The Devil's Harlot

Moved

2008-11-10T18:14:00.000-08:00

So...I kind of up and moved on to a different blog location 'cause it's prettier and I'm a sucker for that kind of thing. If you're still interested in what I have to say about things then you can still find me here: CLICK ME

I've restricted myself to much shorter posts in an attempt to keep me from going on long rants about how everyone is dumb and to keep my interest up.

Movie Musicals

2008-10-28T21:55:00.000-07:00

The more I hear about crap like this: Fight Club Musical rumours, the more I have to ask myself:

Why the fuck would you want to a copy of a great piece of art by removing the good acting, the great budgets and the grotesque violence? WHY?!

Plays are dead. Deal with it and write for TV.

-Zennalathas

This Is What Happens When Monkeys Have Bum Sex With a Retarded Fish-Frog

2008-03-14T01:18:00.001-07:00

I was reading this cute little article on the ten reasons why women convert to Islam, and almost made it through the tenth without breaking out into laughter...almost...

10. Islam has unconfined Women and has given them the human right to reach for the sky. There have been Muslim Women Presidents through out the centuries, but to this date, the oppressive mentality of the men in the Western U.S.A. has stopped any Women from becoming Presidents in predominately Christian countries, while the Muslim countries have voted for and elected Female Presidents.

Chron.commons | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Apologists have to begin to realize that regardless of what these millenia(s) old books say in relation to one another, the modern day practices and interpretations differ greatly from the actual, literal readings. If everyone read and believed these books to be 100% literal in every sense of the word, the world be a radically different place.

Leviticus 21:17-36 outlines how the church cannot allow a deformed person to worship yahweh with the others. is that practiced nowadays? No! Even the most literal, fundamentalist nutjobs don't kick people out who cannot walk, or need classes, or are infertile, etc.

Religions everywhere have evolved into ugly retarded fish-frog versions of themselves, and to compare what one said 1500 years ago to what the other said 1500 years ago is NOT a comparision of the religion at all.

Oh ya: Islam totally disrespects bitches, yo. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to drive-by shoot the thesis' premise.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Catholics 2.0!

2008-03-14T01:05:00.001-07:00

So, I figured it was about time to get off my ass and get back to blogging. I had a nice little rough patch this month with school, but now I have time to get back to what matters: the sin overhaul.

I have to say, I think the Pope has made a few nice little revisions, and I'm now an even bigger sinner than before:

1 - Genetic Modification

So...if we have the ability to alter a child's genetics to he/she doesn't come out with Down's Syndrome, we shouldn't use it? God created us in his image right? I'm assuming god doesn't have Down's, so I don't see the theological problem here...

2 - Experimentation on Humans

So, we're not allowed to perform a single act that's "morally debatable"? Well shit; it's not like abortions, anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, aspirin, pain killers, Viagra, psychological studies, nano-technology, etc has or ever will help anyone, right?

3 - Polluting

We totally needed god to tell us this. Stfu Al Gore. Besides, if god really liked the environment, he'd go out into the forest and live in a log!

4 - Social injustice
5 - Causing Poverty
6 - Financial Gluttony

Okay, so here's where I think the Pope is endorsing something really, really funny, because if we his take his word for what the fuck is good in this world, look at all the iconoclastic things we can justify:

It's now well known that major music distributors do not end up dolling our royalty payments. So, buying from these corporations is really just supporting Financial Gluttony, and just plain not taking a stand for a great social injustice! Moreover, these gaint corporations inflate the costs of CDs and DVDs to such ridiculous amounts that audiophiles are chased into poverty - see: STARVING STUDENTS!

Therefore, downloading music and movies off of the internet illegally is not only morally justified, but doing otherwise is sending you to hell! Quickly, download µTorrent, hit up Torrentz, and start saving your soul!

7 - Taking Drugs

So, I'm on Seroquel XR to help deal with a Panic Disorder and Agorophobia, and I'm going to hell for it? You're right, Pope, I should just sit back and enjoy the way god made me: fucking crazy.

It's good to know that the Pope is still spewing out proverbial fuck-yous.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

00010100

2008-03-03T21:43:00.000-08:00

Happy Birthday to ME
Happy Birthday to ME
Happy Birthday dear MEEEeee

Happy BIRTHday tooooooooo ME!

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

I'm A...SLAVE...for you!

2008-02-29T03:56:00.001-08:00

This is the best and most ridiculous comment I've read all day...I mean, all three hours of this day...

I would like to say that in no instance does the Bible ever endorse or ever support the type of slavery that was forced upon African Americans in the United States.

chron.Commons Blog | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!

Types of slavery? Really? I think this blogger's forgotten something: SLAVERY IS SLAVERY!

The Old Testament allowed for the enslaving "conquered enemies", according to the blogger, and then claims that American slave traders were simply kidnappers? He seems to have completely forgotten the 1800s and all the little wars Europe fought to "conquer" Africa. Africans were very much a conquered people. The West just didn't really give enough of a crap about the human beings to force them into non-autonomous roles.

Conversely the Bible's version of slavery was meant for a man who might "sell" himself to another to pay off a debt. But that person is not a slave. That's a servant. That's why we have these wonderful words that describe similar, but different things. They're similar, but different.

The blogger then quotes Roman slave practices without realizing that Roman society was established in such a way LONG before the Bible was babbled out.

I could keep picking the post apart, but I just laughed out loud at my quoted sentence, and suggest to not bother with the rest of the piece, since it simply tries to affirm that:

One should not determine that validity of a truth system by the level of its abuse.

Let's remember that atheists don't attack the truth system, but the "truth" itself. But, even under the assumption that there is some sort of truth hiding beneath the disgusting rubbish called religion, the statement does not hold up. Let's play a little game of analogous comparison:

One should not determine that validity of a justice system by the level of its abuse.

Well, if a justice system consistently was misused to entrap innocent people, then it would be invalid, and it would be replaced. (I realize some people may jump down my throat for assuming that modern justice systems ARE indeed in need of replacement. To you I say: they don't consistently fuck up, so suck it up. It'll get better as time goes on. Give it some time.) Even assuming truth in the religious text of the Bible, the fact that it so often is misused to distort the truth proves its invalidity, and it ought to be replaced with a system that does not allow for such errors.

Of course, there'd have to be truth there for that argument to apply. It's simply ludicrous to think that the truth system is valid if both sides are using the same source to support opposing arguments. It'd be like Creationism using Evolution's evidence to prove itself correct and Evolution incorrect...

Oh wait...that's what happens...and, hold on...isn't Creationism blatantly false? Heh, irony.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

WTF HAX

2008-02-28T16:13:00.001-08:00

This is an outrage! How dare the military not let the troops read this brilliant blog!

Air Force Blocks Access to Many Blogs | Danger Room from Wired.com

What if one of my two readers volunteers?! US Military: think about what you're doing to my reading base!

Okay, on a more serious note: What's the reasoning behind this? Are troops going to hit up the internet, read a blog, and suddenly regret their decision to be in Iraq? We can only hope so! That's half the point of "freedom of expression"! You have to have other people's expressed opinions and pieces available so that other people can see it, read it and evaluate the content, thus opening them up to an opportunity to changes their preexisting opinions/notions.

Censorship isn't appropriate in any situation. What are they afraid is going to happen: a huge morale loss?

Regardless of how necessary the soldiers are to the war, removing any ridiculously improbable means through which they might lose faith in the war is unnacceptable. They have to want to be there, and they have to be able to decide that for themselves.

They are not conscripts being forced into a conflict. The military hierarchy has to respect that their decision to join the war effort is sincere, and (I hope) informed. More information shouldn't change the opinion of someone with such a resolve, and the military shouldn't be so scared that more information would change their position.

Of course, this is all a little rant about the little word: should.

Now, another reason, which I admit is a lot more reasonable, is that if they allowed the troops to access blogs, comment, or even post their own blog threads, they'll leak out secrets. But, seriously, the Air Force fucks up enough at their own official site to really warrant much concern from troops who are less-in-the-know, and the military protocols require each outward transmission to be approved before it can be sent. So...seriously...what's the problem?

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Lulz

2008-02-27T23:41:00.001-08:00

Golly gosh gee, Mary and Joseph. Look at this hick-tastic comic I came across. It's praise-the-Lord funny:

Believe Out Loud | HoustonBelief

Must...resist...lude joke about...sexual...repression...

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

What's he hiding in that turban?

2008-02-26T11:14:00.001-08:00

OMFG LOOK OUT! IT'S A FREAKING--Oh...sorry Mr. Next-President of the United States...you just looked so...well...where's your suit?

BBC NEWS | Africa | The meaning of Obama's robes

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Really...?

2008-02-26T10:48:00.001-08:00

So, it seems that Turkey wants to bring Islam up-to-date:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

I don't really know where I stand here...

I mean, I could look on the bright side and hope that they get rid of stonings, beheadings, belief in witchcraft, the black shrouds, the fear of homosexuality, the fear of vaginas, the fear of books and movies and songs and god. Okay...maybe not that last bit.

Or, there's that dark side: this will spin off into it's own little sect that starts off all promising, and Western-ized but continues to split apart and form into more and more radical groups that eventually meet up at funerals with signs that say, "Allah Hates Infidels". Actually, I guess that's still better than what they have now...

While I can't say I think this "change" will catch on, it's certainly a step in the right direction. It means that these Muslims are willing to look at their sacred text and examine it with a critical eye. Sure, they're not questioning the underlying premise of the piece, but they are looking at the passages and saying, "Hey, you know what? That's just not right."

It's a bold move, and I respect it. Unfortunately, moderate Christianity didn't turn out to be all that it was cracked up to be, so I can't imagine this moderate Islam will either. But the fact that these men are looking at reforming Muslim women's rights is truly encouraging.

The question remains however: will they be killed before the work's done?

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Obama's My Bet

2008-02-23T20:12:00.001-08:00

Here's a neat little test that claims to show you who you subconsciously want to vote for:

Implicit Association Test

I can't say how accurate it actually is, but my results showed that I like Obama better than everyone else by a good half-a-page, so it seems good to me. It's a fun, and kind of interesting way to spend an empty ten minutes.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

The White House is a Brothel

2008-02-23T11:48:00.001-08:00

BBC NEWS | Americas | Wannabe first daughters woo youth vote

Whores.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Imagine

2008-02-23T11:30:00.001-08:00

The U.N. finds that nearly two thirds of Britons are not religious, but:

Ms Jahangir, 55, twice chair of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and who was herself only released from house arrest in Lahore during November, says in her conclusions “there exists no hierarchy of discrimination grounds.”

She argues that religion should not have a lower ranking when competing rights are being balanced.

Over half of Britons claim no religion -Times Online

She's right, though. Religion should not have a lower ranking when competing rights are being balanced. It should not have a ranking at all.

Religion, regardless of the brain-washing aspect and the devotion to it, is a choice. No matter how you look at it, even the evangelicals view their faith as a concious decision. The law, and one's rights, protects one's right to that decision or opinion. What does not have to happen is to harbour any sort of respect for that choice. Britain can respect that people have made a religious commitment, but that doesn't mean it has to pander to that religious commitment--the majority of Britain, according to an official international study, is without religion, and therefore law, and politics should be practiced accordingly.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

He's back...

2008-02-22T23:30:00.001-08:00

John Lennon has been reincarnated...I eagerly await the reunion tour.

Embedded Video

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Facebook | How to compare everything with Hitler

2008-02-22T21:31:00.001-08:00

This message was left on a Facebook group by a Derek Madson who runs a group named Carpe Diem that I was once, sadly, a member in. It has to be addressed because this is the kind of bullshit that gives anti-theists a bad wrap.

If there was any doubt about the fascist nature of Scientology here is a useful juxtaposition of videos.

Adolf Hitler speaking to the NAZI party:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80lLU5-yji8&feature=related

Compare that to a speech by David Miscavige of Scientology:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibgWmZHP8F4&NR=1

Notice the common themes - an emphasis on iconography and symbolism, emotionally charged rhetoric, antisocial incitement, rigid hierarchy, authoritarianism, and a theatrical flare. Charismatic. Insane. Domineering. Highly Dangerous.

If you can't see the similarities between this guy and Adolf Hitler you need to pull your head out of your ass. Only difference here is that instead of Jews as the target of hatred it is... wait for it.... yes that's right the origin of all evil in the deluded cult of Scientology is PSYCHIATRY. Hmmm, if this cult didn't kill people it would be enough to make you pee yourself laughing. As it is it's just fucking frightening how much power and control these fuckheads actually have!EXPOSE AND OPPOSE THE CULT OF SCIENTOLOGY!!

Facebook | How to compare everything with Hitler

Firstly, let's be clear on one thing: I do not, never have, nor will, support Scientology, but I might want to keep it around because, wow, it's hilarious.

Now, let's also be clear on another thing. It's one thing to say that there are common themes, and quite another to state there is only one difference between the two speeches, and thus, implied, men. Miscavige is not like Adolf Hitler. Miscavige does not harbour a hatred for a race of people so great that it inspires an era of war unprecedented. The analogy is incredibly poor. Psychiatrists are paid professionals who have laboured in school for many years to earn a degree that would allow them to practice a school of medicine. Believing them to be effective at what they do, or believing them to be ultimately harmful instead, is a valid opinion -- the reasons for holding that opinion are to be questioned, but the opinion can very well come from a wholly secular, and unmotivated observer. Jews are born as they are, unable to make a choice as to their racial qualities, and unable to change them. Believing them to be a scourge on the earth is not a valid opinion -- what evidence is there for superstition and claims made by pure prejudice? None.

Comparing a man with Hitler is simply a poor choice to make (especially when the analogy is a weakly put together as it is here). There is little chance to come back from that remark, and why should the conversation go on further? You've just compared the man to one of the most evil people in human history according to popular culture and belief. How is that helpful? How will that change minds?

Sample dialogue:

"You're like Hitler!"

"Fuck you!"

Yeah, that totally changed that Scientologist's mind...

You use a Hitler reference to wake up a reader or viewer to a character who is actually committing an unspeakable evil towards a victim that is unable to act upon this injustice. Mao was like Hitler. Stalin was like Hitler. Bush is like--oops, bias.

Don't drag spurious analogies into debates that might actually lead somewhere. A conversation stopper is only useful when you might make someone think after they've stopped talking.

Now, I've spoken at some length about the link between Nazism and religion, but I have to point out where my comparison is distinct to avoid some form of hypocrisy. I displayed how Nazism is a religion, not how one is like the other. It is impossible to say someone is Hitler if their name isn't Adolf Hitler. Don't do it.

It's now very plain that bigots do exist under the flag of "Free thinkers" and that's just sad. Derek Madson, sir, take UVic's English 215 course; it'll teach you how to write a proper, expository piece.

Sorry for the length of time between posts again...I came down with pneumonia and found my time was better spent in bed.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Super Serial

2008-02-04T22:08:00.001-08:00

This is one of my favourite blogger's latest posts: Of Tears and Clowns

He, after a good deal of conservative bashing (who actually likes Sullivan anyway?), posits the question: "what is so profoundly loathsome about Hillary Clinton?"

Short answer: South Park doesn't like her. That's also the reason teenagers and intellectuals everywhere are also unable to enjoy Subway's Jared Fogle, Al Gore, Bono (okay...no one really liked him anyway...), Michael Jackson, black people, hippies, Family Guy, the Simpsons, J-Lo, Will Smith, hybrid cars, sexual harassment, gays, Persians, the movie 300, Oprah, and the list goes on...

It's really the only scientific answer...except for my even shorter answer: Hillarycare.

Oh snap! Vote Colbert...oh wait...vote Edwards...god damnit...who's left that worthwhile...? Obama?

Oh America...when will you learn to have candidates run who don't suck, like Jean Chrétien? He faked appendicitis to get out of boarding school, and when they decided to operate, he manned up and let them do it rather than back down. Now that's a leader!

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Who Took the Mary Out of Christmas?

2008-01-30T16:08:00.001-08:00

House MD is officially the most ballsy show on television! (Sorry Boston Legal)

Any writer willing to have a character who is a donkey show prostitute play Mary in a nativity act is good in my books. If you haven't seen the latest episode, (oddly, this season's Xmas tribute) grab it!

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Not My Space

2008-01-30T14:47:00.001-08:00

So, it seems like MySpace has again deleted the big atheism and agnosticism group from it's interwebs. Back when I actually had a MySpace account, and used it, I was a part of that very group, so I feel I have a duty to pass on a little advice to those who are touched by this group's pleas and problems:

Switch to Facebook!

There, you can join all sorts of enlightened groups of similar minded individuals like "Fuck Religion" and, "Fuck Islam". MySpace might pander to those who feel that they ought to accommodate only the happiest, most pious thoughts, but on Facebook you're free to exercise your right to be as intolerant as you like. I'm happy to say that there is some mighty fine intolerance in some of the Facebook groups, and while "intolerance" always seems to come across as a dirty word, remember: Anti-Theists are being intolerant of dumb ideas and beliefs that are chosen (believe it or not), and are not hating on those who are literally unable to change their position (see: racism and other true forms of bigotry).

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

I Want You

2008-01-28T13:44:00.001-08:00

So, hold on...Israel wants the Beatles to come and play there...but banned them back in their heyday?

How do you even justify banning the Beatles in the first place? Seriously, they were for peace, against communism, loving, cute, and pretty wholesome...Imagine if someone threw Exodus or Twisted Sister on the radio there...

Maybe it was Lennon's whole: imagine the world without religion bit that got to them. It's good to know the Israelis have thick skins...oh wait...

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Fumble!

2008-01-28T00:50:00.001-08:00

Gordon Hinckley's dead in spite of being "totally in the hands of the Lord."

Looks like god dropped the ball on this one.

Okay, that was a little glib...but after watching South Park, can anyone really like the Mormons...? I'll give him one thing: his cane's pretty bad ass.

Sorry about the long absence, but I have a panic disorder and have been focussed on other things: sue me.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Harris Is Good, but...

2007-10-29T00:21:00.001-07:00

Dale recently made a very well written argument against Harris's recent spat with the Atheist title, and the "secular humanist" club I belong to recently posted a small snippet about why Harris is so great for doing so. So, I thought I'd carry on defending the title like Dale did, and here's what I had to say about this incredibly boring matter:

Sam Harris might be head and shoulders higher up on the intellectual stimulating level than a lot of the other "New Atheists", but that doesn't mean he's very lonely up there, or really bringing much new to the conversation.

He's big into conversational intolerance. It's not a new idea; he simply articulates himself very well and opens up the idea to a wider audience than those who came before him. He's big into the exploration of meditative studies and brain sciences. Again, that's not exactly new territory. He's bringing a slightly unique spin to meditation, but in medicinal brain studies, he's far from a forerunner in any way shape or form. He's also big into the let's-not-use-atheist-as-a-title bit. That's a tired, tired subject, and I'm so disappointed he's found nothing worth-while to talk about.

I don't think anyone's forgetting Dawkins' and Dennet's forays into new 'atheist' titles. They've thrown 'bright' out there and humanist, secularist, naturalist, and all those other synonyms. This isn't a new topic, and it's not something that's ever been received with any sort of sufficient enthusiasm. The people listenning to these lectures aren't oblivious to the field; they aren't disinterested, and they don't readily lose track of the ins and outs of the New Atheist movement. Could there be a reason the atheist name change hasn't been received well in the past?

It could be because it's stupid, and we really all should be spending our valiant secular efforts on something new, something interesting, and something relevant to the world.

A brief summation of why we should distance ourselves from the atheist title: some atheist have become dogmatic, and the name has a stigma attached to it.

Lawyers have all sorts of individuals within that umbrella term that all sorts of other individual Lawyers would love to be distanced from. The thing is: they're all still lawyers! The catch, though, is they're all freaking different lawyers! There are business lawyers, insurance lawyers, homicide lawyers, Denny Crane, and Alan Shore. The term "lawyer" doesn't actually typify anything. It's just an umbrella term that catches a broad spectrum of individual professions. It doesn't actually apply any "real" definitions other than that everyone categorized into the group practises some form of law. The stigma surrounding lawyers carries over unto these varying individuals only in the broadest sense of the idea. We all know for a fact that not all lawyers are blood-thirsty, money driven loons.

Stereotypes just happen, but that doesn't mean we should avoid the word that's been stereotyped; we should stop the stereotyping of the word!

Other similar umbrella terms would be: doctors, teachers, Christians (there are a lot of very different kinds of Christians), theists, philosophers, researchers, etcetera. None of these terms actually carry a stigma to all the parties involved with the term. The stereo-types about teachers in general do not follow when applied to those who teach the learning impaired. Different stigmas are attached to French teachers than science teachers. Should they really try and change their title to "education officer" to distance themselves from the teacher stereotype?

Atheist is simply another umbrella descriptor. It describes a large body of individuals and groups who do not necessarily agree or even relate in certain aspects of the relevant attributes. Carpe Diem is described as a secular humanist group. Not all atheists are humanists. Not all atheists, and probably very few, actually live their life by the motto "seize the day".

The term "atheist" (or doctor, or lawyer, or teacher, or whatever!) is an umbrella term used to describe a broad base of individuals. The actual term is meaningless in typifying any one atheist, as any meaning carried by the word outside of its definition (not a theist) is connotation. The connotation is what needs to be distanced from us, not the term. We should work at eliminating the stigma.

Atheist is a useful word in describing the people it generally is attached to. We, very simply, are not theists. Most everyone else is. If the majority of people were astrologers, then we would be very effective in labelling ourselves "not-astrologers".

Christian, as a term, unites a large group by one characteristic. Atheist, as a term, unites a large group by one characteristic. Why throw away a term when the term isn't the problem and the understanding of the term is? We didn't throw out Quantum Physics because we didn't understand them...

I respect Harris. He's one of my heroes. He's an exceptional speaker, a gifted debater, and extremely knowledgeable. But he's wasting his efforts on such a damnably tired subject. Dawkins failed to change the majority of atheists' minds; why should we really believe Harris will? And really, he doesn't have to change the title we unite under. He has to go out and tear up the religious fabric of society like he says he wants to be doing.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Thrash Metal = Bible?

2007-10-25T19:38:00.000-07:00

I never really understood the stigma that religious persons attach to atheists. I didn't see how it was all that funny to point and say, "You're just an ass-hole atheist!" Even Dane Cook pulls that crap. I realize we pressure the religious with differing points of view, and even ridicule them rather aggressively in the intellectual field, but I still didn't see where this sense of "bullying" came through.

I tell Christians and Muslims and Jews and whatever that they're deluded on a regular basis, and even go to kind of creepy lengths to do it. I recently went through my campus parking lot and drew feet on all the Jesus fish bumper stickers. But, while petty, was that really in-your-face-arrogant-ass mean?

I put in the new Exodus album today and found myself understanding the ass-hole stereotype completely. "Children of a Worthless God" might have been the track that did it...

We all hear about the straw-man debates that Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris all get called on, but I think it's fair to say that they're not straw-men comments because the people they're describing actually exist. It's easy to forget that when the religious use the same--cruder--straw-men arguments, that they also got their stereotype from somewhere.

Obviously these religious nuts are mistaking aggressive music (which kicks ass!) as intellectual discourse, and I'd never say that the lyrics to song accurately reflect a philosophical or intellectual position. Even John Lennon's life choices aren't fully explored in his song, "Imagine".

I think the parallel between our "straw-man" and their "straw-man" is kind of funny. We take ours from those who study doctrine at length and practise the insanity they read. They take theirs from those who listen to extreme music often depicting insanity. Does that infer an equal intellectual standing between thrash metal lyrics and religious doctrine? I'd say that's about right...

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Come on! New species!

2007-10-22T13:20:00.000-07:00

So, I've heard a bit about there actually being a gene that gives a person a disposition to faith based thinking. Atheists, therefore, are simply persons without that gene, or with a different one.

Does that mean that if we made big enough of a fuss, atheists could be a separate species?! We're like the X-Men of reason! I dibs being Wolverine: I recover from all bad ideas, and then slice their heads off!

In all seriousness, it would be kick-ass if atheists were their own species.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

"Display driver stopped responding and has recovered"

2007-10-12T12:14:00.001-07:00

The aforementioned error message experienced in Vista, which I understand to be a lot more common than some give it credit for -- *cough* nVidia *cough* -- has a fix that is deceptively easy to accomplish, and its something anyone experiencing this problem should be able to tackle:

It, very simply, involves installing a 'tweaked' driver. Yes, that's right! That's all it takes! You just download a driver that has been slightly modified by a very talented team of nerds, and your computer will be running as it should be.

Here's the step-by-step:

Go to this website: Tweak Force

There will be five blue buttons at the top of the page. Click the one labelled "Downloads".

Now, click the link that says "nVidia Forceware BETA Drivers". After that, click on the version that corresponds to you and has the most recent release date!

Once it is done downloading, go to your Control Panel, and select "Programs and Features". Right click on "Nvidia Drivers" and uninstall them. You will be prompted to restart your machine. Do so.

After the restart, install the new drivers you just downloaded by double clicking on them and following the directions they lay out for you. You'll be prompted to restart. Do so again.

After the restart, configure your system to your preferences, and you should be good to go! No more errors!

Religions of Ideology [continued]

2007-10-09T13:56:00.000-07:00

In my last post I spent a short amount of time laying out the basis for the claim that extreme ideology - or ideology taken to the extreme - can safely be blanketed under the term "religion". Now, taking comparitive studies into the account, how well does Nazism, or any religion for that matter, actually parallel other religions, and can conclusions be drawn from such a comparison? I'd quickly say yes to both questions, but will also readily admit there are limitations to such an experiment. ‘Limitations’ is not to say that such examination is inaccurate, but simply that conclusive, empirical data cannot be gathered. An exploration of the nature of belief is all that can really be gathered without delving too far into conjecture.

Here I'll address some of the problematic questions raised in the prior post:

If Nazism can speak to the nature of belief and the causation of religious acts, and yet we can accept Hitler as a power hungry lunatic, what does that say of other similarly structured groups - Catholicism springs to mind?

History shows us how the German political system evolved out of the extreme ideology found in Hitler and his works. Now, I think it's perfectly acceptable to assert that this indeed was an act of religious faith, in that the persons carrying out this restructuring, and then taking part in the new structure (These persons are obviously varying in their degree of faithfulness. Shindler was certainly not faithful.) were fairly versed in Nazism's doctrine, and applied the doctrine to every facet of German life they could. Here we have an example of what it is like to set up the religious institution required by Bruce Lincoln's definition, and it provides some disturbing insight into the inspiration of such an institution.

Were those involved in creating the fascist, hierarchal model really concerned with the betterment of all and putting the state above the individual? It seem far less likely than if they were simply putting themselves ahead of other individuals - in some case FAR ahead. I don't doubt there were those involved in the Nazi regime who did believe whole-heartedly in the doctrine, and DID act with a religious fervour. That's essentially the problem! The ones we can readily accept did not believe wholly in the doctrine are those at the top, actually laying out the doctrine.

Immediately that raises a striking question. If the top Nazis built their system with their own motives in mind, did the early Christians do so also? How about the Jews? The Islamic peoples? It's not terribly hard to concieve such an evil. We have a moden example of such a phenomenon, so what makes these earlier instances any different? That question actually then raises the next important point: you can't claim to know that the early churches were not began in such a way that they resembled entirely the Nazi regime's structuring, nor can you claim realistically that the Nazi regime would not moderate itself into a structure similar to that of monotheistic churches. So, without any such ability to discern ambition from sincerity, what right do you have to claim faith in such regimes moral?

You have no such right.

Back to the original tangent: we can accept rather easily that the top Nazis were ambition driven, but what about those at the bottom? The grunts who would seemingly be acting more out of fear of retribution than ideological faith, can we condemn them too to such ambition? Hardly. But the fear we so often attribute to their grotesque actions is not all that far from the fear we attach to religious actions. When we see a man grow a beard for religious reasons, do we truly believe he is doing so because he believes entirely that this will secure his immortal soul, or do we believe he is doing so because a religious superior asserted such a task onto him? More importantly, which does he believe: that a beard will really make a difference in the case of his soul? While it may be easy to say the case of a man shovelling Jews into a mass grave and the case of a man growing a religious beard are entirely different in motivation, how can we truly say which motivation is correct in either case? Could the grunts working in concentration camps not have been working out of religiosity? Could the man growing a beard not being doing so simply because he fears godly retribution? Which is it? It's impossible to truly say, but I'd put my money on fear before fervour any day of the week.

If fear is where religiosity stems from, is it moral at all to commit any of these religious actions regardless of their outcome? Nope. Altruism requires, in fact stipulates, that acts committed without regard to reward or punishment are the ideal moral case. So, any distance between an altruistic case and a religious one is another degree of separation from perfect morality and sin. But, isn't religion supposed to lay out the ideal morality? I guess not.

I've lost where I was going with this, so I'll have to finish this at a later date...and perhaps clean it up a tad.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Religions of Ideology

2007-10-03T12:35:00.000-07:00

As Dale kindly pointed out in his comment over my last post, nailing the jell-o to the wall is an essential task when beginning any sort of contemplation or criticism of said jell-o. But what exactly did that definition set us up to hammer in?

Bruce Lincoln sets us up for quite a feast. All religions known to me certainly fall well within his parameters -- everything from Islam to Buddhism to Mormonism to the Dogon people's obsession with Sirius. What I find more interesting, and I've mentioned before, is that it certainly incorporates a larger basket of ideologies from which to choose. Essentially, Lincoln seems to have set up the ability to include some more famous political groups and organizations in his definition, and thus truly typify the nature of belief and actions based upon religious discourse.

So long as the the doctrinal group involves transcendent discourse, perform actions based on that discourse, identify with a community revolving around said action and discourse, and includes an institution under which all of this is laid out and modified, then we've the ability to label it 'religion'. That really opens the door to a true exploration of religious thought, the nature of such thought, and the causation of religious acts. We can take some unorthodox examples now of religious groups that mimic, nay mirror the actions and nature of the more orthodox beliefs, and how they've come to be structured.

The question being begged here is, simply put: is Nazism religious? Is communism religious? Now, the parallel to Religious Communism which is already an adopted term is not intentional. I'm not talking about monk-like behaviour that uses communism's utopian principles as a guideline. I wish to shed light on the stronger parallels -- one might say shared principles -- between Stalinist, Maoist, and North Korean style communism and general religiosity like Christianity or Islam.

So, firstly, was Hitler's regime a religious group? Almost certainly. Firstly, the discourse is blatantly transcendent. It refers numerous times to all manners of 'moral' matters and claims absolute truth in theses matters without any real form of objective reasoning. This small exert from a speech Hitler gave in November of 1918 to the Reichstag is an exemplar of this moral transcendent character of Nazi ideology:

...with this political purification of our public life, the Government of the Reich will undertake a thorough moral purging of the body corporate of the nation. The entire educational system, the theater, the cinema, literature, the Press, and the wireless - all these will be used as means to this end and valued accordingly. They must all serve for the maintenance of the eternal values present in the essential character of our people.

The speech does not go on to justify such actions of morality, and thus draws only on authority to emphasize the correctness of such a stance. It is so simply because the Fuhrer says so. Similarly, Christian morals are in the exact same vein of justification: things are moral simply because said God-fiction says so.

Thus, section one of the definition is met: a discourse that transcends human reason. It must be made clear that the definition cannot necessitate reference to any deity, for not all religions do incorporate deities, and Nazism is just another of such religious groups.

Secondly, the actions of the Nazi regime are without doubt of the religious brand. If a religious act is religious because it lines itself up with the discourse of said religion, then any act performed by the group done in line with the discourse, and because of the discourse, is therefore religious. Antisemitism and racial purity, cornerstones to the Nazi mentality, are explicitly religious acts in this sense, as performing such far reaching genocide required a far reaching platform on which to rest any means of logical conclusion. Similarly, the restructuring of the economy according to Nazi/fascist ideal is certainly a religious act, as it is necessitated by the discourse from which the leaders based their reorganization on.

Thus, section two of the definition is met: actions being performing for the sake of and in accordance with he religious discourse.

On to the community. Judging by the Hitler Youth, and Aryan breeding system, it is safe to assume that not only was the community of Nazism forged by the discourse on which it is based, but identifies entirely with that ideological creed. I'm not sure any elaboration is necessary.

Lastly, a look to the institution side of the definition leaves us no doubt that Nazism includes such an institution: the party. In fact, the party exemplifies every and any stipulation the Lincoln definition brings to light, and, again, any elaboration would simply be redundant in its obvious content.

Now that Nazism is safely established as a solidly religious, some interesting questions can be asked, and any readers willing to offer answers to them would be very appreciated. I'll address them in a later post, as this one is getting rather lengthy, and content-heavy.

If Nazism can speak to the nature of belief and the causation of religious acts, and yet we can accept Hitler as a power hungry lunatic, what does that say of other similarly structured groups - Catholicism springs to mind? Do we believe that Hitler truly believed in his fairy-tale creeds, and if not, does that say something condemning to those who began the Christian tradition, the Islamic tradition, the Jewish tradition?

If we accept that Hitler's doctrine was based on myth, and yet it strikes such resemblance to monotheistic doctrines -- the parallel between the Fuhrer figure and a God-fiction figure is almost too easy to make -- then how can we be sure other religions are not based on similar mythology? If we can't, how can any belief in any such doctrine be moral? Is there any way to separate valid religious claim from invalid? Is there such a thing as a valid religious claim in light of the Lincoln definition and the Nazism parallel?

If claims of the religious sort cannot be discerned as based in truth or otherwise, is any such belief justifiable?

I'll leave it here to mull over a while.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Best Definition of Religion Yet

2007-10-01T16:51:00.000-07:00

Now, some might be thinking, "I know what a religion is; why should I need a definition?" Well, most, when confronted with the task of typifying religion, will actually think of a religion that they are closely tied to, and extrapolate a definition from that religion. But, as we all know, religions are hardly all the same. Buddhism is nothing like Christianity, which is nothing like Jainism. To define religion by what a single entity appears to be will leave all sorts of other groups out of the class, and therefore nullifying that definition's effectiveness.

Not all religions believe in a single God. Not all religions require service at a church. Not all religions are against violence.

The following are not my own words, but those of Bruce Lincoln, who has devised, very possibly, the single most important, and most accurate definition of religion yet:

A proper definition [of religion] must...be polythetic and flexible, allowing for wide variations and attending, at minimum, to these four domains:

A discourse whose concerns transcend the human, temporal and contingent, and that claims a similarly transcendent status. Discourse becomes religious not simply by virtue of its content, but also from its claims to authority and truth. Astrophysicists, for instance, do not engage in religious speech when they discuss cosmogony, so long as they frame their statements as hypotheses and provisional conclusions based on experimentation, calculation, and human reason. The same is true when morticians describe what happens after death. But should they ground their views in Scripture, revelation, or immutable ancestral traditions, in that moment their discourse becomes religious because of its claim to transcendent authority. Insofar as certain propositions or narratives successfully claim such status, they position themselves as truths to be interpreted, but never ignored or rejected. Contestation then takes place in the realm of hermeneutics. Religious discourse can recode virtually any content as sacred, oppressive, or banal, for it is not any specific orientation that distinguishes religion, but rather its metadiscursive to frame the way any content will be received and regarded.

A set of practices whose goal is to produce a proper world and/or proper human subjects, as defined by a religious discourse to which these practices are connected. Religious practices, which generally divide into the ritual and the ethical, render religious discourse operational, moving it from the realm of speech and consciousness to that of embodied material action. As such, they have a transitive character, being the way discourse acts on the world, including the people through whom the action occurs. At the same time, they are reflexive in nature, being the way human subjects act on themselves in sustained projects of religiously motivated and informed projects of self-perfection. No practices are inherently religious, and any may require a religious character when connected to a religious discourse that constitutes them as such. Thus, for instance, for a man to grow a beard becomes religious act when he does so in emulation of Jesus or the prophet Muhammad, constituted as the ultimate examples of human perfection. Lacking an argument and motive of this sort, his beard reflects a strictly aesthetic preference.

A community whose members construct their identity with reference to a religious discourse and its attendent practices. Those who revere the same texts (whether written or oral), adhere to the same precepts (taken from those texts and their commentaries), and engage in the same sorts of practices (grounded in the texts and precepts) have a great deal in common. Even when they disagree with one another, their disagreements are framed by reference points on which they can concur. How is this scripture to be interpreted? When (and how) should the ritual be performed? What is the best response to a given behaviour that shared values define as morally failing? All of this creates strong sentiments of affinity that are also fostered by specific aspects of discourse and practice, like regular assemblies of worship, prohibitions on intermarriage with outsiders, or threats of excommunication for various infractions. Individual and collective come to be embedded in groups that are bound together in this fashion. Borders, simultaneously social and religious, hold members of one groups separate from those whose beliefs differ sufficiently that they can be marked as other. Even seemingly trivial differences - those of diet and dress, for example - can assume enormous import in the construction of alterity. But the fact is, these are hardly trivial, for practices understood to be governed by sacred injunctions constitute the observant as faithful and righteous, radically different from outsiders, who are constituted as neither.

An institution that regulates religious discourse, practices, and community, reproducing them over time and modifying them as necessary, while asserting their eternal validity and transcendent value. Coherence over space and continuity over time are secured by formal or semi-formal structures staffed by officials, experts, and functionaries authorized to speak and act not only on behalf of the community, but also on behalf of the tradition or religion itself. Such structures vary tremendously in their size, power, rigidity, elite status, funding, degree of centralization, degree of hierarchy, and style of operation. But in what ever form they take, they house the leaders who assume responsibility for preservation, interpretation, and dissemination of the group's defining discourse; supervision of its rituals; adjudication and enforcement of its ethics; nurturance, defense, and advancement of the community. Sometimes they derive considerable wealth from such services, and they are regularly caught up in serious contradictions. The most important of these is the contradiction between their own corporate self-interests and those of the community, and that between the need to accommodate change while preserving claims to eternal truth.
Citation:
Lincoln, Bruce. Holy Terrors: Thinking About Religion After September 11—Second Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2006

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Technorati

2007-09-27T12:42:00.000-07:00

I just joined Technorati to try and drum up some awareness, and readership.

Technorati Profile

Cult of Personality vs./is Religion?

2007-09-27T11:51:00.000-07:00

I live in Victoria BC, and Christopher Hitchens is coming to town to promote his book "god is not Great". Now, I love the book and agree whole-heartedly with a good deal of it, and I can't wait to see the brilliant man speak. What I'm really interested in, recently, though, is his assertion that a world with a God-fiction ruling it is no different than a communism cult of personality like those in North Korea, or early Red China.

The analogy between monotheism and these cults of personality is deeply accurate and disturbing. How can anyone be happy living in a perpetual Big Brother world?

I'm extremely interesting in the nature of such beliefs, and I actually wrote a paper (an annotated bibliography, actually) on this subject for my History class. The premise stemmed from an online debate I was having from a particularly ignorant Republican. He continually claimed that while religion is a horrible thing, not a single conflict in the modern era has been caused or carried out for religious reasons. Obviously I had to disagree, and began researching the subject thoroughly. I came across the books "Zen at War" and "Zen War Stories" by Brian Victoria. Thoroughly disturbed by the Buddhist-backed Japanese war machine of World War II, I had to challenge my own disposition and ponder a very important question:

What separates fascism and communism from monotheistic religions?

I then picked up Bruce Lincoln's "Holy Terrors" book which lays out the definition of religion and religious acts very clearly, and very eloquently. It turns out, equipped with this definition - which spans a couple of pages in his tiny-fonted book - that there was no way to differentiate the two ideological spheres! They're essentially the same system of belief and action, and any separation of the two is simply a false dichotomy.

I, not exactly thrilled with my find - but certainly smug - have forced myself to live with the fact that religion, in the purest sense of the word, has actually caused the majority of death and war in the modern era. Let's just say that Hitchens' work, and the new-Atheist movement strikes a very important chord with me.

I can't wait to pick Hitchens brain about this subject. Any comments on the notion would be appreciated.

I think that I'll actually ask a question to the man about the Iraq War. Given my 'findings' and realization, it's very apparent that the Islamic violence in the Middle East is deeply routed in religiosity, and is in fact a religious act. Bush and his regime - devoutly religious - fight their own little 'holy war' against it, labelling the Islamists as evil. So, does Bush's motivation stem from his religious understanding? And is that something worth supporting?

If morals don't derive from religion - and they certainly don't - then is it safe to support a war based on someone's moralistic tendencies that are derived from a Biblical text? Does this reaffirm their nonsense beliefs, or is it a necessary evil on the part of the anti-theists among us?

I think I'll post a more flushed out series of logical leaps than are presented here for the conclusion that fascism and communism are religious a little later. Thanks for bothering to read this stuff!

Serious Song-Writers 1: Diablo Swing Orchestra

2007-09-23T20:04:00.000-07:00

This is the first instalment in a series covering some seriously sweet music. I'll be detailing artists that don't enjoy the spotlight of mainstream praising, but certainly should be, and this post is all about the Swedish, avant-garde metal act, Diablo Swing Orchestra.

Now, this isn't your average cup-of-tea. To run with the analogy: take all of your really old, stale tea bags from your grandparent's cupboards, and throw them into your new coffee maker. Now, sip the stuff through a crazy straw out of a mug labelled "The Big One". To boot, you're not allowed to be embarrassed by what you're doing. If DSO made coffee, that'd describe their drink pretty well, so let's trade the coffee metaphors with music analogies.

The band's released both an LP and an EP, and the latter, "The Butcher's Ballroom", is probably a better exemplar of their sound. Suffice it to say - and I do mean suffice - that the opener of that album involves a trumpet and opera vocals coupled with dual guitar duties and a cello instead of a bass. Oh, and it's a swing-metal fusion bit. Very honestly, when the cello starts off the son with a 50's era beat, it takes no straining whatsoever to picture groups of men and women in white suits, dancing around like mad, throwing about skirted gals, sliding after them, and kicking their knees to the sky. Then the guitars hit, and while the first picture doesn't fade, it's suddenly expanded upon: moshers jump into the scene, the dance floor's lights dim, smoke fills the room and the pace zips along like Speedy Gonzalez in a Lamborghini.

Obviously Speedy Gonzalez makes a Lamborghini drive faster...

The album picks up from there, adding in other fusion pieces, incorporating waltzes, Mexican folk music, and down and dirty classical pieces. Music like this needs a story, because, seriously, what kind of band does this without the added novelty of history? If you're thinking Dream Theater, stop it. The DSO like to tell their tale like this:

The Diablo Swing Orchestra dates back to 1501 in Sweden, where history tells the tale of an orchestra that played like no other. With music so seductive and divine that the ensemble overwhelmed audiences all over the country, and people from all social classes took them to their hearts. Their performances rapidly earned a reputation of being feral and vigorous and gained the orchestra a devoted crowd that followed them around.

During the later half of the 16'th century the criticism against the royal crown dictatorial ruling had intensified. Gifts and tenancies had made the chruch extremely wealthy, and since the money merely was used to strengthen their power the discontent among the people was growing. To many people the orchestra presented them to a new view upon things and a way to cope with everyday life.

The church witnessed how their influence over the people decreased and began to depict the orchestra as treacherous, saying their intentions were anything but righteous. The orchestras extensive use of the prohibited tritonus interval in their music as well as their excessive lifestyles was facts that were not looked mildly upon. During church services priests slandered the music saying it was an insult to Christ himself. However, when this attempt to reduce the orchestras popularity failed, the church began to use more desperate measures in order to regain its former power. The Devils orchestra became the slogan they used and the members were accused of being everything from devil worshippers to the spawn of Satan. This catchphrase eventually caught on and became the popular name of the orchestra. When even these efforts shown futile the church ultimately framed the orchestra members for a murder and a ruthless manhunt began. The following two years the orchestra lead the lives of outlaws and were forced to perform in barns and outhouses, where only a strictly limited number of people were allowed to attend. Luckily generous people provided them with food and somewhere to sleep.

In order to capture the orchestra the church issued a reward to the person that could provide such information that lead to the capture of the orchestra. The sum was so large that the orchestra, tired and weary of living as fugitives, realised that it all had come to and end. They knew that sooner or later someone would reveal their whereabouts and the decided to go down in style.
But before doing so they all signed a pact saying that their descendants were given the task of reuniting the orchestra in 500 years and continue their work of spreading thought-provoking music. Six envelopes were therefore sealed and given to trustees of the orchestra to pass on to family members.

They announced their final concert publicly as a grandeur finale. Thousands of people showed up and even though it was almost no one who could actually hear the music, the massive sing-along of the crowd granted the performance to be the most talked about in history. Thanks to the huge amount of people the orchestra was allowed to play until their last song when armed guards finally managed to storm the stage and arrest the musicians. They were sent prison and later sentenced to death by hanging.

Stockholm 2003, by mere accident two of the original orchestra descendants meet in a music shop and began to discuss music. It later shows that they both have received a strange letter from some ancient relative containing instructions on how to reunite The Devils Orchestra. They both become very excited and though some genealogy they managed to find all of the remaining successors in a period of three months.

Unfortunate all of the original scores were confiscated and burned by the church back in 1503. So music-wise the new orchestra were left with no directions on what to play. After some meticulous discussions it was agreed upon that the music should be like a modern version of the old orchestra. Annlouice was chosen to front the band, her angelic yet powerful operatic voice was perfect to bring a bombastic feeling to the music. Pontus dance-influences and programming skills came in handy since the orchestra wanted the arrangements to sound a bit more futuristic. He shares guitar duties with Daniel who also is the main composer in the band. Andy brought some groove to the mix adding powerful slapping and funk-oriented bass licks, while Andreas's energetic drumming made sure the songs are driven and pulsating. Together with Anders, he lays the solid swinging foundation of the band. Johannes's theoretical knowledge and stunning technique combined with an emotive cello-playing style made him essential to the bands sound.

Together they answer to the name of Diablo Swing Orchestra and are determined to honour the legacy of their ancestors.

With such a detailed back-story, you might wonder if this would bog down the music with over-embellished novelty. It doesn't. The story may even make you think the music's preachy, anti-religion and driven toward that single goal. It isn't. It sets just the right kind of tone for this stuff: it's silly, loosely historical, and leaves many, many direction for the band to journey on toward. These people are serious musicians, but their music is light-hearted, and while it's taken seriously, it's anything but somber.

Grab a copy of of their EP, and head-bang along to their jazzy noise! Don't forget to check out their website, either: http://www.diabloswing.com

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

September 21st

2007-09-21T00:16:00.000-07:00

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.