Posted April 3rd, 2013 by ptittle
I’m not saying it didn’t happen.
I’m not saying that, in any way, it was okay.
But I’d like to point out that a devout Jew would’ve done, would do, the same thing to the Germans – if God told him to.
‘Oh but God would never command such a thing.’
Take a better look at your Bible: Read the rest of this entry
Posted January 28th, 2013 by ptittle
It’s ironic that the stupid people are backing intelligent design, and the intelligent people are backing dumbfuck non-design. That’s essentially what evolution is: whatever traits lead to increased reproduction, those are the ones that survive.
And what traits lead to reproduction? Not intelligence, that’s for sure. Intelligent women don’t want to have ten kids. They’d rather be doing medical research, composing sonatas, studying society. And intelligent men? They’re not cruising the bars. They’re home with a good book if they’re not still in the office or the lab. It’s stupid women who forget to take the pill or don’t get a tubal ligation. And it’s stupid men who don’t use a condom or get a vasectomy. And it’s stupid brute force that rapes. And those men aren’t targeting the intellectuals. So we’re evolving all right. Right into propagated species-wide stupidity.
But isn’t evolution all about survival of the fittest? Yeah…fittest to the environment. And since stupid people, the ones reproducing, don’t even know what an ‘ecological footprint’ is, let alone have the character (and here I include both a certain morality and self-discipline) to minimize their ecological footprint, we’re not going to survive.
Which means maybe evolution is intelligent design after all.
Posted August 31st, 2011 by ptittle
I filled in for a high school English teacher one day who had left the following instructions: “Have the students rewrite one of the two scenes from Romeo and Juliet – either the balcony scene or the fight scene – into contemporary English.”
“Okay,” I said to the class, “this can be lots of fun, let’s take a look. Open your books to the fight scene, please, and imagine it: you have these guys raging at each other, and they’ve been doing it for years; they’re going to fight now, and they’re going to fight so hard a couple of them end up stabbed to death. Now instead of shouting ‘A plague o’ both your houses!’, Mercutio would say, if it were today, he’d say maybe ‘Fuck you!’, right? Okay, go ahead, see if you can translate the whole scene.”
The students did indeed have lots of fun. And the principal had hysterics. Read the rest of this entry
Posted August 24th, 2011 by ptittle
I recently discovered that my workplace has ‘wedding leave’: apparently you can get up to three days off—with pay. What the fuck is going on here?
I mean, what’s a wedding? It’s just a big party. Should employees be allowed to have personal parties on company time? I think not.
Oh, but it’s a once-in-a-lifetime party. Well, no, Read the rest of this entry
Posted April 23rd, 2011 by ptittle
If you believe in the supernatural and on that basis obtain a paying job, as a minister, priest, pastor, whatever, you don’t have to pay income tax. If you establish a group of like believers and buy a piece of land and/or a building for meetings, you don’t have to pay property tax. And if your group buys stuff, like computers, billboards, and so on, you don’t have to pay sales tax. You’re a charitable institution.
What’s charitable about killing people who don’t believe what you believe? What’s charitable about telling half of your group that they’re subordinate? What’s charitable about telling another portion of your group that they’re sick? What’s charitable about discouraging rational thought unless it supports your beliefs? What’s charitable about telling all of them they’re sinners just by virtue of having been born?
If we’re going to exempt people from contributing to the upkeep of our roads, hospitals, schools, and so on because of their (presumed) ethically good behavior (an interesting idea, by the way), then let’s at least be consistent: let’s exempt snowplow operators, doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, counselors, plumbers, electricians. And so on.
Posted February 10th, 2011 by ptittle
With such regularity, it really should be the refrain of every national anthem, we hear something along these lines: ‘The land is rightfully ours. God promised it to us.’
Yeah well, God lies. Or at least he changes his mind.
Consider this: Read the rest of this entry
Posted December 16th, 2010 by ptittle
He left almost 2,000 years ago. Said he’d be back real soon. Yeah. He never writes. He never calls. He left us these notes though. But half are so cryptic, the rest so contradictory, he must’ve been sloshed at the time. ‘Wait ’till your father gets home.’ That got tired real quick.
Child support? It’s not just that so many of us don’t have enough to eat. A lot of us are starving to death! We have no roof over our heads. And we could use new clothes. ‘Cheque’s in the mail.’ Right.
They say the typical dad interacts with his kids for just two minutes each day. Half of us would weep with gratitude just to hear his voice for two minutes period.
Role model? ‘Like father, like son’ is an understatement. Lots of us have a temper, and we’re a vengeful lot. We kill, we torture, we loot, we lie. We’re racist. And women, well, they’re just not very important.
Bottom line is he’s guilty of neglect and abuse. His kids wouldn’t recognize him if he did show up. As for duty and responsibility, let alone love and affection, he may as well not even exist.
Posted June 29th, 2010 by ptittle
Why are women more religious, in belief and in practice, than men?
1. Religious belief is more of an emotional thing than a cognitive thing. (Consider the fact that merely thinking about religious beliefs is usually sufficient to reveal they’re unwarranted.) And women are raised to be more emotional than cognitive; men are raised to be more cognitive than emotional (in fact, they are encouraged, even taught, to deny their emotions).
2. Religious authority figures, mythological (God, Allah, Zeus, and so on) and real (priests, rabbi, ministers, and so on), are male. And since women are raised to be subservient to males, to regard males as authorities, it’s easy for them to accept God, for example, as an authority and subordinate themselves to him. Men, on the other hand, are encouraged to be the authority; they’re also encouraged to compete with other men. So to accept God, for example, as an authority and subordinate themselves to him would not be easy — in fact, it would be emasculating. (Which is why the macho Promise Keepers came to be.) (And why its popularity didn’t last very long.) Read the rest of this entry
Posted April 25th, 2010 by ptittle
Most people associate pronatalism with religionism. Either because of its ‘go forth and multiply’ view, its ‘sanctity of life’ view, or its ‘we have to outnumber them’ view. I agree there’s a relationship, even a causal one. But it’s not that religion ’causes’ pronatalism; rather, some other thing causes both religionism and pronatalism.
What is this other thing? An inability to find fulfilment in the here and now. The sci-fi stories featuring a ‘last’ generation always seem to show some sort of widespread malaise, even despair. What, no kids? Many, not content to die in a few years, decide to kill themselves immediately. If I didn’t know better, I’d call it an existential crisis. One not handled very well. (‘I’m too unimaginative or too lazy, or both, to have made my life worthwhile. I know! I’ll have kids—they’ll make my life worthwhile!) (And then in a really clever leap of logic, they even blame the kids for their existential black hole—’How can I be out following some dream when I gotta put food on the table for you kids?’)
The same people insist on believing there’s a heaven no matter how many photographs of ‘up there’ they’re shown. (Never mind the extensive non-visual physical evidence against the possibility.)
In short, those of us who have purpose and value in our own lives have no need of kids—or heaven. Those of us who don’t, pass the buck.
Posted January 10th, 2010 by ptittle
I’ve always been uncomfortable with the term “conscientious objector” – especially as it is used, to identify those entitled for exclusion from military service (whether in body or in wallet) on the basis of moral principles. I object to military service, on that basis, but I don’t have a conscience.
Phrases such as “Follow your conscience” and “Do what your conscience tells you” suggest that one’s conscience is a fixed sort of thing, an unchanging absolute. Indeed, it often sounds like one’s conscience is innate, something we’re born with. And something quite separate from us, a sort of homonculus, or at least an ‘inner voice’ (the voice of God?). Chomsky may have proven that there are innate structures of language in the human brain, but to date, to my knowledge, no one has proven there are, in the human brain, innate moral principles. Nor, despite a dictionary definition of conscience as “the moral sense of right and wrong”, has such a sixth (?) sense been established.
On the contrary, our ‘conscience’ is acquired: Read the rest of this entry