, lets face it, until it is born, it is not a 'baby' - it has various names at the different stages of gestation, and you should try to use them when discussing those particular stages. His hoice of the word 'baby' is simply an attempt at emotionalising the whole report, for while there are plenty of late gestation abortions, there are also plenty of earlier gestion abortions, when the 'baby' is barely even recognisable as such.

The abortionists are not interested in compromise. Why should they be? They have always known what they were doing. They must know by now that the more abortions you allow, the more you have. They have – for the moment – won the argument that you can kill if it’s convenient. And our whole society has adopted the same self-serving view, often without realising it.

This is the very opinion that I despise - just because I support abortion, does not mean I like the idea of having abortions simply for convenience, and I would presume to assume that most pro-choice supporters feel the same way.

I would also presume to assume that very few members of British society enjoys a 'self serving view' in which they think (however unconsciously) that it's ok to 'kill if it's convenient.'

This writer holds a very dim view of his fellow citizens.

'Slutbucks'?

I found this little article in the Daily Mail (Yes, I do unfortunately read the Daily Mail, I am unashamed to admit it) and I felt I had to leave my comment.

Oh stuff it up your ancient frilly knickers, you bunch of close minded, stuffy old religionistas. It's a simple illustration, depicting an non-real, fantasy creature. Said fantasy creature has always been the manifestation of sea-fairers sexual desires. If they want to cover up this simple little piece of design, they should take into acount the hundreds of thousands of much more salacious images to be found in any given art gallery, art book, art school, temple, church and so on. An utterly ridiculous reaction, indicative of the religious outlook, 'lets complain about something that offends us on a purely aesthetic level, but completely ignore that far more pressing issues of reality.' Utterly stupid.

Yeah. Don't know whether it will be posted, so I thought I'd copy it over.

Cross-Polination?

Please escuse my random ramblings.

A few days ago, I was privy to a conversation between my Baptist BestFriend and one of her ex-flatmates, another confessedly Christian girl of about 20.

What I heard in this conversation, and my subsequent conversation with my Bestfriend has lead me to thinking over the apparent cross-polination of religions and religious ideas.

The initial conversation was about a third ex-flatmate, who had mysteriously left the flat a few months ago. Apparently, she had been suffering harrasment from other flatmates, going so far as to find a 'Voodoo/Vodun Doll' on the floor directly outside her front door.

Now, this third flatmate - and most of the other flatmates - were all Christian, and upon discovering this Doll, apparently they all went into hysterics about curses and demons and not touching it.

The second conversation with my BestFriend was what got me thinking.

BestFriend herself does not claim to believe that a Voodoo/Vodun Doll could cause any sort of harm, but she is still wary of them (and apparently Ouija Boreds, I discovered last night, despite my explanation that the Ouija Board was first designed as a party-game and has no occult connections whatsoever) - but she explained that some Christians really are scared that something like a Voodoo/Vodun Doll can cause harm and set curses and so on.

Now - my thoughts ran like this.

Christianty does not have anything like Voodoo/Vodun Dolls in it's Holy Book. In fact, the Doll is almost exclusively a Voodoo/Vodun object. And Voodoo/Vodun is about as far away from being Christian, as I am from being a Fairy Godmother.

For more information on the religion of Voodoo/Vodun, go here.

As we have established, this Doll plays no part in Christian faith - so why did the girls react in the manner they did? Why have I heard and seen many reactions to non-Christian religious items, that are as hysterical as these girls?

Why, in fact, do Christians (and I'm sure, other religionists) actually believe a Voodoo/Vodun Doll can curse them?

The Doll is not part of Christian faith, it is part of Voodoo/Vodun faith. To put it bluntly, to believe that a Voodoo/Vodun Doll will harm you, you must first accept that the Voodoo/Vodun Faith is as legitimate as your own.

But of course, the usual answer to that will be that it's not the Voodoo/Vodun itself, but the idea that Satan or a lesser demon can work through it.

So why treat the Doll how the Voodoo/Vodun want you to treat it? ie: don't touch it and actually believe it represents the person it's aimed at.

These practices are part and parcel of the Voodoo/Vodun belief in what that Doll can do/represent. By treating it as you believe Voodoo/Vodun practitioners would, you are admitting that you believe them, that you believe that little snippet of their faith is as real as your own.

And this goes for a great number of things.

For instance, the Christians who turn to Alternative Medicine - most, if not ALL, alternative medicine is based on a faith system of one sort or another. I have yet to see any mention of Chi/Qi/Chakra/Energy being mentioned in the Bible - yet plenty of Christians (and other religionists) are completely willing to allow that this faith system is as Legitimate as their own.

So why do they do it? Why do none of them notice that allowing themselves to believe anything that is even slightly contradictory to their professed religion, is undermining said religion - because as soon as you start admitting that some other faiths are as real or valid as your chosen one, you have to start admitting that all of them are equally as valid.

And then, after a while, you start to realise that all these contradictory things can't be true, because of their completely contradictory nature. (And then, hopefully, you end up with Athiest's and people who reject CAM.)

YesNo God poll

Saw this linked over at Pharyngula and had to join in.

So far the brits have voted 68% NO XD

YesNo God Poll

Enjoy - and go make your country proud!

I couldn't have said it better

"There are many who consider that Scientology has all the hallmarks of a cult"

I've got this round disc thingy with a film on it. The film plays when I shove it in a dvd player.

Many people think this round discy thing I've got has all the hallmarks of a DVD.

While some remain in doubt, possibly mistaking this round discy thing with a film on it for something else; a skateboard, perhaps. Or a toaster. Or maybe a miners lamp.

Theloonyfromcatford on The Guardian article

If it looks like a cult, if it sounds like a cult, if it acts like a cult - it is a cult. Scientology should be banned.

I cannot express how happy I am that the kid won his case.