I mentioned in the first part of my analysis of Theo Hobson's angry smear on 'Atheism', that an ignorance toward (or blatant disregard of) the subject of American religiosity contributes largely toward his failure to put the polemics of Harris, Dawkins, and whatever other best-selling atheist authors Hobson smears, into a meaningful context.  The political landscape of the United States is undoubtedly affected by a desire to appeal to the values of its people.  As a result, it is hard to find a politician who does not mention God somehow in his or her speeches.  Add to this, the disturbing poll data from University of Michigan, that atheists are the least trusted religious minority, and you have reason for atheists to be as 'militant' as they are today.  They didn't fly planes into the twin towers.  It was two men of faith - a faith stronger than most have the ability to ponder.

Of course, it would be unfair to charcterize all Muslims, or even all believers, as terroristic murderers.  Unfair also is to speculate that all atheists agree with the presentation of the ideas written by these popular atheist authors.  Where I have a problem with these books, and I'm sure it has troubled theists even more, is the absence of positive progressive experiences that have been achieved through religion.  Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. comes to mind.  He was a religious authority and a hero for civil rights.  The Civil Rights movement was motivated through churches to rise up against oppression.  How do atheists explain this?

Well, it's actually quite simple.  If you can blame the pitfalls of human nature for the worst things in the world, you can similarly credit the greatness of human nature for the best things in the world.  If Martin Luther King were Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or atheist, do you think his commitment toward seeing people peacefully achieve equality would be any different?  In fact, I don't recall many Bible passages which openly condemn racial prejudice, but there seem to be plenty of passages in the Old and New Testaments that regulate the proper conduct of a slave-owner.  Hardly a condemnation of the practice, don't you think?  Somehow I don't think Martin Luther King, Jr. thought those were necessary tenets to his beliefs.  Similarly there are those people who dismiss the backward bullshit of the Bible, or simply block the harmful implications out of their heads using some fantastically delusional apologetics.  Good religious people do good things in spite of the immorality mandated by the Bible, not because of the Bible's popular-but-universal moral imperatives.  What other bullshit lurks in its pages that will be a hindsight revelation in tomorrow's politics?

Theo does us the favor of exposing where atheists fall short yet again.  On the definition of religion itself.

Let me take a step back, and ask a rather basic question. What is this thing that the atheists hate so much? What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer. Indeed it seems to me that anyone who does claim to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably. If the atheist deigns to define religion at all, he is likely to do so briskly and conventionally, as belief in and worship of some species of supernatural power. It's a terribly inadequate definition. Dictionaries would do better to leave a blank, to admit ignorance.

Just because Theo prefers the term to remain ambiguous for apologetics purposes, does not mean that writers of dictionaries should be forced to exclude a rather ubiquitous cultural phenomenon.  Religion simply is a system of beliefs that seeks to explain the unknown by supernatural means, usually suggests a code of conduct, and is sometimes based or depends on documents of alleged authority.  There, I came up with a definition that pretty much explains it...  Of course, I know what Theo is getting at, but it's a weak case.  In fact, it only lends itself to the notion that religion isn't worth discussing.  If it cannot be defined, then how are we in consensus that any of us are talking about the same thing?  Another hypocritical stance by Theo:  Accuse the atheist of not knowing what he is talking about, and then admit to not knowing yourself.

In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by "religion". For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally. Some would say that these events are quasi-religious, that they echo religious worship, but are distinct from it. But how on earth is one to make the distinction? Is a yoga class "religious"? What about a performance of a requiem? What about Hitchens' own belief in the saving power of literature? In practice, "religion" cannot really be separated from "culture".

That "something religious" about the communal ecstasy of a rave is the ecstasy.  At some point down the road (well after MDMA had been synthesized), people were popping pills in therapy sessions moderated by psychologists.  If one is to feel a religious experience from ecstasy it is because their receptors are absolutely flooded with serotonin, the mood nuerotransmitter, producing a feeling between elation and euphoria.  As an entactogen, meaning "feeling within" it's probably the only drug that induces a unique sense of empathy in its users.  It's a drug that has dangerous psychological consequences for frequent users because it fails to work if there is no serotonin left.  At a setting like a rave, with tribal-sounding 4/4 thumps, it is not unlike the Native Americans' relationship between peyote, dance, and drums.  But our attachment of the words "religious experience" is entirely colloquial.  I need not have the same religious beliefs of a Native American to experience some mind-blowing hallucination that might change my life.  Nor in the case of the rave, must I adhere to the multitudes of belief systems or even the neo-hippie PLUR (peace.love.unity.respect) mantra to have a "religious experience."  What it entails is an experience outside the scope of typical conscious perception.  Our perception, mood, and consciousness are inextricably connected and therefore prayer, meditation, ecstasy, or even sleep deprivation can lead to a multitude of religious experiences. 

The atheist will doubtless call these reflections irrelevant. Yes, there is an affinity between religious worship and various secular cultural practices, he may say, but so what? The issue is belief in the supernatural. Religion, in the full and harmful sense, exists when people cringe under the illusion of a celestial being, and when people propagate teachings that are not true. This leads to superstitious ignorance, and to immoral actions, for example the persecution of homosexuals.

Remind me to rip out Leviticus then.

I consider the atheist's desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice. The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty. The militant atheist chooses to uphold a worldview of Animal Farm crudity: atheist good, believer bad. He has to believe this; it is his claim to the moral high ground. Christopher Hitchens sounds like a man who is desperate for a big cause, for an agenda that will give him one last chance of some high significance, a last stab at prophet status. By seeking his grand purpose in atheism he exhibits the sort of intellectual timidity he claims to despise.

Then I would have to conclude Theo is an intellectual coward regarding generalizations on atheism.  Obviously the most general discussion on the effects of religion should be more complex than a simple laundry list of errors and abuses.  We can't, for instance, ignore the contributions to the arts, architecture and music since much of it was commissioned by the Church.  We can't obvously forget the contributions by the Muslims in Algebra (and architecture).  There are many cultural contributions religion has made and to give credit where it's due, it has been a vehicle for justice for some oppressed peoples.  But now we are advancing farther, and we should acknowledge that our moral compass is not from some tome.  It is a by-product of our societal evolution.  In several instances we have outgrown our books as they diminish in scientific, and ultimately moral value.  It isn't that we have taken this ultimate morality from the Bible.  It's that we've found it in ourselves first.

Perusing through the many editorials on Yahoo's News section, I came across an article by Theo Hobson of the Guardian (UK) entitled "Atheism is pretentious and cowardly."  I chuckled to myself while I clicked on the headline.  Cowardly…  Hobson must be ignorant to the dominant religious climate in the United States, and it shows.  Atheism exists beyond the borders of the United Kingdom, Theo.  As a critique of Hitchens' latest book, God is not great: How religion poisons everything, Theo bangs out an excerpt that derides religion on its absurdities, painfully obvious errors in both science and rational process, and its stifling of human sexual psychology.  He parries with utter weakness:

 

Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists; there is no room for such awkward facts in the atheist system.  And as for the evil of "sexual repression", well, maybe some day all men will be as liberated as Hitch.

 

I've never wanted to defend Hitchens in my life, especially given his hypocritical political positions, but in the case of religion, Hitchens gains more points in astute observation than does Theo Hobson.  Of course, Hobson's affiliation with the Church of England could have something to do with the reason why he has such contempt for Hitchens in the first place.  But enough ad hominem.  I have to protest his counterpoint regarding Creationists. 

 

In America, there are a startling number of Christians who DO believe that God created man and without the mechanics of Evolution (43% of Americans).  Equally disappointing, is that a remarkable number of Americans (29%) regard the Creation account as "definitely true."  Never mind the mountains of evidence we have to support the contrary on the age of our planet.  Despite the controversy surrounding Evolution, we are taught in schools (and through the Discovery Channel), that our Earth is much older than the Biblically purported 10,000 years.  There must be something more to these rejections of scientific fact than the idea that we are simply not educated in these matters.  We exist in an environment that is saturated with this knowledge from science books, to popular magazines and educational television programs. (Polls were taken from Gallup)

 

My point is that Hobson contextualizes his experience of the more common moderate religiosity found in Britain to arrive at the conclusion that Hitchens has mischaracterized people of faith.  These caricatures of Christianity are Christianity to many of us who live in America.  I acknowledge that many Christians are progressive enough to respect scientific truths. In fact, many of them are friends and family.  I am inclined to believe though that they find my perspective on religion as troubling as I find theirs.  There's a mutual respect which prevents us from doling out these arguments, and perhaps we've never been curious enough to instigate such situations.  There is a simple fact that should remain uncomfortable to progressive (or moderate) Christians and that is that these ideas didn't come from some extraneous literary complement to the Bible; they come from the Bible.

 

So I must challenge the original assertion that atheists are cowardly, especially when given the fact that there is a large proportion of Biblical literalists and moderate enablers.  Given the statistical contrast, the culture in support of religion (in America) is clearly dominant, and as such any challenge toward the praised establishment of faith is perceived as pure intolerance rather than honest intellectual debate.  In the face of this, and threats of damnation (or even death threats to those public about their atheism), "cowardly" must have an alternate definition in England.

 

This is not even the meat-and-potatoes of Theo's half-assed diatribe against the popularization of "militant" atheist polemics.   No, he skips over an analysis of Dawkins or Harris betraying the notion that he is openly discussing the pitfalls of atheism.  From his mention of "god knocking" becoming popular, you would think the discussion would include the opinions of other well-known "god knocking" atheists.  We already know he has a problem with basic definitions based on what he thinks "cowardly" means.  His incompetence in comprehending and explaining basic definitions only continues:

Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion". This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.

This is more an interpretation of John Lennon's song "Imagine,"-- where we imagine a world with no countries, Heaven or Hell and "no religion too".  It's a beautiful idea really, but not representative of the simplicity of atheism.  Atheism doesn't involve the belief that a society would magically transform itself into a beacon of progressive ideals once supernatural concepts are abandoned.  Murder and theft would obviously exist in a godless world just as it would in one that believed in God.  Religion would just be one less reason people discriminate, maim, and kill each other.  For atheist activists, that seems to be enough.

Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous. The militant atheists have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.

And this paragraph represents the hypocrisy of the article's author.  He claims atheism is disingenuous and yet he has redefined the rather simple definition of atheism and blamed the opposition for his own intellectual failure.  There are atheists who think the world would be a better place without religion, just as there are Christians who think even more naively think the world would be a better place were everyone Christian (despite that the Christian-dominated Western world has more than proven itself capable of atrocity in light of its 'revelation').  The danger of any unquestioned ideology is the greatest threat, whether it is political, religious, or some wicked combination of both. 

There are a few basic lusts I have that don't involve fucking.  You can see by the rolls on my forehead that food is obviously one of those.  Music another.  Drugs?  This is a public forum in which I choose only to smear my reputation by my filthy fucking mouth.  And despite my aspiring status of left-wing socialist asshat, an obsession with consumer electronics makes the list with flying colors.  If I weren't employed, didn't have a girlfriend, and didn't enjoy some level of normal human communication, I might be one of those greasy, nasal-sounding jerks whose rants give way to uncomfortable silences, or worse yet
don't result in silence at all, but a continued stream of fanboy consciousness laced with the ripe stench of plaque and Funyuns (both of which will be spontaneously projected toward you should you accidentally engage in conversation).  These are the kinds of people who attend the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), and E3 (R.I.P.) who don't already work for IGN and various magazine publications.  If you even hear the words George Lucas or Gene Roddenberry, run the other direction as quickly as possible. Attention aspiring messianic cult leaders, these are your minions.  Incorporation of science fiction and fantasy literature required.  You may find your flock to engage in castration and mass suicide. 

In the meantime however, it is Steve Jobs who leads the masses in Apple worship.  I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone, even those outside the socially challenged and visually deformed Apple cult, who isn't so thrilled at the iPhone that they wouldn't gulp down Steve Jobs' iPud just to touch one.  But he isn't fooling me.  There's an obvious reason the iPhone will be a piece of shit.  Let's see if you follow my logic.

What's the one device, besides your computer, in your collection of electronics that consistently fucks up (and usually at the most important times)?  What's the one thing you find most annoying about hanging out with "certain" friends?  What's the one thing that destroys any reasonable commute because people aren't paying attention?

If you guessed the gas-powered 26-speed Raging Rectum Ruiner, you'd be partially correct but no.  It's the fucking fucking fucking fucking cellphone.  A feature-laden piece of shit that by today's standards can do everything a multimedia internet enabled device with a camera can do, with the excecption of behaving like a goddamn telephone.  Let's see what today's phones can do:

E-mail? check
Camera?  Check
Bluetooth? Check
Calendar? Check
Calculator? Check
Videogames? Check
Maintain a telephone conversation without your mother without her voice changing into a fucking Decepticon?  Not even close.

The basic reason the iPhone will suck is because it has cellphone techonology built into it at the expense of what it should probably really have... more memory and a different name.  Another reason it will suck, is that because it is a phone, jackasses whose social etiquette has already been warped by "texting" in the middle of a real in-the-flesh conversation have a new toy to play with to upstage decent human communication.

  I want to kill you fucking assholes.  It takes less than thirty seconds to say "hey, wut r u doin? i'm getn outta here in 30 mins" and yet it takes minutes to  ignore the friends around you, press numerical keys multiple times just to get one letter, but ironically less time for all of your friends to realize, as inconvenient and disgusting as it is, they'd rather you had a tendency to accidentally shit yourself every five minutes than incessantly and inefficiently communicate with some loser.

So I can only imagine what other diversions this newfangled device will create.  Let's not forget that it's also an iPod.  Maybe they'll send a text with a song excerpt, and "oh wait. I want to listen to this, do you mind?"  Yes, I mind.  I don't need to hear the next overplayed, badly sequenced rap song with lyrics an inbred alcoholic could have written and a tonedeaf crackhead could have sung. 

So I say fuck this stupid iPhone.  We don't need these one-thing-does-everything devices.  It really just brings down the value of the initial product.  Putting a cellular phone in an iPod is like welding a dick-pump to your coffeemaker.

It's that time of year once again, and thanks to the weather system which brought us this miraculously unremarkable hurricane season here in Florida, we're also graced with something we haven't had in years... a nice winter chill that will lift your sack up a bit.  No, I haven't gone soft or converted to Christianity, much to the dismay of my evangelical activist readers, but I have a soft spot for Christmas.  Put down your highlighted Bibles or close your skepticsannotatedbible.com window (better yet, don't.  just get out of your chair, but not yet... you're still reading my blog, asshole.)  Roll a fat one, spark it, walk outside and enjoy the view.
Just maybe you'll understand the significance of it all, but if not, repeat the process until December 25th.


I've been vocal about my atheism for a number of years, and within the past year or so, have dedicated this blog to the discussion of religion and its involvement in American politics.  It is a discussion that is vital to our survival as a progressive nation, and even as a global community.  Atheist figures have been more prevalent in the media and have been voicing their opinions regarding church-state separation issues, and Harris even has had the opportunity in some instances to explain his thesis: that faith is too dangerous in theory and practice that it threatens our existence on a global scale. 

So, I'm reading through my Mypsace messages and bulletins, and come across these posts by the Rational Response Squad (whom I've obviously friended, but now I'm not sure why):
Rational Response Squad
"Do it now... make a blasphemy video for the War on Christmas
We are officially live with our blasphemy challenge! Thanks to everyone who has gotten involved! Do you have the kahunas to show the world how sure you are that the Christian God doesn't exist?"

The War on Christmas....  Great.  Researching the project further, it seems that this activist 'project' is based on the humorous proposition by John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly at FOX News, that there is some sort of movement to uproot Christmas and all Christian holidays from public life in America.  Thankfully, we have atheist activists from Beyond Belief Media and its online following to only further prove their point.

It isn't enough that atheists are least trusted minority in the United States, according to a recent survey done by the University of Minnesota Sociology Department:

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

Well, fuck, I wonder why.  After all, it's not like we've positioned ourselves to respond in a way that mirrors the very image of what the Christian Right is accusing... oh wait.. I guess we have!  Thanks guys!

It's time that atheists appreciated the secularization of Christmas that has allowed the inclusiveness of the tradition to become so expansive.  No, I'm not talking about presents either.  The commercialization of Christmas is really just this ugly side effect of any holiday, secular or otherwise, to market accordingly.  What we're left with is this wonderfully conceived fantasy that leaves Jesus and his manger on a planet left of fucking Buttfuck Egypt.  A Winter Wonderland....

Now imagine with me, Frosty the Snowman, Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, and finally the big jolly fat fuck that made it all happen for us when we were too young and stupid to know any better, Santa Claus.  If this evokes a horrific, angry response, immediately punch yourself in the balls.

You're like the Jerry Falwell of the atheist flock, but instead of getting mad at imaginary cocksucking Teletubbies, it's the facade of Santa's Workshop that has you foaming at the mouth.  If you are angry at reading that, punch yourself in the balls again for good measure (If you are a female, slam your tits in the door of a microwave, or simply light your clit on fire).

Now I've always thought atheists would benefit by taking the high road (as I have so obviously done through my mention of tits, balls, and clits... actually, just one clit).  But how does that make us any better than the fruitcakes we allegedly despise.  Maybe I'm mistaken, but part of what I've despised in the religious right is this outrage over lame and benign figures in mainstream culture.  It has only served to distance the public from that perspective.  Similarly, such attacks by atheists, whether done as a tongue-in-cheek publicity stunts or not, essentially do the same thing in the eyes of the public.  It proclaims this hatred of something that has provided opportunity for families to unite, eat, drink, and be merry... and perhaps with some materialism thrown in being its worst trait.  The worst effect of this is the proliferation of the idea that somehow all atheists wish to destroy positive American traditions.  I consider myself an atheist and an activist, maybe not so much the combination of the two.  Nonetheless, we need to check our priorities when it comes to how we convey ourselves and our causes to the media.  We have valid reasons to explain our position on religion and how it affects national and global politics.  9/11, biological research policy, science education, faith-based funding: these are the issues we should focus on.  I can understand the desire for these activists to use such an issue to generate hype, since atheists don't often get heard, but I think this is the wrong kind of attention.  Last I checked, people haven't had their genitals disfigured by branding irons for denying the existence of Santa Claus.

So, the Pilgrims may not have sat down with the Native Americans and feasted on Stovetop Stuffing.  And Jesus may not have ever existed, though we know he definitively was not born on December 25th.  And reindeer can't fly, and snowmen can't miraculously come to life and blow you.  Congratufuckinglations.  You're one of the smarter ones.  But guess what..
There are a certain number of freedoms we are granted by this tradition.  I can't see much negative in the following proposition:  Setting a day or two aside to get loaded with your family, eating copious amounts of rich food that would probably make your heart stop if you ate it every day, and getting presents you know you wouldn't have receiced and probably don't deserve anyway.

So, as a contributor to the evil atheist manifesto, I'm afraid I will have to step out on this ignorant charade.  I won't be participating in the War on Christmas.  My house will have lights up, and perhaps even a tree.  I still give props to Brian Fleming for his "God Who Wasn't There" documentary, but let's stop perpetuating the culture war myth.  There will come a point when we will be unable to accuse these Fox News assholes of distortion, when we ourselves become the opposition in these alleged culture wars.  If religion is what you dissapprove of, then it isn't Christmas that you're after:  it's Christianity.

Even the most Republican person I know agrees: Bush's speech last night was an unbelievably runny heap of dog shit.  Let's summarize and translate his speech (Full text):

"Good Evening.  September 11th sucked for America.  We'll continue to be safe as long as you continue to trust what I'm selling you.  Occupying Middle Eastern countries will make the world safer.

9/11 sucked, but America has balls.  Psalm 23 foiled the Flight 93 terrorist plot.  Praise Jesus.

I care so much that I actually sat with peons affected by 9/11.  Let's not let them down.

The enemy is a bunch of perverted fundies involved in an evil conspiracy to beat people who don't pray, keep women home, and attack innocent countries.  [Sounds like the 700 Club]

This isn't a military conflict, it's motherfucking World War III.

The Middle East is infested with radical religious apeshit psychos and powerful weapons [unlike the Administration of course].   The war to determine peace... more bullshit...

9/11 sucked.  We caught Kaled Sheik Mohammed so give me a break.  Damn you terrorists.  We'll find you!

9/11 changed the world.  We needed to get Saddam because he was a bad, naughty man.

The terrorists will follow us home.

The enemy panics at the site of old men voting, schoolgirls, and Christmas.

This war is like every other war...

Liberty will happen if you let me work my magic.

... more "I talk to mothers" crap

Americans united in prayer help the world..

Our strength comes from our devotion to God...
God Bless You"

A question I'd like the White House Press Corps to ask...
"How do you reconcile your overtly religious language as a government representative when the government's official position on religion is neutrality?"

Thanks to yours truly.

First, I'd like to recommend to anyone who doesn't mind watching documentaries, to rent Brian Fleming's "The God Who Wasn't There."  It's a scathing attack on Christianity with a lackluster ending (way to bring down the giant, the Charlton Heston of Christianity is more likely the Pope and not your high school principal, you fuck!) and dubious deconversion efficacy, but more of an emboldening mental masturbation festival for people like me who like to piss on the God-squad.  His other credits include screenwriting "Bat Boy: The Musical" and some low budget, artsy fartsy movie based on the hypothetical idea that Bill Gates was assassinated (cue SWAT team shattering my office window... now).

TGWWT, as it is referred to by the Teachers of Wisconsin for Acronyms in Typing or TWAT, is ballsy and engaging and lead me to research Fleming's other work. I was excited to read he was making another movie (Danielle), but then became less excited as I read what it was about.  It's The Da Vinci Code meets The Crying Game with a confusing twist, except in this movie the main character is a chick, and she finds out God is a dick that doesn't exist.  I was personally hoping that she would discover Jesus had a vagina, but my alternate script draft was rejected by Mr. Fleming.

 

For those of you whove stuck with this blog long enough, you might recall the story I did on Luigi Cascioli and his book Il Favolo Di Cristo.  Hes one out of the handful of theologians convinced that Jesus was fabricated nonsense invented for the sake of political control, and took to charging the Catholic Church in the Italian court system for perpetuating known lies about Jesus existence.  Whether or not this is true, I cannot say, and furthermore is irrelevant to the discussion of the existence of God itself.  Fleming is intent on running with the Jesus-myth camp for his movie, and while I say it makes for an interesting documentary, might not make for such an interesting feature film.

 

Have a little faith, right?  In spite of not being thrilled about the premise of Flemings new feature, I did stop on IMDBs message board to witness the vitriol of embittered sheep, dyslexic theologians, and god-bashers alike.  Its always a fun day at the shit cannon arena.

 

 

No! Fuck you for killing Metallica!  Cliff is still turning in his grave over Load you fascist fucks!

 

Actually, here is the rest of the thread (starting out rather politely):

s8ist:

"Anyway, any of you smart people out there would have to agree with this: religion is a necessary institution. Without it, I would suspect that a great deal of "heathen" retards would be running amuck, killing, maiming, and just being general scumbags."

I have to be smart to agree with you? Ah, an elitist agnostic. I happen to be atheist because I'm agnostic... but that's another discussion altogether. Your argument holds no water. Prove that religion is a necessary institution. I'm not saying that rape, murder, and theft would mysteriously disappear if religion were absent from our lives. To think that would obviously be naive. The bloody history of self-proclaimed godless Communist regimes alone should prove that it isn't necessary for one to be inspired by ideology of a purely religious nature in order to commit inhumane acts. But equally naive is to suggest that religion hasn't motivated some of the greatest atrocities in human history. Witch burnings, honor killings, the Crusades, and 9/11 are just a few events that have scriptural basis in that they can be justified by passages in the Bible and Qur'an and many hadiths respectively. Studying History, we call these primary texts because they are authoritative sources on the subject in question. Ignoring the contents in favor of apologetics proves you are either ignorant of the subject and or that you are dishonest in your discussion of the topic at hand. A lot of work has been done to expose the most intolerant, violent, perverse, and absurd excerpts from these books and can be read at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

All of the text is there, verbatim. It is not without its obvious bias that these passages are interpreted, but some phrases leave little room for interpretation. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" -Justified the witch burnings just to name one. Just because one group of Christians interprets the Bible to accept homosexuals, that makes them an extremely small minority. Is Christianity an ideology of intolerance? I think that's what you want to know, and I happen to think that the best reference is a combination of the book itself combined with the actions of its people. Perhaps Nazism could have been interpreted to be more benign than we perceive it to be, but that's not something I care to be relativistic about. I prefer to call a spade a spade.

You must think me to be a nasty, militant, arrogant person. It is unfortunate that so many people think this about atheists. I think Fleming can come off that way, as even I have cringed when he announced his "War on Easter". I don't want to be at war with anyone. My favorite holiday is Christmas. Vampires are inspired by Christian themes. Gothic horror would be nonexistent if it weren't for the influences of Christianity. I just want people to evaluate their beliefs in the same way that I did at one point. If they don't share my views then that's fine. To me its something we've outgrown. I can appreciate the contribution Christianity and Islam have made to Computing (Pascal), Art(Michelangelo), Architecture, Algebra (Islamic invention), and music. I think its time we take these contributions, wipe the blood off of them and we can embrace what has culturally shaped them without being enslaved by the ideas that have also thwarted progress.

My fiance's family prays before dinner. I do not feel compelled to interrupt them and express why I think they are wrong to do so. But I can tolerate their tradition because they don't tell me I'm wrong for being an atheist, which I've admitted to them in discussions on religion anyway. Maybe one day they'll ask why. That is the appropriate time for me to express these views. Anyone wanting to see Fleming's film is doing just that. Asking why.

  Lars:

"I happen to be atheist because I'm agnostic"

-hmmmm. Interesting. Care to at least paraphrase why?


"Your argument holds no water. Prove that religion is a necessary institution."

-Yeah, I'm working on it. The plan is to get all the 5 billion people that have a religion on this planet to become atheist for like a month and write down what happens. I'll let you know how it turns out.



"Ignoring the contents in favor of apologetics proves you are either ignorant of the subject and or that you are dishonest in your discussion of the topic at hand."

-Apologetics? Sorry, pal, just stating an opinion of the human condition. NOWHERE in the bible does it say to burn witches, conquer foreign lands in the name of Christ, or force people to give-up worshipping goat-gods. PEOPLE are the ones who do all of those things based on interpretations of the particular book in question. Less http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com. The bible also says to love one another, live in peace and harmony, don't kill, steal, or screw your neighbor's wife. Does the skeptics annotated bible touch on these (obviously brief) references? No. It focuses on the negative crap written by a people who lived in a society that existed almost 2,000 years ago. Life was different. The positive messages in that book shine, however, and nothing can change the articulated knowledge of common human morality that that book has to offer. The bible truly is a "good book." So go fu ck yourself. Just kidding.



"You must think me to be a nasty, militant, arrogant person."


-Not at all (well yes, arrogant), just a tad misguided. You call yourself an atheist. That's very interesting to me, and it always has been- to meet atheists. An atheist, by definition, KNOWS (and believes strongly) that god or gods do not exist. How can anyone know this? I know I can't. How do you know this? Atheists also believe that matter is, and always has been, eternal-- something my puny human brain cannot fathom. How do you explain this?



"I think its time we take these contributions, wipe the blood off of them and we can embrace what has culturally shaped them without being enslaved by the ideas that have also thwarted progress.


-Very well said.

s8ist:

"I happen to be atheist because I'm agnostic"

-hmmmm. Interesting. Care to at least paraphrase why?

It is, unfortunately like many things, not such a concise explanation but is easy enough to understand if explained properly. The meaning of the word agnostic comes from the Gnostics, who had special knowledge about God, supernatural, and various metaphysical concepts. Therefore to be "agnostic" would be to NOT claim to have special knowledge about such things.

It is popularly conceived that to be an agnostic is to not know one way or another about the existence of God. And truthfully, it makes sense in this context. But let's say that said supernatural concept is applied to others like for instance, the existence of pink unicorns on the planet Zarkon. There is no word to describe someone who disbelieves in their existence no more than there is a word to describe people who disbelieve in gnomes, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus. To disbelieve in these concepts also carries no stigma. However to disbelieve in God certainly does. But consider the definition of the word atheist which is hotly contested by atheist and theist alike.

You and I will probably have a problem with the definiton of atheist. It's really simpler than the Merriam-Webster dicitonary implies, and their definition is loaded with bias.

theist - one who believes in the existence of god or gods

-now like the relation of gnostic to agnostic we'll use the same approach to define "atheist"

atheist - one who does NOT believe in the existence of god or gods

In this definition, even someone not exposed to the concept of God is an atheist, simply because he or she does not believe. It is under this definition that agnosticism becomes the reason for atheism.

What is your position on the existence of God?
I don't believe in God. (atheism)

Why?
Because the concept of God cannot be proven or disproven. (agnosticism)

So agnosticism is really more of the "why" to my atheism. To explain further, I cannot prove or disprove that the rings of Saturn are made of delicious candy. I certainly wouldn't take the position that those who were skeptical of that claim are on equal footing with those who believe in its truth (Despite the fact we can agree that neither of us can prove or disprove it). From what we know about science, scientists can make educated guesses about what the rings are made of. Religion has made many claims just as ridiculous about the Earth that have turned out to be false, and thus its more logical adherents have moved far away from its literal origins, and those even more logical even farther. Those who cling to it use some mind-numbingly tedious workarounds to make it "fit."
Let's assume for the hell of it that one of your friends attempts to convince you that gnomes live under his lawn in a complex set of caves. Another friend turns to him and says, "What are you, an idiot?" Would your response be to "correct" friend number 2 for not collecting evidence to the contrary?

Ok, enough of that...

"Your argument holds no water. Prove that religion is a necessary institution."

-Yeah, I'm working on it. The plan is to get all the 5 billion people that have a religion on this planet to become atheist for like a month and write down what happens. I'll let you know how it turns out.

America is a religious country. If it can be proven that less religious societies are on equal moral footing, or that societies that are more religious are actually less moral, then the argument that religion is necessary for establishing and perpetuating moral behavior becomes less and less appealing. This is the case. One need only look at the Middle East to see that these communities that are more religious have more problems. This may be the result of other socio-economic factors, but religion hasn't fixed the problem it is intended to solve. If we look at the more non-religious, secular countries in Europe, we find lower crime rates, lower disease rates, higher charitability, and highly progressive attitudes. I'm not saying that non-religious people are better than religious people in any way. But what I am saying is that non-religious people are demonstrably not worse. And thus, religion is not necessary for a positive, moral, and charitable society.

-Apologetics? Sorry, pal, just stating an opinion of the human condition. NOWHERE in the bible does it say to burn witches,

Sorry, but you are incorrect on this one. Shame on you for making me do your homework.

=Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.=
This was used to justify the witch burnings.

conquer foreign lands in the name of Christ,

=Exodus 23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.=

or force people to give-up worshipping goat-gods.

=Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.=

Does the skeptics annotated bible touch on these (obviously brief) references? No. It focuses on the negative crap written by a people who lived in a society that existed almost 2,000 years ago. Life was different.

Actually, it does. These historical events were publicly justified (and some might argue inspired) by the passages you read above. I happen to think they are just excuses, but still; when a society holds a religious mandate on higher or equal footing than common sense, as many do in our society even today, then they are dangerously unreasonable at the expense of progress. I agree that life was different. And it was different in a bad way. It was a sexist, racist, violent and unfair society. That shows in how it was written, and how these things are written in as acceptable. Part of what is keeping things that way is the prejudices that are written into this socially accepted form of intolerance in the guise of morality and tradition. Ask anyone for a reasoned secular defense of a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. You won't find one.

The positive messages in that book shine, however, and nothing can change the articulated knowledge of common human morality that that book has to offer. The bible truly is a "good book."

The positive messages in the Bible are wise, and can also be found within other religions and among those without religion. The truth is that these ideas are not exclusive to this ideology even though these ideas remain the most valuable part of the religion. I just can't agree that it is a "good book" because of so many conflicting intolerant and violent messages. It's confusing. One part it says to love your neighbor and the other to kill him unless he shares your religious views. In one part God is vengeful and jealous. The next he's all-loving and merciful. So which is it? God sounds like a complete schizo, and his rulebook is highly ambiguous. How the believer identifies with the text is because of his character. That is why we have "good" religious people.

-Not at all (well yes, arrogant), just a tad misguided. You call yourself an atheist. That's very interesting to me, and it always has been- to meet atheists. An atheist, by definition, KNOWS (and believes strongly) that god or gods do not exist. How can anyone know this? I know I can't. How do you know this? Atheists also believe that matter is, and always has been, eternal-- something my puny human brain cannot fathom. How do you explain this?

Atheism is a position on the existence of God. It isn't a religion. I don't "know" God doesn't exist any more than I don't know the Earth isn't a reality show for sadistic beings in another dimension. I can choose to accept the eternal existence of matter if I want to or not, but I'm not obligated to do so. In fact, I don't even have to believe in Evolution. Atheism only defines one thing: my position on God. This much is true... like many atheists I value scientific concepts as reasonable explanations rather than beliefs. If accepted as explanations, you can realize that explanations can change. Scientists merely try to explain the world while knowing that those explanations can change to more sufficiently represent the natural state of things. It is because of their understanding of the natural world that we are even able to have this discussion over a man-made network of machines that do things we couldn't have dreamed of without having the scientific concepts that have developed over time. So, quite frankly, I think they know what they are talking about...

And if they don't, they get a better idea of it every day. It's changeable, unlike religion which starts from a conclusion rather than progressing to one based on trials and observation. Maybe someone will find out it isn't eternal, just like they found out the planetary atomic model was bull. That wasn't any reason for everyone to throw up their arms and go, "That's it. Science is bullshit! Let's go back to astrology!" But that doesn't shake my atheism because it hasn't anything to do with it.

Well, I've been putting off things I should probably be working on right now. Hope to read your feedback on this ridiculously long post.

Lars:

Wow. That was a ridiculously long post. Anyway, on to the witty rebuttal.

First of all, I think you are confused as to exactly what agnostic means. Keep in mind, 'Gnostic' means 'believer'. 'Agnostic' therefore simply means 'doubter', essentially. I label myself agnostic because I have no proof that God exists, and also no proof that God does not exist. If there would be compelling evidence that would command me to believe in either side, well then, I guess I would have to. Semantics, semantics. Personally, and this is just my opinion mind you, an atheist is someone who absolutely rejects ideas of god or gods, and no amount of evidence, outside of God himself coming down and slapping him in the face, would sway that opinion. An agnostic realizes full-well that a God (whatever that means) could in-fact exist, but has never seen the proof he so requires to believe. It's a moderate, rational standpoint.



"America is a religious country. If it can be proven that less religious societies are on equal moral footing, or that societies that are more religious are actually less moral, then the argument that religion is necessary for establishing and perpetuating moral behavior becomes less and less appealing. This is the case. One need only look at the Middle East to see that these communities that are more religious have more problems. This may be the result of other socio-economic factors, but religion hasn't fixed the problem it is intended to solve. If we look at the more non-religious, secular countries in Europe, we find lower crime rates, lower disease rates, higher charitability, and highly progressive attitudes. I'm not saying that non-religious people are better than religious people in any way. But what I am saying is that non-religious people are demonstrably not worse. And thus, religion is not necessary for a positive, moral, and charitable society. "


-Yes, I see your point of view. I was joking about it because the conversation is conjecture. We will never know, we can only spew rhetoric about whether humanity would be better off without religion; a godless society, as a whole will never happen, ever. It's human nature. The reason for this being (and I think I addressed this in a post above) is because life is hard, we all die, and we need answers and security. Religion takes care of all these problems for some.



"Sorry, but you are incorrect on this one. Shame on you for making me do your homework."


-Right. All of your quotes from the Bible are mumbo-jumbo to me. You're interpreting it in your own way, and that's fine. I could interpret the witch quote meaning anything. Anything at all. Here's an interesting point: the word 'witch' was invented just prior to the dark ages, after this passage was written. There were no witches in imagination (whom had green skin, a long nose and warts, etc.) when this was put down on paper. The Bible was written so damn long ago that it's anyone's guess as to what about half of it is trying to say.




"The positive messages in the Bible are wise, and can also be found within other religions and among those without religion. The truth is that these ideas are not exclusive to this ideology even though these ideas remain the most valuable part of the religion."


-Yes, but the reason why people have religion is articulate their good side. Make no mistake; there is a 'dark side' of human nature. Religion helps keep people and society (wherever in the world they might be) in line. It's a social control, and it gives people peace. True, it's a double-edged sword smoke-screen that some of us can see through, but it does not mean we should spread our views. Only panic and fear can come from that. Leave religion alone. It's good.

"First of all, I think you are confused as to exactly what agnostic means. Keep in mind, 'Gnostic' means 'believer'. 'Agnostic' therefore simply means 'doubter', essentially. "

Agnostic does not mean doubter. In Greek it means "without knowledge." The term was coined actually by Huxley in 1869 to describe those who are not committed to belief in the existence of God(s). It is therefore that agnosticism is a position on "knowing" about the existence of God, while atheism is a position regarding belief.

"If there would be compelling evidence that would command me to believe in either side, well then, I guess I would have to. Semantics, semantics."

It has more to do with logic. From your position, all unprovable claims are plausible. From mine, all unprovable claims are not.

=The truth is, I'm actually psychically dictating this to a very well-trained typing armadillo.=

You must entertain the possibility that this statement could be true or untrue. A logical thinker would have no qualms about announcing that her doubt and the nature of the claim are enough to discount it unless proof to the contrary were provided. But really, that armadillo is quite a typist.

"Personally, and this is just my opinion mind you, an atheist is someone who absolutely rejects ideas of god or gods, and no amount of evidence, outside of God himself coming down and slapping him in the face, would sway that opinion."

Well, that's your opinion. And unfortunately it's a misinformed opinion because if I were presented with credible scientific evidence for any deity's existence, then I would have to accept it just like I accept many other concepts that are proven by credible evidence. Currently, scientific evidence against the Christian doctrine speaks volumes of its' inaccuracy in the physical world in both geology and biology. Just because there are moderates who excuse these contradictions and pick out the concepts they enjoy doesn't lend to the validity of their 'reformed' ideology. But if a god of some kind were revealed to me, it seems highly unlikely it would be that of the Christian God. If it were, I would ask Him why He made it so difficult for some of the most intelligent people, including those who dedicate their lives to deciphering His creations and improving humanity, to find Him... That and something about the Holocaust, 9/11, and a few other atrocities we could have had some help with from someone who allegedly gives a $hit and has the power to intervene. But yeah, if He came down and slapped me across the face, I would have to believe it just like I would have to believe in gravity if a boulder fell from a mountaintop on the hood of my car.

"An agnostic realizes full-well that a God (whatever that means) could in-fact exist, but has never seen the proof he so requires to believe. It's a moderate, rational standpoint."

An agnostic doesn't "full-well realize that a God could exist". To be neutral on the issue an agnostic would have to claim not to know, or claim that it is not knowable. Like the armadillo typing this right now, are you full-well realizing that he could be typing it? Is that an assertion based on any actual knowledge? It isn't. The agnostic position is not to know. Agnosticism is a rational position, but what you've just proposed is more wishful theism than anything.

"Right. All of your quotes from the Bible are mumbo-jumbo to me. You're interpreting it in your own way, and that's fine. I could interpret the witch quote meaning anything. Anything at all."

Then do me a favor. Instead of arguing with me, reinterpret my words so that they correspond to your way of thinking. Since it's all a matter of interpretation, I'll interpret your words to mean that I am correct. Actually, I'll reinterpret your words as a story about a man named Jebediah who likes to rape chickens. Some of these quotes are straight-forward. The quote about witches, straight-forward. It's about killing witches. It isn't about knitting a sweater, the pleasantries of baking muffins, or offroading. A witch does not deserve to live. Any other interpretation is to throw reading comprehension out the window in favor of ignoring the absurdities and intolerance for some circular mental masturbation. If it were a reading section on the SAT, you'd fail.

"Here's an interesting point: the word 'witch' was invented just prior to the dark ages, after this passage was written. There were no witches in imagination (whom had green skin, a long nose and warts, etc.) when this was put down on paper. The Bible was written so damn long ago that it's anyone's guess as to what about half of it is trying to say."

So how does that in any way lend to its credibility? If anything, you've proven my point that it is an unecessary and outdated source. If it doesn't have a clear positive moral message, then of what value is it? Can we find good things among the bad in Mein Kampf? Should we consider it as an inspirational book? Since it's up for interpretation, according to you we should!

"Yes, but the reason why people have religion is articulate their good side. Make no mistake; there is a 'dark side' of human nature. Religion helps keep people and society (wherever in the world they might be) in line."

I completely agree with the last part. "Religion helps keep people and society in line." I would go further and say that it helps politicians exert a form of social control. Banning gay marriage is big on Bush's agenda, and he wouldn't have had as much support had he not used the religious community's default prejudices on his side. But that's just an example of abusing belief for someone's own personal gain. Consider birth control education being blocked in favor of abstinence programs WE KNOW ARE HIGHLY INEFFECTIVE. This is not only done here in the US, but in places like Africa where AIDS is an epidemic. We have a religiously-inspired political agenda to thank for many of these people dying just because idiots think it's wrong to bust one in anything other than a fertile married vagina.

"It's a social control, and it gives people peace. True, it's a double-edged sword smoke-screen that some of us can see through, but it does not mean we should spread our views. Only panic and fear can come from that. Leave religion alone. It's good."

Look, I know there are moderate religious people. I'm not going to punch Grandma in the face just because she's praying the rosary. But we do have the right to spread our message, because others who question their faith are owed an alternative explanation than the one that is simply spoon-fed with eyes wide shut. Such media and forum was capable of freeing me of the problems I experienced reconciling my faith with the physical world. You are purely speculating that the world will go to chaos. Aren't the physical manifestations of their word (any Abrahamic religious text) enough to prove to you that it already has several times?

Yet for all that you've provided as evidence that religion is necessary (which wasn't much evidence at all), I've provided you textual and historical basis that proves the Bible is at the very least an inspirational textbook for thwarting social progress and at the most an instructional guideline for imperialism and genocide. All you can tell me is that it makes some people feel better, controls them(which has dubious positive connotations), and makes them not afraid of death (which is a natural response in the first place).

Sometimes being middle-of-the-road isn't equivalent to having the most sensible position.

End of thread no reply since 

THE RESULTS ARE IN....

HELLHAMMER IS THE BETTER DRUMMER!

"That's right, bitch!"

 

SUCKS
I'm about to discuss something over the Internet that could possibly get me into a whole lot of trouble.  The following statements do not represent the Bose Corporation in any way as I am not affiliated with them.  Statements may or may not be indicative of currently existing corporate policy.  This piece is entirely entertainment!  For my own sake, everything I'm about to say is false.  It isn't, but  I already said it was so that includes this statement.  Got it?  Good.  By the way, Bose has amazing lawyers.  Look up Consumer Reports and Bose... Unilateral Pricing is another one, but that's harder to find.

In a recent technology survey on "brand trust," customers have put Bose at the highest echelon.  I know.  You're probably going to say, "John, you're such a skeptic.  They rate high because they have great product and great customer service!"  And if you did say that, you're a Disney-esque automoton working for Bose.

I know because I worked for Bose for about 2 years in their retail stores.  In the beginning  it was a rewarding job despite some very minor issues.  I had the position of "Demonstration Specialist."  My job was simple:  greet customers, put them through a lame "theater" demonstration with a terribly asinine script, draw out the customer's room, address their concerns, and finally, recommend a list of products that fit their needs.  With the last three I had no problem; a service, I thought. 

I am an electronics hobbyist, and therefore an electronics consumer.  It can only come from an interest that is inherent to my core.  At the very least, I believe in the expression of digital artistry, media, film, audio, text, and its proliferation to the masses by ANY means; rental, library, piracy, and purchase.  It only makes sense that I support avenues by which those forms can be delivered and created: electronics.  There's a clever paradox involved--I am the evolved Bradburyian bastard child.  Technology can be used against these minions of miserable reality and their "bottom line" and it must be.
Therein was the source of my naivete by proxy of convenient justification.  I was not a salesman, I had justified to myself.  I merely provided information for the customer to make a rational choice.  The "Golden Rule" (or "Rule of Reciprocity") was a principle that all of my transactions, excluding the few I barely refrained from stabbing the customer, were to abide by. 
 
The management was impressed with how quickly I absorbed product information.  I had learned all of their demonstrations, and I could perform them at the drop of a hat.  I was, by their definition, already starting to become a promising employee.

At some point the product line had changed.  For those of you unfamiliar with Bose's product line, I won't bore you with the details.  I'll just describe a handful of products.

1. Speakers - Bose offers stereo speakers for the music enthusiast, and surround sound speakers for the home theater enthusiast.  Bring your own receiver.

2. Complete (Lifestyle and 321) Systems - Bose, at one point, offered stereo systems for music enthusiasts.  Now they only offer complete 5 speaker home theater packages (or fakey 2.1 surround sound).  Only want a two-speaker stereo system from Bose?  Tough shit.  Packages include cube speakers, single disc dvd player.  No headphone jack or audio out on 321 systems.

3.  Wave Music Systems - Everyone knows what these are.  They're 500 dollar alarm clock/CD players.  I like the way they sound.  Are they 500 dollars good?  Last I checked, they're made of plastic.

Problems with the new product lineup
Bose released the new Lifestyle systems as a sort of revolution in home entertainment.  uMusic was supposedly this bold discovery that was the product of years of research that they had been diligently working on.  The "premium" (Lifestyle 48) systems promised a whopping storage of "340 hours of music" as we were told to say because just over 5,000 songs didn't sound as impressive. 

Among the other things we were told about the uMusic system:

-Don't call the storage medium a hard drive.  It's a Toshiba 40GB laptop hard drive.  "Storage device" was acceptable.

-Engage the customer with "What if I told you that you could control your entire music collection in the palm of your hand?"  To which, I replied "You mean, like an iPod?"  iPod is less than 1/10th the price and holds more music.  Both use "lossy " playback formats.

-Every customer is a Lifestyle 48 customer.  (What about Needs Assessment and custom tailoring a solution? "The LS48 is everything the customer wants!"-Name withheld, Bose Employee)

Technical problems that have yet to be addressed

Optical input not functioning.  Don't bother.  Multiple customers would come in to return "faulty" units.  Our response was the same every time.  We'd act like we never saw that before so we would avoid getting a return, and try to recommend different cables and minimize the quality benefit of optical technology.

uMusic Storage and Playback System
-Would often crash during demonstrations.

-Promised to adapt to music tastes and offer similar tracks.  The validity of each connection was arguable and rarely worked.

-CDs are only recognized by the database on the system's hard drive.

-Music Library Disc updates are sent by mail as the system could not connect to the Internet.  These updates are not sent very often. Despite the technology of CD-TEXT, which most CDs have printed on them today.  The Bose system does not use this easily implemented technology that most cheap car stereos use!

Returns- We had plenty of switchouts because of the failures of these technologies and several others.  The DVD player was often a culprit.  I own the LS48 system, and I've had to return a system for turning off at random (remote code changed and all) only to get one that does the SAME EXACT THING! 
Bose has outsourced much of their labor to Mexico, which was strangely when the new product roll-out took place. 
The price of this technological marvel?  $4000

Product return or swap-out was a frequent occurrence on a variety of Bose products.  Both of their headphones were notorious for breaking.   Their  Wave Music Systems had an adhesive that came loose, detaching the "silver" disc opening from the front. To their credit, this was quickly fixed but it demonstrates something of an enigmatic quality control routine.

Great Customer Service?
Bose has often been praised for its customer service.  This is a statement I can only partially agree with.  Usually it comes at the expense of the Bose employee on the lowest rung.  How the store employee is told to operate and how the Tech Support operates are completely different.  Just remember, when you bitch and moan about your headphones breaking and then the Bose store employees are told by district management that you're out of warranty, you can always one up by calling Bose corporate.  The peons are placed at the frontlines, told to operate rigidly within warranties that are bound to be used due to the rampant product flaws, and then are instructed by the higher-ups to do the exact opposite.  With store employee's tail tucked between legs, the customer feels he has done a service to enforce the "true" Bose policy that the misinformed employee has obviously violated.  Bad employee!
Bad employee!!
Stupid Customers

You may have heard the phrase, "The customer is always right."  I prefer the phrase, "The customer is always a FUCKING IDIOT!"  True enough, I had tried to justify my position before by putting myself in the customer's shoes.  But the truth is, I shouldn't have.  I shouldn't have tried to feel sorry for the customer because the customer does not care.  There are a few things a customer wants.  The first is a great liar.

A liar can make you believe many things, but mainly the belief that you are a genius with money and power. This is the most important.  The best salesman is a perfect liar.  He lies to make you believe that he is just like you.  Walk into any electronics store(except for B&O), and watch how quickly they will attempt to bond.  Maybe it's a shirt you're wearing with a particular band, the watch you're wearing, or a kind of sports team.  The key is, he'd be your best friend, but the kind that would lie through his teeth just to rape your bank account.  You'll find out how interestingly similar to you all the best salesmen are.  They like all the same music you do, are interested in your occupation and hobbies.  But to make the sale perfect, he'd want you to believe that every decision has been made exclusively by you.
I tried to break that mold because I genuinely believed something very stupid in retrospect.  Giving the customer an honest opinion that was obviously my own was not the right decision for my own progress, but seeing as how I wasn't in danger of losing my job for being honest I thought "Fuck the company."  I didn't try to rub shoulders with the customer.  I don't have anything in common with them.  I didn't want to appear shmoozy and disingenuous like some soulless, spineless, dicklicking fuckhead because THAT was the person I would rather shoot than have to purchase from them an expensive piece of equipment much less a stick of gum.  I had a few very happy customers who did appreciate my approach but they were the exception.

Pros: Usually an easy sale.  Big remote accessory add-on almost a given.  They heard from Paul Harvey that scientific evidence for Noah's Arc is being covered up by the Turkish government, and that the Bose Wave radio is "the motherfucking shit."

Cons:  Wants to know if it plays records/tapes/8-track.  Ocasionally nasty about price.  Can't tell the difference  in sound anyway(could be a plus).

Pros:  Can occasionally lead to a very big sale.
Cons:  Needy. Easily confused.  Ignores everything you have to say.  Repeats questions.  Does not believe a word you have to say.  Makes you listen to the Eagles or Mariah Carey.  Lets spoiled little snot-nosed fuckers named "Tyler" and "Blaire" run around your store.  Wives often "cockblock" sale at last minute upon arriving to Bose with shopping bags reading "Cartier".  Has a "friend" at Bose who knows some contrary information.  He makes more money than you, which makes him more intelligent than you.  Remember that.

It is amazing how many people are fucking the soul of the United States of America.  The concerned minority stands by watching, screaming, clawing, and dissenting. The media rolls tape.  "They don't love America.  Just listen how they talk about her," he says as he shoves his dirty dick in her over and over again.  "Just listen to how they talk about her leaders, her heritage, her God." 
The concerned minority stand on the sidelines, jaw-dropped as usual.  The camera makes sure to focus waist up on the crude disingenuous fuckhead.  The words are what matters.  Your words, and not what they mean in context--together creating meaning, the big picture, the sum of its parts.  The individual, deceptive, superficial, conveniently rearranged, every-other-word meanings. 
FUCK America is what they hear when a mother protests because she cannot feed her children and fights for the right to sustain life under reasonable conditions.  Fuck her for protesting lousy pay!  She hasn't the right to speak of America like some whore.  FUCK America is what they hear when we fight to remove the Bible from courthouses.  Separation of church and state? Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson?  Who the fuck are they?  FUCK YOU, confused, liberal, communist antichrist! America has always valued these pages since she was born.  FUCK America is heard through "Season's Greetings" and "Happy Holidays."  God fucking forbid you have any other Gods before Him.  The battle for "Happy Hannukah" must not be an unimportant crusade for I heard it through the grapevine... George Washington was not a Jew.  I keep hearing it, over and over.  America is being fucked only to have those fucking it scream at everyone else for saying naughty things.  And they're sure to pick up the only two words they've ever thought I've said in this.  And they'll never realize they're fucking America.
Bush was the moneyshot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of fucking America, here's a chainmail I received that was written by one of these confused "patriots."  I don't blame the sender, an ex-coworker who used to be in the Army, for passing this trash.  Everyday people that surround us, family members even, seem to have this revisionist concept of American history and its ideals and it spreads like the plague.  No one bothers to check their worldview.  They just find something they agree with and pass the buck to the next one that does and the numbers must mean they've got something right.  Well, I've laced the beginning of the e-mail with a bit of a disclaimer, since I didn't know how many people I had sent to (resulting from the lovely abuse of "Reply To All" ).  I'll assume they agreed since I'm getting no rebuttal from any of them.  I apologize for the clean language folks.  I didn't know if anyone would get in trouble at their office for this.  Feel free to copy and paste this into an e-mail and forward it.  It's the least you can do to counteract this filth that pollutes the minds of soccer moms everywhere.

This was a wonderful little outrage piece that I'd like to comment on.  I'd like to say first and foremost that I do not judge any of the people who sent this piece nor those who agree with it.  Part of what it means to be an American is the right to difference of opinion.  I am proud to live here in the United States, rather than the many countries whose governments, like Iran's,  would kill me for my perspectives on religion and politics. Most of all I respect those who have fought and died for my right to voice my opinions because they fought for a principle that has defined the spirit of America; the right to stand up, the right to object, and the right to believe, think, feel, and do whatever may be necessary to fulfill my dreams (provided with certain reasonable limits to be sure).  I'll accept that the "right to toke" is not yet included in the realm of reasonable for the sake of time (the time I spend ranting on an e-mail that was meant to be casually forwarded or merely disregarded).

    The original author's ideas are not unique and they clearly resonate with a number of Americans whom I'd rather not have show up at my house with their trusty firearms (I've been told sarcasm doesn't often translate electronically).   But as some "furraner" named Socrates once said, "The unexamined life is one not worth living."  So while I could gladly take the author's recommendation, and simply delete the e-mail since I don't completely agree with its premise that we are a country posed with the threat of exponentially increasing moral and cultural decay, I've decided to challenge its premises with some facts, reveal some alternative insights, and expose some widely-held misconceptions.  Comments will be in brackets (these things ---> [ ]) The original post will follow at the bottom of this e-mail.  I've tried to keep up with all the pretty colors.

 

Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone-----YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !!!! ["If you're not with us, you're against us." Right?  That's okay.  I'll forward this with my own comments because I believe in the American way.  My right to disagree with you is just as important as your right to express yourself. (In fact, they're the same thing)] Will we still be the Country of choice and still be America if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries that came to live in America because it is the Country of Choice ?????? [Which changes are you referring to? Will your desire to limit the influence of pluralism in America diminish the pluralism in America?  This isn't a serious question despite the six question marks that follow it.  The choices you speak of haven't been defined properly in your statement.  I'm sure you'll give me something to work with.] Think about it! [You first.] All we have to say is, when will they do something about MY RIGHTS? [Hmmm.. I don't know, 1776? Bill of Rights? The Constitution?] I celebrate Christmas...........but because it isn't celebrated by everyone.............we can no longer say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season's Greetings. [You celebrate Christmas?  What the hell is that?  Just kidding.  I celebrate Christmas too.  And I'm an atheist!  In fact, I disgust those around me with the high I get during Christmas that reminds me of huffing Liquid Paper in middle school (except for when I worked at the mall and Xmas was equal to hell on earth).  No one has yet enforced a LAW that people cannot say Merry Christmas to each other.  Most of the time it is businesses that frown on the idea of using Merry Christmas in favor of more universal greetings like "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings."  Maybe it's because they are afraid to offend their market, but maybe it's because they wish to appeal to a more diverse market since several holidays fall in the same time-frame.  Either way you cut it, it's about money.  If you don't like it, blame capitalism.] It's not Christmas vacation, it's Winter Break. Isn't it amazing how this winter break ALWAYS occurs over the Christmas holiday? [Isn't it amazing that two comes after the number one? No, it isn't.  Christmas is in Winter.  Winter is always the same period of time.  Unless you're in the Southern Hemisphere of course, then you've got opposite seasons.  But let's stick to the Northern Hemisphere where the US is located.  If I remember elementary school science correctly, the seasons are fixed because of the position and tilt of the Earth in relation to the Sun.  Fall, Spring, and Summer don't change out of their own accord, and neither does Winter.] We've gone so far the other way, bent over backwards to not offend anyone, that I am now being offended. But it seems that no one has a problem with that. This says it all! [I wouldn't say you're the only one with a grudge about it.  O'Reilly seems to share your pain on the issue.  Maybe you're offended at having to use the words "Happy Holidays" so Jews,  Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas, Wiccans, Humanists, atheists, and agnostics aren't offended.  Wouldn't it be so much easier if we were ALL Christian? Probably, but it wouldn't be very American.] This is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. He did quite a job; didn't he? [No.] Read on, please! IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However...... the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct! " crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. [I'm always wary of the "ever since 9/11" statements because they're usually followed by some fascist agenda.  But what displays of patriotism have offended others?  Accusations are baseless unless you provide examples.] I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America.  [No offense, but your mom is ugly.] Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants who came here thru the gates and doors of Ellis Island, not under a fence or in the trunk of a car or thru a tunnel. [Who could that be, the Mexicans?  Subtle.]  However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand[... English. HAHAHA!]. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans...... we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle [and our own pizzerias, sushi bars,  Irish pubs, and Chinese restaurants.] This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. [And we've unanimously decided that the process of this cultural development is OVER.  We will now be merging our collective identities into one.  The philosophy that our culture is constantly evolving is lost on this author.  Reasons as to why this evolution is more threatening to us now than it previously was also remains unexplained.] We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language! [I think everyone living in the US should try to learn English.  Maybe that's one thing we can agree on, but I don't think they should be forced to.  I think immigrants know that the popular language of the US is English.  It's being able to commit the time and effort to learning it while sustaining a living in addition to often raising kids.] "In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing [**COUGH**], political slogan.. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women.......on Christian principles.............[it ISN'T Christian, but it IS Christian? Confusing.  Also, it was  men, not women.  They were only allowed to sew flags back then.] founded this nation..... and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home.........because God is part of our culture. [You may harp on others for their ignorance of the English language, but clearly your overuse of periods demonstrates your need for education in English grammar.  If you intended to pause for reflection, you could have used an ellipsis (three periods...).  But knowledge of the common language isn't all you lack.  History also seems to be a weak point.  Here are some "clearly documented" sources to the contrary: Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams.  "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Jefferson's Autobiography [excerpt] "[A]n amendment was proposed by inserting Jesus Christ, so that [the preamble] should read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion'; the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." James Madison Letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise" Benjamin Franklin From Franklins autobiography: "Scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. " Thomas Paine Excerpts from The Age of Reason: "My own mind is my own church.  All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." And there are many more quotes from these Founding Fathers just like these that denounce the personal and institutional connection to religion and god.  At least they respected your right to believe what you wanted.  You should return the favor.  Also research "E pluribus unum" and "McCarthyism".  You'll learn a lot about the history of the pledge and the national motto.] If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. [Only if you're paying.  The airline ticket and shipping tags should read Holland.  Thanks!] We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so! But once you are done complaining....... whining..... and griping....... about our flag....... our pledge...... our national motto........or our way of life....I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other Great American Freedom....... THE RIGHT TO LEAVE. [This is a troubling attitude because it contradicts the spirit of democracy.  We have a right to dissent because we want things to change.  Just because we do not agree with one very narrow view of what it is to be an American, does not mean we must leave or should be considered un-American.  That isn't democracy.  That is fascism.] It is Time for America to Speak up If you agree -- pass this along; if you don't agree -- delete it! [... or challenge it!] AMEN [So it IS a prayer!] I figure if we all keep passing this to our friends (and enemies) it will also, sooner or later get back to the complainers, lets all try, please! [The only enemy is an unthinking public.]