Wholesome 8===D

Skip to the last video if you just want to see the results.

wholesomedick offers to every reader their choice between sarcasm and spirituality (with apologies to Emerson).

Poll #1318569
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 10

Sarcasm or Spirituality

The more people have of one, the less they have of the other. I got to thinking about this when I watched the Amazing Atheist's Case Against Buddhism. I keep trying to write a "rebuttal" to it, but I can't do it without resorting to sarcasm, other than to say that the case he makes speaks for itself. See, even there, I wanted to put quotes around the word 'case' but... You know, that would be antithetical. I think I can use single quotes and get away with it in the last case, no pun intended.

I have pointed out this distinction before, somewhat sarcastically, comparing Carl Sagan (an atheist who had very interesting things to say about spirituality) with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins who frame their argument for atheism differently.

Dictionaries contain definitions of the common (status quo) usage of words, usually this is a good thing.

For instance, if you look up inflammable you'll see that it's meaning is pretty much the same as flammable. Logically speaking, they should be opposites, but if keeping the definition of "inflammable" as flammable prevents people who don't know better from immolating themselves, that's a good thing.

The definition of atheism is like the definition of inflammable. Through some goofy linguistic inbreeding, these words came to mean something completely different from what they logically should mean.

In atheism's case, people need to knock some sense in to the status quo language. Using a meaningless definition of atheism handicaps people when it comes to accurately and clearly describing their, or other's, views about the existence of God.

Logically, the status quo definitions of atheism and agnosticism (where atheism is "God doesn't exist" and agnosticism is "I'm waiting for evidence") don't make sense. In fact, both of of those definitions represent completely untenable positions.

"Status quo atheism" e.g. believing that "God doesn't exist" is pointless, because it's (so far) impossible to prove. Richard Dawkins happens to agree with me.

"Status quo agnosticism" e.g. believing that God could or could not exist, is meaningless. It's like making a bet that the person walking by either will or won't be wearing clothes. If that's all you believe, it's really not even worth saying. You have three options, a clothed person, a naked person, or you wait indefinitely for someone to walk by.

Agnosticism is really more of an epistemological question: If there is a God, can you know that it exists? Agnosticism says, so far, no.

So, all agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostics.

If the word atheism was used and understood correctly, more people would just say "Currently, I'm not a believer, and by the logical definition of the word, that means I'm not a theist; therefore I am an atheist. Of course, like everything else in the world, this is subject to change." That's really all there is to it. Atheism is about taking a position of maximum parsimony, nothing else.

Carl Sagan and Bill Nye: Science is cool. Pseudoscience can be bad, but science is really cool. Science fact is usually cooler than science fiction. Let us tell you some cool shit about the universe.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens: IF YOU'VE EVER WENT TO CHURCH, READ A NEWS PAPER COLUMN ON ASTROLOGY, HAD SOMEONE READ TAROT CARDS FOR YOU, OR USED A OUIJA BOARD YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD AND ARE RUINING THE WORLD. BTW, CHRISTOPHER WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT GEORGE W. BUSH IS FUCKING AWESOME FOR DOING ALL THAT COOL SHIT IN IRAQ.

I had this little tit for tat (until she banned me) with aysosytreeo and teal_cuttlefish. They think I'm gay, hate lesbians, don't have a sense of humor, and that "my actions have nothing to do with buddhism" (which may be true in that case, but in a more Zen sense how can it possibly be true?).

This isn't surprising since you might assume after reading aysostreeo's profile that she is pagan/wiccan (what's the difference, really?), polyamorous, and wants to completely ruin her children's lives home school her kids. For whatever reason, I just don't mix with that whole crowd — and it's not because I haven't tried too.

Anyway, this isn't the first time I've set off someone's gaydar. So just out of curiosity...

Poll #982021 Wholesomehomo?
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 30

Do you think I'm gay? Srsly, u guys.

What makes you say that?

( Some thoughts on religion. )