Great collection of personal ads. I used to think placing a personal ad was kind of…well, sad. But I do know of great couples that have resulted from personals.
My favorites:
‘Slut in the kitchen, chef in the bedroom. Woman with mixed priorities, 37, seeks man who can toss a good salad.’
‘Not everyone appearing in this column is a deranged cross-dressing sociopath. Let me know if you find one and I’ll strangle him with my bra. Man, 56.’
Dang. People have found my site through google looking for the weirdest things (“my teacher’s panties,” anyone?) but people–3 or 4 a day–keep coming to the blog looking for “pecs.” or, “muscular pecs.”
So, people, I won’t have you leaving empty handed. Here are some sites about pecs: lovely detailed info about the muscle from wikipedia, a how-to-build-pecs from eHow, info about pectoral implants from about.com, and my personal fav: Rate my Pecs.
I aim to please.
I’d like to quote the eloquent Coconut who commented on my post on Dawkins & Eagleton:
I thoroughly agree with your suggestion “that rabid atheists like Dawkins and rabid fundamentalists like Pat Roberts have a lot in common.” In addition to the similarities you pointed out, I think that both think not in terms of religion as the collective expression of the common elements in individuals’ relationships with God but in terms of social and cultural institutions.
When religion becomes “organized religion” it loses touch with that individual striving you refer to that makes religion compelling in the first place, and becomes just another social institution. It’s not the faith itself or the philosophical system that’s to blame, but the social institutions that have become entangled with those things.
It seems that the debate continues to build. I ran into an article in Wired magazine yesterday which declared the agenda of the New Atheism. I think it’s about as extreme as I’ve ever encountered an atheist political manifesto.
This is the challenge posed by the New Atheists. We are called upon, we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth; we are called out, we fence-sitters, and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith.
The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there’s no excuse for shirking.
The New Atheist insight is that one might start anywhere — with an intellectual argument, with a visceral rejection of Islamic or Christian fundamentalism, with political disgust — and then, by relentless and logical steps, renounce every supernatural crutch.
This is exactly the same rhetoric used by evangelical Christians to call “lax, fence-sitting” half-believers to become full on warriors o’ faith. The other side is evil blah blah blah. Renounce them blah blah blah. Have faith that what you believe is true for everyone blah blah blah. They’re going to destroy us if we don’t destroy them first blah blah blah. Remember intelligent design’s blasting of evolution in the classrooms? Check out the atheist rejoinder:
But the atheist movement, by his lights, has no choice but to aggressively spread the good news. Evangelism is a moral imperative. Dawkins does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with tolerating them, with cooperating in their colonization of the brains of innocent tykes.
“How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?” Dawkins asks. “It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?”
Yeesh. So, it seems that once religion is abolished, that once children are taught that their parents are chumps and fools, everything will be jolly on planet Earth. We can justify genocide, war, and mistreatment of our fellow man more “logically”; i.e. we can provide economic and political rationale why we should kill. It’s not religion that’s the problem, folks; it’s small minded people, and more provocatively, people in general. People rationalize their bad (evil?) actions in any philosophical paradigm they can get their grubby little hands on. Universal atheism will cure nothing, and I expect a controlled atheist state to be just as terrifying as a Christian fundamentalist theocracy.
Need to get back into portraits. I took my camera to the Ragtime period ball at Powell library last night and–hopefully-got some good shots of dancing feet. But my favorite thing is still portraiture, and here’s one of my favorites, of the lovely Miss V. P.:
Of all people, unexpectedly, Terry Eagleton (of Intro to Literary Theory fame–I find it difficult to believe that anyone who made a career out of critical theory could believe in a kind and loving God) wrote a scathing review of Richard Dawkins’ new book The God Delusion, which points at religion as the cause of the chieftest problems on the planet. Dawkins demands that religion be held to the same scrutiny as scientific theories are, and evidently believes that it will be found wanting. He’s especially harsh towards scientists who are also religious, seeing the two as incompatible.
By believing this, isn’t he elevating science into the same position as religion? And don’t scientists have faith in the fact that protons and neutrons exist, the laws of gravity never fail, the big bang occurred X billions of years ago? If anyone depended on evidence, evidence, evidence for everything they believed, then how could he or she live? Would you scrutinize your love for your parents with the scientific method? It’s impossible to demand constant evidence from your parents that they love you, and evidence can always be found lacking. Skepticism is a dangerous sword.
I liked this quote from Eagleton:
Because the universe is God’s, it shares in his life, which is the life of freedom. This is why it works all by itself, and why science and Richard Dawkins are therefore both possible. The same is true of human beings: God is not an obstacle to our autonomy and enjoyment but, as Aquinas argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. Like the unconscious, he is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He is the source of our self-determination, not the erasure of it. To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is a matter of freedom and fulfilment. Indeed, friendship is the word Aquinas uses to characterise the relation between God and humanity.
Jesus hung out with whores and social outcasts, was remarkably casual about sex, disapproved of the family (the suburban Dawkins is a trifle queasy about this), urged us to be laid-back about property and possessions, warned his followers that they too would die violently, and insisted that the truth kills and divides as well as liberates. He also cursed self-righteous prigs and deeply alarmed the ruling class.
Religion/faith should not be a crutch. It is not there to make you intellectually lazy. I remember the parable of Israel wrestling with the angel: man’s desire to engage with the universe is not a simple, easy thing. If you disbelieve because you think religion cripples people’s independence, then you are probably thinking of dogma rather than true spiritual grappling.
I find that rabid atheists like Dawkins and rabid fundamentalists like Pat Roberts have a lot in common. Neither camp would like to be grouped with the other, probably, but their approach to what they believe is remarkably similar. Dawkins and Roberts are both too busy pointing out the speck in each other’s eyes to notice the log in their own.
Ideal faith is, I think, balance between blind belief and blind skepticism. If you grow up as a strict atheist, who’s to say that you’re anymore openminded than a strict Mormon? Balanced consideration is so hard to achieve, yet likely– ultimately–most rewarding.
I abandoned organized religion years ago because of some of the horrible people I encountered within it. But rejecting spiritual exploration on account of a couple of jackasses is as rational as refusing to take math because the teacher is mean.
I find that Hebrews 11:1-3 speaks beautifully to the convictions of both scientists and the religious:
Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen.
By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible.
I have never seen an electron or quark or the Holy Spirit with my eye, yet I believe they do exist. By faith.
A quote from some poet I forget: “God says to the free mind--find me.” To get anywhere, we need freedom from both blind dogma and blind skepticism.
(discussion welcome, if anyone cares for it 
Mr. Philosophe & I in a few days.
This weekend, I’m picking up my playstation 2 from my house and installing it in l’oubliette. This is mainly to entertain Mr. Philosophe while I do research and reading (or that’s what I tell myself). The only game I have is DDR, and I’m trying to pick up some entertaining games that aren’t too violent or ridiculously difficult/techy. Any suggestions? I liked the ole super mario bros. type games but they’re not for playstation, alas…
This Wii console looks amazing, but I don’t have $250 to spend on it at this point. Sooo…good playstation games?
