A tremendous new show I’ve been watching is Louis, where we get to spend 30 minutes each week in what’s possibly a not so far from reality world of comedian Louis C.K. At the time of this writing, episode 07 isn’t on the page of the first link but it’ll probably appear after episode 08 airs on the 10th. In episode 07, we get a glimpse of his mom. What I found interesting, especially as an only child, is how radically different his and his brother’s opinions of their mother were. Speaking to each individually about their mother, you’d think they were talking about two different people. How is that possible?

Shifting gears slightly, I saw this today, an interview with Anne Rice, the famed vampire novelist who rediscovered her belief in her god and Catholicism. Well it seems she’s off that last bit, “in the name of Christ.” Yes, she’s given up Christianity “in the name of Christ.” In her words, she’s left Catholicism because…

“In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life.”

On Louie, I found it interesting how his brother needed his mother’s love, and needed to speak with and be connected to her, despite what a monster she apparently was. His need seemingly overrode or completely blinded him to what she really was. Rice, it seems, went through that phase with Catholicism and now, finally, can’t go on ignoring that sect’s beliefs and practices and has parted ways with it. In fact, it seems she’s parted ways with all organized religions, “in the name of Christ.”

If you’ve spent any time online where the issue of Christianity and religion is discussed and debated, you’ve probably come across those self-proclaimed Christians who also don’t belong to a church and are anti-organized religion. Many, in fact, claim to simply be followers of the teachings of Jesus, perhaps doing something like Thomas Jefferson did when he ripped all the supernatural elements out of the Christian bible and created his own bible. These people, like Jefferson before them, can pen some scathing remarks about organized Christianity and its followers yet still need to hold on to their Jesus. This seems like a radical, last ditch effort to salvage what they can from their former binky, because god forbid should they go without a binky.

But is that so radical? I really don’t think so because every Christian consciously jettisons the elements of their religion and their holy book which they don’t want, like picking that dog hair off the pacifier before putting it back in their mouth. This isn’t just the action of individuals, for every sect of Christianity is an organized practice of deciding what to pick off, what to leave, and even what to add to that pacifier. Arguably this practice has gone on from the beginning. This was, after all, the point of the first council of Nicaea, a concerted effort, prompted by Constantine, to reach a consensus on the binky.

Certainly to a man like Jefferson and in today’s climate, individual freedom is what’s sacred, so it should come as no surprise to see more and more so-called Christians like Rice who no longer need an organization nor a consensus of others to arrive at how their binky should be. Today, people feel confident in making their own decisions, and religion is not immune from that. Sure, they may call themselves Christians and even justify their rejection of Christianity “in the name of Christ”, but they’re simply preparing their own binky. But why the need for the binky? Why, can’t these people be more like Louie, rather than like his brother? Well Rice sums it up pretty well. When asked about returning to her vampire series, she said she couldn’t, and gave this explanation:

“When I wrote those novels, I really was an atheist, and I was a pessimistic atheist. And those novels are all about what it’s like to live in a very dark world, and a meaningless world, where anything can happen to you and there is no real almighty witness, and I can’t go back to that”

Some people, for whatever reason, need their binky, but I suppose we atheists should see their growing desire to pick more and more of those hairs off and growing unwillingness to share the group binky as something positive. Quite the opposite of positive, yet still awesome and a growing earworm for me is the theme song to Louie, which I’ve found is an adapted snippet of Brother Louie.

The following is a fictional exchange based on recent conversations I’ve had with a few people.

I think everything happens for a reason.

- I think you’re an adult and don’t need to play pretend anymore.

What does that mean?

- It means stop pretending that the shit that just happened was for some greater good in order to make yourself feel better about it.

I suppose I should just go get drunk instead, like you do.

- At least booze is real.

Well I think my way is better.

- In what way?

It doesn’t cost nothing

- Anything

What?

- It doesn’t cost anything, but actually it does, just not money.

What’s it costing me?

- Your sanity, for one.

Ha!

- Seriously, you’re making crazy talk. What’s working the strings behind this great reason?

What’s that matter?

- Fucking everything, that’s what!

Look, things just happen sometimes and we have to believe there’s a reason for them.

- Why?

Because otherwise there’s no reason for them.

- ????

If there wasn’t some good that came out of this, then what’s the point?

- There is no point.

Then why would it happen?

- Because shit happens. Drink?

No, and you’ve had enough.

- No, YOU’VE had enough, I require more. I am larger than you.

I don’t like you drinking so much.

- Well I don’t like you deluding yourself so much, so we’re even.

I’m not poisoning myself like you.

- You’re poisoning your mind.

You’re killing your liver.

- They can transplant livers. Not minds, unfortunately.

Why do we have to argue?

- Perhaps it’s for some greater good.
__________________________________________

A frequenter posted this link recently about a study that shows religious belief is motivated by anxiety, so I guess it takes the edge off. That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying for some time, that religious belief is simply an indulgence like drugs and alcohol. Everyone seems to need something, and I suppose some things are better than others. It would be great to be able to work out or do something comparable as an indulgent relief. Oh well.

It’s official! With Nashville underwater, we see now how such a thing could happen. Chely Wright is gay. CLEARLY the wrath of Gawd is evident, and it must have been devastating for Him to do this since you know Country is the official music of Gawd (or so I’m told). Sure, women not wearing burkas makes Gawd cause earthquakes, but nothing gets his dander up like the gay. Remember Katrina?

Well it’s also just been confirmed that the disaster unfolding in the Gulf currently was also caused by Gawd in response to the presence of one platform worker allegedly being gay. Sources say Randall, seen below (the one with sunglasses on the right), was rather “flamboyant” but was a good worker. His gay-hood could not be confirmed, but you can’t hide gay from Gawd.

NEWSFLASH: This just in, Gov. Perry calls the oil leak an act of Gawd, but warns against “knee-jerk” reactions to it (excluding invoking Gawd, of course).

Spiritual atheism? Wtf is that? Well see for yourself. The articles vary between cutely comical and flat out ridiculous. I want to take a moment to address one in particular entitled, Do Atheists Even Know They Are Religious?.

Now let first say that this, like many of his articles, start with a good point and could potentially be good articles but then he makes a wrong turn or seems completely oblivious to the wonderful point that he could be making from his initial premise. Now in this post, there lies an excellent point about confirmation bias and how we all, atheist and theist alike, can fall victim to having a distorted view of the world and events via the lens of our world views and opinions. That’s fine, and an excellent point; however, he then makes a really bad left turn and concludes we atheists are religious because we take things on faith.

Again, there hangs a point to be made like a heavy, ripened fruit waiting to be picked and savored yet he’s oblivious to it. It’s a valid point to say that we could simply accept science reports and what our teachers tell us as gospel, never questioning it or doing further investigation into the matters. I have no problem with expressing a warning about that, but Mr. Pinn simply asserts that we all do this and therefore we’re all religious and what’s worse, which I think is the biggest problem I have with this article, he confuses faith and trust. For instance, he claims that accepting the fossil records is an act of faith. I guess if one doesn’t dig them up themselves, then in his mind, accepting their validity is an act of faith. That’s simply incorrect.

Looking at faith and trust in the dictionary isn’t that helpful for one is used often to define the other, and that’s a mistake. The problem is the definitions are reflecting usage and most people misuse the words for they treat them as interchangeable. To set the record straight, faith is an all or mostly unwarranted belief, whereas trust is an all or mostly warranted belief. I think you can see how the grey area where warrants decrease and/or where they become more subjective is where faith and trust begin to look similar, and part of the reason why both are used interchangeably. Another reason why they are is religion, for religion esteems faith as a valid means to know things and make judgments when it most certainly is not. Still, the esteem it grants it and the prevalence of religion in the US makes for an environment where faith and trust are comparable. One thing I always say in regards to faith is how can anyone esteem something so highly which throughout their day they would never even dream of using it? I mean, if it can’t even get you across the street, what good is it?

Let’s look at crossing the street. Would you close your eyes and simply start to cross when you felt it was right, or would you look first? I’m willing to bet that all of you would look first. THAT is trust. Now you don’t know with absolute certainty that it’s safe; your eyes could be playing tricks on you, you could misjudge the speed of the oncoming cars and how quickly you can get across the street, you could fall in the middle of the street, or perhaps a car comes from a direction you didn’t look. Absolute certainty is a myth, it simply doesn’t exist. Hell, we can’t be absolutely certain that reality is real and that we’re not brains in a jar, but we go with what we observe and what works. That’s an example of correctly applying our current knowledge and experience to make decisions. So to get across the street we know what getting hit by a car can do, we know how long it takes us to walk across, we have learned to observe moving objects and determine their speed and the time it’ll take for them to cover a certain distance and trusting all that, we decide whether it’s safe to cross the street.

Mr. Pinn, it would seem, would call that determination of the safety to cross the street an act of faith just as he calls accepting the fossil records or what an educator tells you as an act of faith. Like the street crossing, those acts are not acts of faith but rather, acts of trust. Scientific evidence is scrutinized and debated by other scientists. There are standards which have to be met, just as there are for your educator to be in the position he or she is. Accepting that evidence and their words is an act of trust, because it’s warranted. Now certainly the evidence could be faulty and your educator could be unscrupulous, but again, absolute certainty is a myth. Not being able to know with absolute certainty whether the evidence is correct or your educator is good and competent does not making accepting them an act of faith. An act of faith is accepting that all of that is a lie, that the world was created by a thing in the sky and everything is only 6,000 years old.

So I don’t know what’s up with Mr. Pinn and his so-called spiritual atheism, but he’s really flying fast and loose and seems rather ignorant about what he’s talking about and frankly, those are usually the roots for shit like “spirituality” and confusing faith and trust, laziness and ignorance. How about some diligent, competent atheism? How about some critical thinking atheism? Better yet, how about simply being a hard working, critical thinking human? Chances are, atheism will just be a natural by-product and not something which anyone would have to actually focus on and make the point of their actions, which it shouldn’t be anyway.

What can you say about this? A woman sold two captured ghosts for roughly $2000US. Man, I gotta get in on this stuff. There are people making a fortune online selling things with Jesus faces, Mary faces, images of the ghost of Michael Jackson, but this really is clever. I don’t think I would have ever come up with this, or if I did, I just wouldn’t have followed through on it, so kudos to her.

Of course it’s impossible to know whether she believes this crap or if she’s just hamming it up for the sale. I wonder if you can tell just by looking at the bottles which ghost is which. What if you get them mixed up? What if they break? Oh no! The little girl ghost was allegedly summoned via a Ouija board (no mention of whether it was pink or not), which tells me that there’s a business here. Summon, bottle and sell. Perhaps you can start charging extra for more decorative containers. I don’t know, but this whole ghost in a bottle thing could be more lucrative than Mary toast. Sure, the toast got a lot more, but that was a one time deal. You could pump these babies out regularly. Of course you have to deduct the “exorcist’s fee”, but that can be written off as a business expense.