Tag Archives: Religion

Aug 16 2012

The Fleece Machine – Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families


This made me a bit angry today  – ” Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families ” via Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families – National – NZ Herald News.

So to be clear as to where I stand on this - There are no spirits, ghosts, afterlife, angels, sky-god, demons, it’s all made up bullshit nonsense to part you & your cash.

You can’t talk to dead people, they do not talk to you.

Prayer does not work, the Bible is not the true word of anyone other than then person who wrote it.

There is no plan for your existence, there is no reward in some imaginary afterlife, you will not be rewarded in this life by some imaginary sky-being who watches over you, and there is no after-life.

If psychics were real then the stock market would use them, and lotto would be won at will - don’t be taken in with the claims that “it does not work that way” – tell me in what way does it work.

Why are all these spirits hanging about to tell you they are ok, and that you should be ok, and they watch over you. Which is all they do. Is that, in fact, all you do for ever and ever and ever, just hang about watching. Can these “spirits” only tell of the past, of things that you knowingly or unknowingly communicate with your “medium”

What happens when all your immediate family die, and you’re a spirit, joined by all your relatives, good and bad? Do you start watching over strange people just for the crack?

Do the dead outnumber the living ?

That’s an awfully big ratio.

Finally let me confess to tell you, I did once get a freebie to watch one Kelvin Cruickshank  at work in Takapuna, and was amazed at his skill and the way he dealt with the audience. I was impressed and confused as to how he did what he did, but let me state again – he wasn’t talking to dead people, spirits, ghosts, angels, demons or anything other than his own thoughts, and his interpretations of the feedback from the audience.

I’m prepared to be made to look a fool and have someone tell me something that they can’t know about me but that a “spirit” told them, both my Mother and Father are dead, and all my GrandParents, so you should be able to get something recent, unless they’ve disowned me.

Do it for free to prove you can do it, if you have a gift why do you need to monetize it?

Related articles some of them Comedic Value only and not an endorsement
Jul 6 2012

The facination of the media for Redemption


re·demp·tion:

  • An act of redeeming or the state of being redeemed.
  • Deliverance; rescue.
  • Theology. deliverance from sin; salvation.
  • Atonement for guilt.
  • Repurchase, as of something sold

One of the online media sites in New Zealand,  Stuff.co.nz, uses “redemption” at the drop of a hat.

A quick search returns About 2,590 results on their website which is a little on high side don’t ya think?

Redemption and Sport return 2,090 results !! which is a little on the high side don’t ya think ?

The other online site The New Zealand Herald returns only about 1,000 results. Redemption and sports gets a paltry 70 results.

So either the Journalists at Stuff are a Pious bunch who have some intimate knowledge of the religiosity of the people they are writing about,  or someone at these media outlets doesn’t think “Redemption” means what they think it means.

In the context that the media use it, mostly, it’s for sport. And what they don’t divulge is what it is that they are seeking or  receiving or asking redemption for?

A Redemption from what wrong or misdeed that they’ve done, aside from being an abject failure at their earlier attempt at something. They are mostly professional sportspeople, they’ve been paid, or are getting paid to do what they do. It’s not like they have to give the money back for their failure.

Are they seeking to apologise and show they are worthy of adulation and adoration, and the cash that they comes with it, and to prove that we should throw more money their way?

Worst cases are they don’t get paid as much next time, or they don’t get another opportunity. Either way it’s not a redemptive situation is it?

Sure as an individual it could be that they are trying to redeem their good name then, regain their cachet with their adoring public, from who they crave admiration, seek redress to the bad publicity that comes with some act or other on or off the sporting field. But that does not excuse the media for running over 2000 stories of redemption under any circumstance that I can think of.

If I’m wrong however I’ll seek redemption at the earliest opportunity

Related articles

13th July : Today the NZ Stuff website ran another story about redemption and sports 

 

May 26 2012

As I get older I get different – #3


The one thing that I learned from Twitter is that you have to talk about Religion, Politics, Finance and the weather.

And so Religion.  I don’t think it’s a secret that I’m Atheist. Dead set I am. But I don’t think that it’s something that I have to share in public, or in conversation, nor do I have to justify my position.

And I have  full respect for anyone that is “of the faith“, any faith and has the need to have a “God” that they worship. I do.

My parents raised me Church of England, which in an of itself is a breakaway church, which makes me smile. When I say “raised” I mean sent me to Sunday School. I don’t actually recall attending church on a regular basis at any time. I doubt that we did, despite my sketchy memory of my early childhood. I did R.I. at school, and had parts in the annual nativity at primary school. Fully grounded then in all aspects :0)

What I’m not comfortable with is bagging people of the faith. On a personal level. I’m happy to talk about the irrelevance, the inconsistency and stupidity of religious dogma, but I shy away from confrontation. It’s not that important. But also what I’m uncomfortable with is having a label, even if it’s “atheist”, as if having a label makes it more legitimate for scorn or derision.  I feel the same way about my stand on climate change, and my own belief that despite what you think I’m sure in my own way that it’s not man made,  and that because I have that belief I don’t enjoy being called a “Denier”, I don’t deny climate change, just that man did it.

I enjoy learning about the aforementioned inconsistencies in religious teaching to reaffirm that I’m not just a bit weird.  The more you read, and absorb logical and reasoned argument, the further you get away from a belief in a “supreme being”.

I wish I could pinpoint the day when I realised that I didn’t have to believe in a sky god and that it wasn’t going to end in tears. I know it was a long time ago, and that as I get older, and experience more things, and witness more pain, heartache, illness and death I realise that there in fact can’t be a caring God, and that confirmation bias just does’s cut it.

Related articles
Dec 21 2011

My own personal Jesus


Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglican Church http://www.stjohnsashfield.org.au, Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus' description of himself "I am the Good Shepherd" (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). This version of the image shows the detail of his face. The memorial window is also captioned: "To the Glory of God and in Loving Memory of William Wright. Died 6th November, 1932. Aged 70 Yrs." (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It only really just occurred to me that the whole Catholic faith is as a result of extrapolation of a few words and sentence. Whole churches and thousands of followers extrapolated from a bunch of words. Words that have been changed and re-ordered, texts that contain contradictions and statements that can’t apply two thousand years after they were written. The fact that there are almost as many variations on churches as there are words in the Catholic Bible should ring alarm bells, but it doesn’t.

That might be true of most religions.

That you can write whole treatises on a sentence or placement of a word seem core to the continuation of the ministry of faith.

Religion is intensely and totally a personal thing, your own personal Jesus is yours and yours alone. I don’t think that there would be two people who would share, in total, the whole concept and nuance of their faith. It is very subjective.

I’m atheist, and I have no problem with acceptance of a natural order of things, nor am I beholden to a core belief that I am not self-reliant or self-sufficient in and of myself. I’m content with the fact that when I die I die. I’m not happy about it, death, nor am I prepared for it. In fact some days I’m downright petrified by the prospect of an end.

But not having a continuance doesn’t bother me, why should it? Why should it bother anyone? Who really has had a life whereby a continuance would make a difference to anything? Anything other than a personal relationship or relationships group that is, ie partners or wider family.

Sure there are historical figures that we draw on for inspiration and hold as examples of change-makers. We’re pretty selective in what we remember and why, and what bits we celebrate and hold true. We’re not prepared to peek behind the curtain lest we see a reflection of ourselves.

The vocal religious types, On the whole, tend to be a bit self-centered and frankly a bit ignorant. A few sentences from a religious tract does not make it righteous. A selective, or enhanced, quotation does not prove your point, nor should it guide your moral compass. And you shouldn’t expect it to guide anyone else. Defending your faith aloud tends to draw attention to yourself and in doing so you call into question the depth of your faith, and your critical thinking. And this is where you leave yourself open to criticism and correction by the often slightly more educated atheist.

After all since the believers are labeling someone as a non-believer then the non-believer has to have a number of counter-arguments and reasoning’s, and trust me they’re all used and have been used, researched and investigated for use. All for naught though since if you have faith then you have it. You can’t stop having faith, you can choose to critically think about the faith you have and understand it’s fallacy.

On Twitter I follow a number of atheist tweeters, I’ve also followed and still do religious tweeters. The atheist twitter accounts, that I follow, tend to be more argumentative. The atheists don’t seem to get the live and let live of religion. It’s unlikely that religion or religious dogma would intrude upon their lives. And where it does ridicule and scorn don’t appear to be an effective counter argument.

It really does seem unlikely that there would be a middle ground, and religion and religious teachings account for a large portion of money, influence and sway in society, in many countries, and that’s not going to change any time soon.

Is religion wrong? Some of the teachings and some of the application of teachings is very wrong. These are human failings and interpretations, and there are vested interests in making sure that the status quo and balance is maintained. Change is slow and constant.

I’d be comfortable with your faith if you were as comfortable as I am with mine, but just don’s ask me to defend your position.

Related articles
Sep 26 2011

What Atheists Have to Believe.


I got listening to a couple of podcasts and the subject of atheism comes up now and again.

But the answer to “What atheists HAVE to belive” can be summed up in a couple of words. Well no that’s not true, the answer is not in the question which isn’t worded particularly well. The thing that I, an atheists, has believe in, and this is all, is that “There is no God”.

That is it. I don’t have to not belive in he Christian God, any God will do not to belive in.

I dont have to believe in  Zeus, Hermes, Hades, Hera, Aphrodite,
or Iuppiter, Mors,  Terra,
or Odin, Thor, Loki, Njordr,
or Krishna,  Vishnu, Kali, Ishvara,
or Shangdi, Mazu, Shou  Xing, Tu Di Gong,
or Izanagi-no-Mikoto,  Izanami-no-Mikoto,
or Cernunnos, Damona, Epona,
or Ra, Isis, Anubis, Osiris,
or An, Ki,  Enlil, Enki,
or Sin, Marduk, Ishtar, Nabu,
or Simurgh, Rostam, Gaokerena,
or Bunyip, Kurreah, Mutjinga etc

not a one do I have to belive in. There is no God.

Being an Atheist does not mean I have no moral standards, or moral code of right and wrong, I don’t find it odd to help my fellow-man, nor do I covet my neighbour’s wife or oxen most of the time.

I have one thing as an atheist to belive in. That is all.

I don’t have to apologise for evolution, I don’t have to explain the uncausable cause of the big bang, I don’t have to belive in an eternal after-life anywhere for any reason. I don’t have to belive that what I think or what I do has any repercussion other than to me and those my actions affect. I don’t have to belive in a judgement book.

Mostly however I don’t have to belive that I will vilify you, ridicule you or otherwise insult your belief in something. If you have personal experience of a God then good for you!, but that’s you and what you saw, I can’t measure it, you can’t replicate or prove it, but I’m not about that you prove it to me, especially not with a Bible of doubtful origin and content, that would be circular reasoning.

Should a God come visit with me and prove they are God then I’ll happily change my mind.  In the meantime I believe that you have a right to what you think, even if you have no basis for that belief, and I’ll continue with mine, based on what I’ve reasoned to be a reasonable position. After all “God did it” is not a reasonable excuse for anything that happens to you, anyone you know or any event in the world that you are too ignorant to think through an explain. Is it?

Sep 17 2011

I have a friend who’s very religious


A JW, who is convinced that he’s one of the 144,000 or whatever number it is. Don’t ask me how he can be, that door closed long ago. But you know that with any cult based religion you change the rules as it suits.

Anyway someone who didn’t know his fervor tried to ambush him with, starting with creationism. Trouble is that it quickly got to the big bang, and according to JW guy that was completely and utterly in line with doctrine, the un-causable cause.

Just because we can’t grasp the nothingness before creation, and this is his quote, “much like we can’t graph infinity”, then the obvious answer is a creator.

Obviously.

Not to be beaten the ambusher soldiered on, let’s try evolution again;

to which we get from  JW guy creationist nonsense about “you never see a simpler thing evolve into a more complex thing” and “why don’t dogs give birth to cats”, but he seems to have given ground in the years I’ve known him to “intelligent design” by which he means that creator made things that have adapted.

Not evolution since man did not evolve from a monkey, but that creator gives them a nudge now and then

“How about” says ambusher “Contradictions in the Bible“. I hung my head

“Show me one” says JW guy. It was like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Of course there are many and varied inconsistencies and contradictions, I know from reading and research that there are, but I can’t quote chapter and verse. If I was really fired up about the dumbness of religion and people’s faith I possibly would be, but each to their own. If you believe the bible in toto then you do, it’s not a negotiation. Besides which bible thumpers tend to be very picky about which words from which verse and in which context they use scripture, it’s not a whole story, it’s a soundbite.

There is no winning any argument about faith and belief, neither party is going to change their mind, as if over a coffee you’re going to have an epiphany or something.

But I’ve done my thinking and yes there was nothing and then there was something. Yes perhaps we can’t grasp the nothing, and because we are material we can only construct largely what we are familiar with, that which we know. There is stuff, it came from somewhere, there can’t have been no stuff, and suddenly then stuff, that would be silly, we don’t have experience of that happening. But to then go “ah God did it” is even lamer than just shrugging shoulders and going “it is what it is”

Finally we finished coffee with JW guy saying “what if you are wrong, what do you think will happen when you die” I said “worm meat”. I wasn’t really helping either cause.

Sep 12 2011

Bible-bangers aren’t the brightest, study shows


The more religious you are, the less likely you are to be intelligent, a new scientific study has found.

via Bible-bangers aren’t the brightest, study shows – Education – NZ Herald News.

According to researchers, Christians – particularly fundamentalists who believe the Bible is God’s word – have a lower IQ than those who are less religious.

A possible reason behind the finding was a tendency for more intelligent people to challenge religious claims, said one of the researchers, New Zealand psychologist Professor Tim Bates.

“If you believe in religion, you haven’t really questioned things,” he said. “Brighter people were less likely to feel that religion plays a dominant role in their life.”

The findings of the University of Edinburgh study were “a bit hilarious”, said Auckland Bishop Patrick Dunn. “The suggestion that the less intelligent you are the more religious you would be seems to be degrading and insulting,” he said.

However, he did agree that less intelligent people of all faiths tended to be more fundamental in their thinking, “whether they claim to be Christians or atheists or Muslims or whatever”.

Aug 25 2011

Driving Entertainment


Sometimes my journey to work or home from work can take an hour or more. And filling that time can be a chore.

It took me a while to cotton onto podcasts. I know! and there is an awful lot of chaff in the wheat.

I started with the “ricky gervais show” radio series, and whilst initially not a podcast it did turn into a podcast show, and they are very funny.

And this is a bit convoluted but then came twitter, and on twitter I came across a twitterer from the NZ Sceptics society, and then to another twitterer who mentioned some podcasts.

These then were “The Merseyside Skeptics -Skeptics with a K” and the awfully good “Righteous indignation” podcasts. However having listened to each of  them all from Episode 1, which was rewarding, I got to the point where I’d caught up, and was back to the radio for entertainment, so now I get my fix on a weekly or bi-weekly basis from these guys.

I tried other podcasts from the sceptical range but you know when you’re enjoying something or someone, and if you’re not engaged with the personalities or voices, pace or content you soon stop. So I never did get on with others, yet. Of the two that I mentioned above one has a slant towards “alternate medicine” but also covers a range of topics and subjects, there is always something. The latter has a paranormal focus, and I was hooked from episode 1, which I still think was one of the best. So crop circles, monsters, and interviews with a psychic, it all gets an examination.

I latched on the Play of the week podcast from the beeb, they can be challenging, but now I’m catching up on the “Irriligiosophy – the one true podcast” which is an atheist podcast that examines religion from the perspective of two people who were part of the mormon church and are now atheist. It’s sometimes stodgy, sometimes a bit off track, sometimes not relevant but frequently funny.

Thinking about the content of the podcasts mentioned, with the exception of the play of the week, they’re all belief based podcasts.  And they have sharpened up my critical thinking and questioning of things, sometimes in a good way, sometimes in an angry way. I don’t believe everything I hear, and I don’t agree with it all, Vaccinations are good (for instance), fluoridation of water bad.

I get a lot of pleasure out of affirmation of my beliefs, that there are others that share similar thoughts about religion, alt-med, ghosts, psychics and monsters. I wouldn’t have it any other way.