Work Has Been Kicking My Ass...

You know the feeling that you get when you work 12 hours a day for several days in a row and you have a bad back that doesn't let you sleep? Yeah.... that's been me for like the past 10 days or so. I haven't had the time or energy to write and I really can't think of what to do next.

So, today I'll be taking a bit of a break and posting some absolutely hilarious videos by wafflepwn, who is the brother of one of the craziest people I've ever seen. These videos are of his brother who has a slight anger problem...

I'm not sure if these are real, but I would think so, given the number and age of the guy.





















There is part 11, but embedding is disabled by the user, so here's the direct link...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEi7LdqgyO0&feature=channel

Well, hope you have fun with these! :)

It's a Honey of Deal!

So, I was on the way to work Wednesday morning and found this rather interesting info booklet left by the "Fellowship Tract League" of Lebanon, Ohio.

Basically it makes the following proposal...

===================================================================

THE DEAL
Heaven or Hell, which one for you?
God gives every man the following choice: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

The negative aspects of the deal:
1. The bible states that you are a sinner. Romans 3:10
2. The price of sin is to be seperated from God forever. Romans 5:12

The positive aspects of the deal:
1. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has paid the penalty for your sin. Hebrews 9:22
2. Salvatio is a gift, and cannot be earned. Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5)

If you will accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour, please pray this prayer or one similar to it.

Dear God, I admit I am a sinner, going to hell. I know that I cannot save myself. I repent of my sins and put my faith in the blood that you shed for me on the cross to pay for all my sins. I now accept you as my saviour and trust you to take me to heaven. Thank you for saving me. Amen.

===================================================================

Quite a deal, wouldn't you say? For the small price of saying you're a sinner, a violator, a pariah and throwing yourself upon the mercy of God, you will be granted eternal life. Not a bad trade.

But I have a question. Why would God make mankind sinners by default if he hates sin so much. It's by his decision that all men are born with this "original sin". Assuming that no man or woman can save themselves, God has directly sentenced all the people who had died before Christ to hell. How's that for a merciful God?

And how is that even fair? A baby is born into this world, not knowing anything, unable to take any action intentionally, truly innocent for lack of a better term. Yet God punishes this child for actions outside it's control and deems that baby worthy of unending torment in hell.

How asinine. How petty. How primitive. Surely not the thoughts of a just, omniscent being.

But let's evaluate the cost and benefit of this deal...
- You must admit to crimes and transgressions that you are not responsible for.
- You must attend mass every Sunday.
- You must adhere to what the church says is wrong, not what you think is.
- You must tithe your earnings to the church.
- You must try and convert people to your faith.
- You must ensure your children accept this deal.
- You may be asked to volunteer for church events.

What do you get out of this.
- Magical protection from a bad bad place that has never been shown to exist.
- And/or You get to go to heaven, a place where you'll live forever in happiness. Which has also never been shown to exist.

I don't think it's that sweet of a deal. Snake oil anyone?

What are your thoughts on this deal, or other ones like it?

Panorama: The Secrets of Scientology

So, a few days ago, John Sweeny released a second video about Scientology. Obviously, the firestorm that David Miscaviage and Tommy Davis whirled up didn't do much to settle the public's appetite for more information. Good going guys!

Panorama: Scientology and Me

On January 18th, 2008, Panorama did a special with John Sweeney about Scientology. In that special he began to investigate and was followed by scientology operatives. Now he's released a second documentary where he's talking to people from the church and even the people who were following him.

For background, here's the first series of videos from his first documentary...









And if that's not crazy enough, wait till you see the next part! Coming on Friday! :)

What Started my Passion...

I really should have wrote this back, I don't know, at the start of this blog, however, I didn't have the background for what I wanted to talk about. With the upcoming videos about Scientology put forth by panorama, I think there is enough information to explain my position.

When I was in university, I was studying the concept of cults for a psychology class. I came across xenutv.com, a site saying that scientology was a dangerous cult. I had previously seen advertisments and even was handed a brochure by a employee the last time I was in TO.

Watching the videos made me uneasy. I saw to what degree people would go to in defense of their faith. I continued to watch and saw some unbelievable things. You can still watch these at xenutv.com. They're really quite good.

Anyways, after the videos were done, I said to myself "Well, I gotta avoid Scientology and I gotta make sure no one I know joins." And so I did.

But that wasn't the end of it. This series of videos hit in January 2008 and after being ordered to be removed by Scientology, unleashed a varitable shitstorm from the internet. The internet isn't really a collective "hive mind" if you will, but it does act in certain predictible ways. Scientology crossed one of the lines of the internet. No censorship.



Tom Cruise's Terminology:
SP: Suppressive person, anyone who doesn't swallow the load of BS that scientology sells, but more commonly, anyone who talks bad about scientology.
KSW: Keep scientology working, a memo by LRH telling scientologists what they need to do to keep the organization running.

This formed the internet group "Anonymous". And while I never have had any offical contact with the group (if that's even possible), I did find myself pulling somewhat in the same direction, albeit my direction had broadened from one religion to all religions.

This was a catalyising event for me. This is what causes me to write blogs, research religions, read virtually any book I find on atheism and watch hours and hours of debates from Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins or from the Atheist Experience Show out of Austin Texas.

But What if You're Wrong?

"But what if you're wrong my son?" the priest asks... "If you die rejecting God and he exists, you go to hell. If you reject God and he doesn't exist, nothing happens. However if you believe in God and you're right, you go to heaven, if you believe and God doesn't exist, nothing happens."

The priest concludes "Therefore, it's far better to believe in a God."

This concept has been debunked so many times by so many different people it's not even funny. But I'm going to go through them one at a time to show how totally fallacious this argument is.

Rebuttal #1: God's not an idiot.
One of the problems with this line of thinking is that God somehow, despite being all powerful, cannot see that you're intentionally hedging your bets. So, you're not actually believing and worshipping in God because you believe, but rather, simply because you're afraid of the results. God's not an idiot and if it wants genuine worship and faith, you're not going to get it this way.

Rebuttal #2: God respects blind faith over intellectual inquiry.
So we know that God wants us to believe in him. Fine, I can accept that premise. But why is it that God would exhalt the faithful and put down those who don't believe because there is insufficient evidence. Think about it. A child with downsyndrome goes to heaven because he's not smart enough to have a question about God, but the majority of the top scientists in the world (93%) go to hell because they don't believe a book that makes claims about zombies? Please.

Rebuttal #3: Your faith may not be right!
Of course, the above statement only applies if your religion is absolutely correct too. I mean, what if Islam is the correct religion. Then the faithful catholic and the atheist are screwed. What if Hinduism is true, then the previous three are screwed. What if X is true, then the other y groups are screwed!

Rebuttal #4: Judging the person based on their actions
A just God will judge the person based on what they have done, not what they were able to conclude was true or unsupported. If a murderer can go to heaven simply by accepting and believing in God before he dies while an atheist that works to feed starving children goes to hell, I'd say that God isn't good and certainly not just.

This argument it typically called "Pascal's Wager" and is, unfortunately, the most common argument I hear from theists about their faith. It's sad, because it's such a silly argument to use.

What arguments have you seen or heard for the existence of God?

PS: Don't get the image? Watch the Superman movie again. WRONG!

Atheists Must Apologize for Hitler!

On my daily tromp through the interwebs I came across a very odd message from the Catholic League. This is the full unedited article.

===================================================================

Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacts to the way British atheists are handling Pope Benedict XVI's trip to their homeland:

The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to "reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century." Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of "a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God."

The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.

Why should atheists today apologize for the crimes of others? At one level, it makes no sense: apologies should only be given by the guilty. But on the other hand, since the fanatically anti-Catholic secularists in Britain, and elsewhere, demand that the pope—who is entirely innocent of any misconduct—apologize for the sins of others, let the atheists take some of their own medicine and start apologizing for all the crimes committed in their name. It might prove alembic.

===================================================================

First of all, the catholic church apparently has some selective memory here, not that it really matters to the argument, just that it shows they like to... lie and manipulate events if it suits their purposes, to hell with whomever it hurts. Moving around pedo priests anyone?

Hitler was in fact Catholic. And the catholic church will do well to remember that it did not, at any time during the extermination of the jews, speak out against Hitler. It was only when they knew Hitler was going to be defeated that they got off of the fence and denounced his actions. How very noble! Surely Christ would have advised that the church "ride it out and see who comes on top while innocent people were killed." Maybe the Roman Catholic church forgot that Jesus was a jew.

Mao and Stalin were in fact atheist. History shows this. But it matters little, as I'll explain.

I don't think it's too far of a leap to look at a catholic and understand that he/she is not responsible for the other actions of catholics. Persecuting Mary from Seattle for actions performed by John in Texas would be foolhardy. Likewise, blaming any atheist for the actions of another atheist is silly as well.

However, acts of organizations are different. They are not typically controlled exclusively by one person, but rather, in the case of religion, a series of dogmatic rules. If the organization performs an act that injures someone, the organization is in fact responsible and should be held accountable. An example of this would be an employee suing the organization for sexual harassment.

It's in this regard that the pope should apologize on behalf of the catholic church for sitting on the fence and not doing the right thing by fighting Hitler and the murder of millions of innocent people. He is not accountable for the actions of the church at that time, but he is the leader now. He would in fact be apologizing for the church's cowardly, dishonourable actions.

But where does that leave us on the Stalin and Mao front? Atheism isn't an organization, we don't have a headquarters, we don't have services and we don't have an "atheist pope" who tells us what we should and shouldn't believe. Atheists can be logical, crazy, good, evil, silly, stern, good, evil, cruel or kind.

In fact, you cannot tell anything about someone's morality or personality based on what they don't believe. For example, I have John and Sally. John doesn't believe in a God, neither does Sally. Which one is the mass murderer and which one gives flowers to seniors?

What this article does is try to equate atheism with a system of beliefs because by bringing atheism "down" to that level, they can fight. They can say "hey, you did bad things too" as if that mitigates the bad actions their church as done. Furthermore, if atheism is a belief system, Catholics can simply disregard it. When in fact, it's a logical position. They hate logical positions from my experience.

And to the author of the article, a serious question. Let's say a large meteor hits the earth in the near future, killing 1.5 billion people. Will you ask atheists for an apology? Because, obviously, the meteor didn't believe in a God.

Here is Richard Dawkin's thoughts on the matter. He once again eloquently strips away the nonsense of the pope's statements and treats them with the vitriol they richly deserve.

What's Wrong with Beating Your Wife?

This might be slightly educational for the women reading my blog, maybe not.

You see, guys have these rules. They're unwritten and basically are in place to prevent fights from breaking out and/or to prevent awkward social experiences. Here are a few...

- If you have known a guy for more then a week, his sister is off limits for dating.

- Men are never obligated to give a birthday present to any other man. Hell, remembering birthdays of other men is optional.

- You must always give any other man a one urinal buffer in a public restroom. Not only this, you are required to maximize the buffer between the two of you at all times. If you cannot maintain a urinal buffer of at least one, you must wait. No exceptions.

- You never comment on a man's fly being open. Ever. You saw nothing.

- If another man requests a small item and is outside of arms reach, you must toss it to him. He must catch it.

- When questioned about a buddy's location by his girlfriend, you must say "I do not know" repeatedly until she leaves.

- You are not permitted to drink a fruity alcoholic beverage unless the following conditions are met: You are on the beach, the drink is delivered to you by a hot chick and the drink must be free.

Now these are a few examples of the typical male rules. But there are some that never should be broken. These generally get you a decent ass whoopin from any other male able to see it.

- Stealing from a buddy.

- Manipulating a friend for his girl.

- Hitting a woman.

So when I see videos detailing "how to beat your wife according to Islamic traditions", I tend to get a little upset with the tenets of their religion.



What's bad is that they think, somehow, that the degree of beating matters. News flash, it doesn't. The fact that you think you're entitled to hit your wife at all is disgusting. What do you hit her for? Disagreeing with you? Not doing your laundry the way you like it? Being disgusted by picking out bits of food from your knotty, unkempt beard?

What's worse is that due to political correctness, it's socially unacceptable to call Muslims to task on this horrible act. We're supposed to go along and say "It's ok, it's their faith and we have to respect that."

I say bollocks. They have a right to believe in any nonsense they want. However, we don't have to respect their nonsense. And we don't have to pretend to do so either.

Why do you think society makes such large exceptions for religion and not for anything else? Can you imagine a politician running on such a platform?

But Religion is good for Society!

One of the more common responses from religious members is that their faith contributes to society. They often state that religious organizations give way to charities, not to mention that they set out a moral guide for people. Because if there was no God to judge you after your death, why wouldn't you just go around and do whatever it is you like.

First of all, I find the implied statement that "If no one was watching, human nature is to steal, murder, rape, etc." silly. Humans are social creatures and wish to live in societies where that won't happen to them. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer not to be in a society where theft, rape and murder is acceptable. And to be perfectly honest, I everyone who's sane shares the same viewpoint.

No matter what culture you look at, they have rules against killing their own. The only exception to this would be the Aztec culture, who often had human sacrifices. But even then, they still preferred to use prisoners captured via raids or war.

But isn't that interesting? Different cultures, from all over the world, with different morals, different social structure and most importantly, different systems of faith, all come to the same core conclusion that you shouldn't harm your own people.

Doesn't that show that religion isn't the driving force? Doesn't all these differences, with the only true similarity being the human being in all cases, show that these "morals" are an intregal part of who we are? Just like how birds form socieities with rules, just like how wolves hunt in packs and just like how male gorillas protect their family.

And that's not even including all the negatives we are burdened with because of religion today. For example, preventing stem cell research, oppression of women in the middle east, rejection of scientific principals due to "holy books", protection of sexual predators, spreading of AIDS in Africa because condoms are "against God's will"... The list goes on and on.

What are your thoughts?

Who the hell do you think you are?

Originally I wasn't going to do this post, but given the problems with my PC I thought I had better put something up before people stop reading. :)

A while back, before I started to really become more involved with Atheism, I was plugging away on a certain news agency's faith blog leaving various sarcastic comments on videos about faith people leave up. They'll range from an objective analysis to out and out rudeness. Anonymity makes jerks out of everyone who posts on the internet, no exceptions. Well, in context of the person of course.

Now while I don't excuse my actions, I got a rather covertly hostile reply from someone called AngelhairXX (the XX is left out). In her Christian expletivive tirade (darn, jerk, naughty, etc), she managed to sum up her position as this...

"Who the hell do you think you are? How dare you question anyone's faith? They can believe in whatever they want to."

It took me back a second. I mean, who the hell am I to say those things? Why should I spend my time making people feel less sure about what they have been brought up to believe. What gives me the right?

Of course, one could always point to freedom of speech. One could point to the freedom of religion, which by corelation, also means freedom from religion. Both are excellent reasons why I have a right to challenge their faith.

However, the question is very decieving if you think about it. It places the onus of rights on the attacker, which is me. But why?

What I should have replied to AngelhairXX with is this...
"Why does a religious person have the right to have his/her faith NOT questioned?"

It's an honest question I have, and it's a sociological one. Why does society consider it unacceptable to question someone's faith?

Let's say there is a a Hindu person among a crowd who is explaining part of their creation story...

"From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command."

And let's say I'm in the crowd. I yell out "That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard."

Surely the people of the crowd would look down upon me. Hell, some may even ask me "Who the hell do you think you are?"

Now, let's do a slight change.

Let's say there's a salesman among the crowd explaining how his concoction of snake oil and floral extrats works to produce a child.

"You drink the potion before you go to bed. From the depths the humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread through your body, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. You awake. As the dawn begins to break, from your navel a magnificent lotus flower will grow. In the middle of the blossom will sit your child. He will await your care."

If I was to say ""That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard." Do you think the crowd would be upset? Of course not. They'd probablly agree. And unless some were fools, the majority would walk away and disregard the nonsense without a second thought.

My question is this. Why is it that religion is off bounds to inquiry. If it is the truth, why must it be hidden from the light of knowledge and science? Why is it that we exhalt people who recruit more people into their religion yet reject those who advise not to?

My answer to the question is that religion has had thousands of years to craft culture to suit it's purposes. What's your thoughts?

Crap has Hit the FAN!

So, not only has my PC gone down this week, I've also got a major project due at work. I've been spending alot of time sitting there banging my head against the wall, all to no avail.

I hope to have another post up asap. Sorry for the lack of updates.

However, I do have some big hitters coming in to make up for it. Excelsior!

God and Free Will…

On the way back from St. Louis for my guild’s trip, the people in my car had a brief but potent discussion on the concept of whether the Christian faith (ie, it’s God) allows for the existence of free will.

While both of the other people disagreed with me, I still feel my position is correct. It was around 2:00am and I felt we kept circling around the concept of taking the bible at face value for the discussion and not taking it at face value.

Let me spell out my argument very simply. In logical steps. If you see something wrong, please let me know.

A) For the purposes of any theological discussion, the source material must be seen as a perfect representation of what actually occurred. Otherwise, there isn’t any discussion, for anyone can claim “How do you know” and no progress is achieved.

B) Given A, the God described in the discussion is omnipotent, that is to say, all powerful. This necessitates omniscience, the property of knowing all. For if he wasn’t omniscient, he would not be omnipotent.

C) Given B, God knows the future. Knowing all, and being all powerful, this knowledge is by definition, perfect. Because if it was wrong, he wouldn’t be all knowing.

D) God creates man with specific mental characteristics expressed by DNA.

E) Given C and D, God creates man and every successive man’s mental traits and how those traits will and won’t cause the brain to operate in the situations that are already known.

F) Given E, God creates the universe and all you actions are prescribed by his decisions.

G) Given F, you have no free will. Mind you, this also shows that you cannot sin, because the actions of God are by definition (due to A) good and holy.

So the way I see it, we're little more then highly complicated computer programs designed by God. However, this is one of those arguments that can go either way. What are your thoughts?

Going to St. Louis!

Sorry for the lack of a post today, but I'm in St.Louis on a WoW guild trip. I play a feral druid (bear mostly). Yes, I realize I am in fact a nerd. :)

I play with about 20 Toronto friends and some buds from the US. It's a grand old time.

Anyways, we're heading for a lodge where we'll be BBQin, drinkin, and otherwise enjoying the nice weather. I've even got my fishin pole

If you live in TO and are interested in joining our circle of friends (you do have to play WoW though), you can visit our site below and send me an email at "Rundvelt@armofhades.com"

www.armofhades.com

Lok'Tar!

Who Sins More?

You know, when I talk to people of southern origin when I go stateside, they often tell me that "they don't trust atheists". I'm not sure why. I try to be polite and say that we're pretty much the same as eveyone else, but there's this intellectual block that I think they have where they associate their religion with "good" and anything else as "bad".

However, the most common reply I get from people of this viewpoint is "If there is no God, why wouldn't you do whatever you want? Why obey anything? Cause if the universe is eternal and our lives are short, it all ends up being the same."

First of all, I'd say that I find the concept of people being good simply because God "made laws so you would" laughable. How many Christians would turn the other cheek if you came up and slapped them? I don't think the number would be too high. Generally speaking, when it comes to faith, people generally ignore the rules they don't like and stick with the ones they do.

Second, it's not at all true. Unquestionably there are more people in the United States that are christian rather then atheist. But if we were to look at a ratio of the population of christians or atheists vs. their populations in prison (proven to have commited a crime, and for the most part, a sin). What do you think we'll find?

Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

According to current population, about 76% of the population is Christian and 15% is atheist or has no faith, ie, no God.

But isn't it interesting when we comare that total to Christians (not including any other faiths that also have divine set of laws). Christians are at 74%, atheists at 0.2%

What does this show? It shows that on average, the prison population ratio of christians is very close to the same ratio of christians on the outside.

However, for atheists, there are far less atheists in jail. Despite having 15% of the population, they only have 0.2% of the prison population (ie, one fifth of 1%).

It would seem to me that faith may influence some people's actions, causing them to be better, but the claim that it's the only reason people are being good is obviously false.

What do you think?

Prove that Atheism is True...

Let's assume for today that I'm having a discussion on theism and atheism with a person of faith. And the statement is made: "Well, can you prove to me that atheism is true?"

To this I typically respond "Of course not, atheism is a logical concept, and thus cannot be proven. However, I do say it's true." (a brief explanation is held in my "Why I'm not religious..." post if this is TL:DR.)

To understand my reasoning, I'll talk a bit about logic.

Logic is best explained, in my opinion, as a conceptual representation of the consistent method of how the universe (and all things in it) acts. That is to say, in our universe, certain things are impossible. A meteor cannot be a meteor and a kitten at the same time and so on.

Let's take a look at the law of excluded middle. The law of excluded middle states that in a question, where there are only two possible outcomes, if you disprove one, the other must be true. This is shown in the following statement "God exists or he does not exist." Because logically something cannot exist and not exist at the same time, there is an excluded middle. You can't sorta exist or sorta not exist.

By this way, Logic is descriptive of the universe. It describes how the universe operates, albeit in small scope. However, these rules are true in all cases.

The true usefullness of logic comes in it's prescriptive power. That is to say, logic is used to direct our thoughts in thinking about certain situations. Using the example above, if God exists and you can prove it, we can disregard the concept of God not existing.

So, where does atheism sit in regards to logic's prescriptive power. Basically it comes down to this. If there is no evidence to support a position it's logically as valid as any other idea that can be envisioned, no matter how ridiculous. The concept of "God created the universe" is on par with "a pink unicorn named phil with a bum leg and a bandaid over one eye created the universe by farting after eating the volcano big box deal from taco bell".

So what you may say. But we come to the law of non-contradiction. That is to say, two conflicting concepts cannot be true at the same time. So, in the above, either God created the universe or Phil did. Both cannot be true. Therefore one must be wrong. And if one can be wrong with the same evidence as the other, both can be wrong. So because of the prescriptive nature of logic, you must discard ideas that have no evidence.

There is no evidence for God. Therefore you must logically discard it. That leaves you with not believing in God, which is atheism. That's why atheism is true.

Sorry about the shorter article, but there's not really much else to say. :)

What are your thoughts?

Love thy Neighbour...

Taking a bit of a break from my Scientology postings to change pace. I'm sure some of my readers who aren't big into the whole Scientology thing will appreciate the break.

As I live my life day to day I always try to put myself into other people's shoes. I drop a coin in a homeless man's jar, maybe tip a bit more at a restuarant or even help an old lady by carrying her groceries.

I laud these efforts, whether they are done by myself or by others. The intent is good and genuine and truely make the world a slightly better place to be.

But what I don't understand is the concept of "Love thy neighbour as you would love yourself." I mean, does my neighbour really want my hands all over...

Call me crazy, but I really don't think loving or caring for someone as much as you do for yourself is a moral teaching, furthermore, I'd say it's impossible for us to do.

Would it be moral for a man with a family to put them into hardship so he could bail out his neighbour from jail (he'd do it for himself...), causing his children to eat poorly and have shoddy clothes? I'd say it's not.

Such examples can be found all over the place. So really, is this a great moral teaching from Jesus Christ? I'd say no. The morality shifts depending on the situation. Thus, it's not a rule, not even a guideline, the good will is there, don't get me wrong, but it's not the correct idea.

But what's interesting here is it highlights one of the great issues I have with religion. The concept of having rules that are impossible to keep. I mean, can anyone really love their neighbour as much as themselves? Can you?

Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Now, I can understand the concept of having an impossible goal. It's something to aspire to. However, when you're told you've sinned (as the above message states) for a totally natural reaction, I have a problem.

And why do they want you to feel bad? So you come back to church to confess and "get right with the Lord". You'd think that if there was a God who designed us, he would have realized that we are sexual beings and that thoughts like this are natural and not make it a sin. Go figure eh.

But isn't that an interesting thought. What about Adam and Eve. More specifically, Adam. While Eve was created from a rib, Adam was created from the dirt in the garden by God. Directly. God created his mind, his intellect and more importantly, his curiosity. It's this aspect that led Adam to taste of the apple.

So, God created something with what has to be percieved as a flaw. He then puts the creation into a situation where the flaw will show itself and then punishes his creation for acting the way he designed him.

Interesting way of looking at it, wouldn't you say? What are your thoughts?

Scientology - Stupid is as Stupid Does

The more I think about it, the more I think it's a good idea to stop here with the Scientology stuff. Not because it's not a worthwhile cause, but more because everyone already knows it's a joke and there's no real point continuing. So, this will be my last scientology post...

The more I look into Scientology, the less I like it. Maybe that's not a strong enough statement. I'd have to say that the more I look into Scientology, the more I want to see it removed from the world. Not because people aren't free to practice what they want, not at all, but because it's so damn stupid.

I mean mega stupid. With a capital M and G. Maybe an A.

Today I'm going to be telling you about one of my favourite Scientology entries. Why is it my favourite? Because it makes a testable claim! Of course, no one has ever tested this, because who wants to waste their time debunking nonsense. And of course, Scientology doesn't do falsifyable tests on things they claim. Mainly because it's burned them in the past (see my post on "How Scientology Defends It's Beliefs).


So, I present to you, the Clam.

L Ron Hubbard writes about how the clam is an engram, that is to say, a bad event on the whole track. The whole track is the entire history of time, which every individual on earth "rides" on. We live, die, we are reincarnated, we live, die, etc.

Anyways, in his book History of Man, LRH writes about how the clam had a rough time at life, as his joints both pushed and pulled. He also write about how barnicales on the shell exploded with gas while sitting in the hot sun. The point? To explain end phenomina in humans. That's right, a clam dying on a beach with exploding barnicles has a direct influence on you!

And I quote:

Should you desire to confirm this, describe to some uninitiated person (Ie, person not in Scientology) the death of a clam without saying what you are describing. "Can you imagine a clam sitting on the beach, opening and closing its shell very rapidly?" (Make a motion with your thumb and forefinger of a rapid opening and closing). The victim may grip his jaws with his hand and feel quite upset. At the very least, he will argue as to whether or not the shell stays open at the end or closed. And he will, with no hint of the death aspect of it, talk about the "poor clam" and he will feel quite sad emotionally.

Later LRH Writes:

But there was more to the spore then this. The spore was like a barnacle. When the clam was cast ashore, these spores were still alive in the shell. The sun would kill the inner cells of the "barnacle" while the outer shell cells still lived. The dead innner cells would form a gas which, under heat, would explode violently - to the agony of the living barnacle shell cells. This bursting was sudden and painful. These spores gave incidents which permitted the human teeth to have a pattern. The ancient bursting engrams are still dramatized by the teeth which, under stress, burst or feel like bursting.

Isn't that interesting? It turns out that when my teeth have some sort of problem, I should be dealing with the engram from the clam, not wasting my time going to a dentist to have him check for some sort of gum disease. Furthermore, Hubbard points out that things actually cook from the inside out. Cooking a steak rare? Impossible according to the physics laid out in this statement.

Brings me to an interesting point. To what degree can we morally allow nonsense like this to alter people's perceptions for treatment of ailments? Do we let a child die from pneumonia simply because his parents have a religious objection to antibiotics? Do we allow someone who might die from a tooth infection go on his merry way because he thinks it's a "Clam Engram"?

What do you think?

This article is presented of a criticism of the Clam Engram presented by L Ron Hubbard in his book "History Of Man" and is therefore exempted from the Canadian Copyright Act due to the clause for "Fair Dealing". Page locations to follow.

Scientology - The Tone Scale

First of all an apology. I had promised to write about Scientology's negative aspects such as forced abortions, family disconnection, fake drug programs, etc, but it's such a large topic and it really needs a lot of time to write up due to a grounding in "Scientologeese". These will be posted on Tuesday August 24th.

But fear not, there is a Scientology post today!

Today's article is about the Tone Scale in Scientology. The reason I'm talking about the tone scale is because this is one of the premiere examples of how silly this "religion" is.

What is so hilarious is that the tone scale compares actions, feelings and thoughts as if they were somehow related. Here's a clue L Ron, they're not. But what's even better is that he assigns a numerical value to the numbers themselves. By what methodology do you determine that Action is 20 on the tone scale while Mild Interest is a 2.9. How do you determine these numbers? Oh right, I forgot, L Ron merely asserted that these were the values. He didn't actually have to prove why they actually were at the numbers they were.


Here's the Tone Scale in all it's idiotic glory!

So, let's say you're on your way to the tax office becuase you've had an audit and you owe the government $15,643 in back taxes. This will ruin you financially and you'll have to spend the next few years digging yourself out of a hole. No vacations, no going out, no nothing. You are at the grief stage, meaning you're 0.50 on the tone scale.

While you're driving, you get a call from the tax office saying that they had made a mistake and informed you about someone else's account. They apologize and say you don't have to come in. You're now cheerful, which woudl be described as 3.5.

To go from 0.5 to 3.5 you need to go through the feelings between. Because feelings are linear right? Not touching them all, but giving you an idea of what you'd go through.

From grief you'd hit numb, I assume in a mental state, so you'd feel nothing. A grey thought. Then, for some odd reason, you'd become terrified. After the terror passes you'd be in a state of despair. Because you know, not being in debt is such a horrible situation. Then you'd hit fear, because apparently it's still a frightening situation, just less so now. After that, you'd be anxious, because you know, who knows what will happen now that you're out of debt. Then you'd be covertly hostile. After that, you'd resent the tax man, but not say anything. Then you'd have no sypathy for your situation, odd because you were just filled with fear and terror. Now you'd resent the tax man and say so, to yourself of course, cause you're in your car.

Hate followed by anger would follow, probably towards the organization, which is normal I suppose. But then you'd have a pain somewhere in your body. No, this is not the same as saying "What a pain in the ass". That's expressed resentment that I listed already. Then you'd be hostile and antagonistic, which is far less of a bad feeling for the tax man overall. Then you'd think the whole process was monotonous and then you'd think it was boring. You'd become disinterested and then contented by the event. You'd then express mild interest about something you've had tons of feelings for already and then be cheerful.

And you'd all experience this in the brief moment that the tax representitive tells you that you're not in deep doo doo.

This post is intended as criticism of the "Tone Scale" represented in "The Scientology Handbook". As such it is exempted from Canadian Copyright Law due to the exemptions for Fair Dealing.

Image source is http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/FULL.HTM.

Bonus - Your Daily Horoscope

For those who aren't particularly interested in Scientology, I thought I'd post a little bonus article today that I've had squirreled away. Enjoy!

This has been a long time coming. Over the past little while, I've noticed that more and more people around me have a strong belief in horoscopes. And I find this particularly infuriating. Don't get me wrong, I appreicate people having fun with horoscopes, just taking them seriously boils my buttons.

Now, I can generally be tolerant of someone's faith in God, Allah, a blue space unicorn named "Peppy the Honry Unicorn" or Shiva, but for some reason, belief in horoscopes really irritates me.

I would suppose that it's not because they're spiritual and fun or that they have secret knowledge of your life or that they claim to be able to predict the future based on how stars are or aren't situated in space. No no no. It's infuriating because is so damn STUPID.

Seriously, it's like if you have an IQ of 90 and are able to put a couple of thoughts together in your skull, you'll come across some of the problems with horoscopes. Such as...


- If they're accurate, why do different papers have different predictions. Why do they seem to be conflicted all the time.

- Why are they so hopelessly general? What use is a messsage of "You'll wake up, eat, and poop today. Not in that order however." I'm still wondering how I managed to poop, eat and then wake up last Tuesday. The aftertaste was horrible.

- The stars have shifted. Over time, as the earth spins, where the sun passes over a constellation has changed. It's fully one sign to the left now. So people born as Aries are probably now Taurus. Does this seem to matter for the horoscope people? Nope.

But you know what the worst part is? It's politically incorrect to call people on their stupidity. If someone walks up to me and says "I had a good horoscope today. I'm going to have a pleasant surprise at work!". I want to say "Here's a surprise, you're a moron!". However, due to social stigma, I'd have to say "Wow, that's so new age of you. Although I don't believe in them".

How have we sunk so low that we can't call idiots for what they are. Idiots.

How Scientology Defends It's Beliefs...

"Never Defend, Always Attack."
L Ron Hubbard, Founder of Scientology

Despite the idiocy of the above, what's my major beef with Scientology? It's simple. They make promises they cannot keep. They claim wonderful things and cannot prove that they actually occur. They reject established medical pratices because they "know better." Families are broken up due to their disconnection policy. They pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to recieve auditing and their courses to become better. Members are locked into rooms for reg cycles, which are basically high pressure sales environments where they're forced to give "donations" to the Church. This will all be explained in the next blog.

This entry is about how Scientology defends itself from legitimate inquiry about their methods and actions.

The proof is in the pudding as they say. Or rather, the lack of proof is in the pudding in Scientology's case.

Let's head back to the magical age of 1950. L Ron had just written Dianetics, the core book of Scientology. At a Lecture in Los Angles he showed 6,000 people the first clear. Hubbard claimed that she had perfect recall.

But I get ahead of myself. You're sitting there saying "What the hell is a clear?" Well, the answer isn't so simple.

A clear is a person who has had all of his or her engrams removed or addressed through a process called "auditing". Auditing is basically a one on one discussion where the person performing the audit is in control of an e-Meter. These e-Meters basically measure the resistance value of the individual.


The e-Meter: A primitive lie detector. Costs about $5 to make, they charge their members thousands for the device. And it is only good for a couple of years, after that it has to be "recalibrated" for another huge cost.

Why resistance? Because Hubbard thought that when a person thinks of a situation where he/she has had a negative thought, the resistance of the individual's body goes up. Yeah, I know.

Anyways, engrams are bad experiences that are locked away in the human mind and preventing the individual from being his or her true self. An example of an engram may be that when you were 3 you bumped your head on a table and now you bear ill will to tables (no, I'm not making this up).

So, auditing (one on one counselling) with the e-meter (device to detect engrams) is designed to confront (face) these engrams (mental locks on specific events).

Back to the story. Hubbard claimed that the clear had perfect recall. That is to say she could remember anything from any time. Even if things happened before she attained perfect memory. The questions flew in. What was the equation on page 217 of this science book? "I don't know." was the reply. What did you eat for breakfast on August 17th, 1946? "I don't know." What colour is Hubbard's Tie (while he was turned away from her). "I don't know."

The 6000 people poured out of the room, calling L Ron a con-man. He was devastated.

This, in my opinion is he source of the phrase "Never defend, always attack." Because his position often was untenable. It's far easier to say "Why do you hate my religion" to a legitimate inquiry of something that was said then to provide evidence. Evidence he did not have.

Anyways, I thought I'd provide you with a few videos showing how Scientology "always attacks, never defends". The first video comes from Mark Bunker, who has a channel on youtube called "XenuTV". It's there that he talks about the Anonymous movement against Scientology (more of that in a later post) and has several videos of him dealing with the attacks of Scientology.

Oh, one other thing. When someone causes a stir in Scientology, the church sends out some of it's more "advanced" members to deal with the person. To make them go away so to say. They'll generally act like jackasses to anyone who doesn't totally agree with what their cult says. The proof is in the pudding (below).

Mark Bunker at a 4th of July Event!


A Protest with a Crazy Lady!