Monday, July 27, 2009

2 Girls 1 Cupp?

EDIT: S.E. Cupp iz DOUBLE PWN3D!!

Please feel free to join me in [giving her] the golden shower of haterade, if you like.

S.E. Cupp is an atheist... well, probably "faitheist" would be a more accurate term. She single-handedly proves that atheists can be dumb, too. She's a conservative and she says the most ignorant shit regarding politics and defending those who already have power. In one of her columns, she laughably referred to Dinesh D'Souza as a "scholar"! She even parroted his line about how "atheist" regimes are responsible for the most deaths in the 20th century, [so there! hm! *turns up nose*, *sticks out tongue*]. It's fairly clear that she's not the most contemplative person I know of. But she's on tv a lot. I guess because they need more hot, idiotic, conservative brunettes on Fox News?

Here, however, she does a decent job of pwning Mark Sanford, so I guess she's not all bad.

EDIT: bonus video!


RE-EDIT: double-bonus video!!! *gag*

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Satan[-atan-atan-atan...]!?

My dear mommy found out that I'm an atheist about a month and a half ago when we were watching Hardball w/ Chris Matthews! They were talking about gay marriage, and my mom asked me what I thought about it. I said that I thought it was fine. I believed I had already explained to her why I thought that. You know, America isn't a theocrazy, we should have freedom of choice, blah, blah, blah... But then she asked me if I was still a Christian, as if that had anything to do with whether or not I thought gay marriage was ok. The two are completely unrelated1. But I didn't want to lie to my mother, so I hesitantly told her that I was no longer a Christian. Then she asked me if I was an atheist, and I hesitantly nodded my head. This is an extremely serious issue to my parents. They still believe in hell. My dad saw it with his own eyes! Well, not his literal, physical eyes... his spirit had separated from his body at the time... but you know... he could still, uh... "feel" things... um... anyway... [SHUT UP! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU! THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT!] She said that she was extremely disappointed in me and she thought that this was the one thing I would retain out of all the things I had been brought up [read: held down] to believe, and my mom is one of those people who seemingly does not distinguish belief in God from morality. I think I said that there wasn't any real evidence of God's existence. This is where things got "interesting." She said something like "You don't think Satan has anything to do with [your loss of faith]?" She was already crying by this point in the conversation. I was thinking two things: (1) I feel really bad that you're crying right now, and (2) I can't believe you brought up Satan! As if there's any more evidence for the existence of Satan than for the existence of God. Then, my mom told me I was going to hell. I'll remind you that she was crying at the time. She wasn't making a judgment against me, per se, just an "observation" based on what she had always believed; an observation of something she considered a tragedy. It has long been prophecized that in the last daze, even the very elect shall fall away, if that were possible, depending on whether or not you're a Calvinist or an Arminianist or a thousand other possibilities... "they follow the lies—the fables men devise"... anyway, I'm diverging wildly off-topic. At this point, the conversation abruptly ended because at that moment, my dad emerged from the bathroom. My mom has always been good about not ratting me out to my dad, who has a tendency to, let's say, "overreact," so, she just kind of hid her face and pretended to look for something in the chest of drawers or whatever. She had to go to work shortly thereafter, anyway. The next day, mom basically acted like nothing had happened, which I suppose is a good thing. I guess that's cool that she can tell me I'm going to hell one day, and the next, act like I'm still the same person to her... My dad still doesn't know. He's always been one of those "I brought you into this world; I can take you out" types.

Anyway, what I wanted to talk about is the idea of Satan in religion/culture. In Christianity, Satan slowly evolved over about 2 or 3 thousand years into the "Accuser of the Brethren" [and Sistren too, I suppose] and the "Father of Lies/Liars." He must be a busy guy. It's kind of hard for me to imagine the energy it would take. He must be some kind of sadist, taking such pleasure in constantly fucking with people. Especially 6 billion people. The "Church of Satan" sees "Satan" [more appropriately, in my opinion] as a symbol. They don't use the word "accuser;" they use the word "questioner," and he's not the questioner of the regular guy, but the questioner of authority. Looking at it from that perspective, the whole idea seems slightly less nefarious, doesn't it? I don't associate asking questions with the desire to deceive. In fact, what's wrong with asking questions if you're looking for "the truth"? But in religion the form of Christianity my parents practice, it is taken as axiomatic that the truth is already known, and any truth we need to know in the future, God will reveal to us, so there's no point to seeking new information. In fact, any new information that conflicts with this "truth" is casually [or sometimes violently] dismissed as a "Lie From The Pit Of Hell!" After all, what was the original sin? Wasn't it curiosity? Obviously, this is a very "good v. evil," "black and white" world view.

In reality, we all know, and my parents would readily admit, that "good" and "evil" aren't so black and white. It is even said that "Satan comes as an angel of light." This is another way of saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." There are probably a bunch of other cliches that mean the same thing.

My point is that my parents have it backwards: "truth" is discovered by asking questions, and blindly trusting in authority is an easy way for evil to be accomplished, even if that is not the intent. Christians have no more of a magical ability to discern between "good" and "evil" than any other type of person. Was the average German any less "Christian" than the average American in the 1930s and 1940s? Was the average Bush voter any less Christian than the average Gore, Kerry, or Nader voter? I highly doubt it. Christianity is correct about the idea that lies can and should be combated with truth. I like the metaphor of "shining a light rather than cursing the darkness." The problem is that their idea of "shining a light" is simply "proclaiming the truth of Christ." There's no concern for refining their ideas about anything through independent sources. The perspective is not that truth is something that we need to discover on our own, it is that we already know the truth and we need to spread it as far as we can. Let me make this perfectly clear: Nobody knows the final, ultimate, absolute truth about anything. All we can know are facts, and we can refine our knowledge of those facts through science and reasoned logic. If somebody has another way of increasing the size of the global knowledge pool, I'd really like to know. Thanks.



1The "problem" with gay marriage in this country is that marriage has two meanings: a legal meaning, and a religious meaning. I think these two aspects of marriage should be completely separated. But we have combined the two into one and we still call it marriage, and we've been doing this for hundreds if not thousands of years, so it's going to be difficult to undo.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

And Now For Something Completely Different [Warning: Please Do Not Read This!!!]

I was taking a nap today [Oh, Mexican taking a nap. Who would have thought!?] and during it, I had a dream about this youtuber to whom I subscribe (ColourMeAmy), which is strange, considering I've never even come close to meeting her in real life and she's Canadian, and I'm in the American southwest, which is quite far away, although, last week, I did comment on one of her videos, and she replied to me. Anyway, in the dream, she was living in a house in a rural area, but she was in the process of moving and I visited because I wanted to see her off, like somehow I knew where she lived and it was ok for me to be there, although even in the dream, we had never met each other before. So I came in from the back, noticed the house was empty, and then went out through the front door. I wasn't the only one there. There were other people standing around in the front yard. There was a row of trees between the road and the yard. There was no fence in the front, (maybe on the sides). She was near a car on the side of the road, I think packing some of her belongings into it. Some of her stuff had been arranged in piles ready to be placed into whatever vehicle was going to take the stuff away. I (accidentally) knocked over a few things somehow [that's what I do. I knock things over. boohoo...], and then I was trying to keep other stuff from falling down that I had somehow made unbalanced. And that's when she saw me, and she started walking over to where I was, and I was like "sorry, I don't know how this happened," and then, maybe I was wondering "how do I introduce myself to her?" [in case you were wondering, "Adderall Apocalypse" is not my real name]. I don't exactly remember what "happened" next, but she said a few things, and then I probably said a few things, and then, a bit later, I heard the choral intro to Madonna's "Like a Prayer" [still in the same setting; I think everyone else there was the "choir"], although I didn't recognize it at first. So then we both spontaneously started singing the part of the intro that Madonna sings, although I couldn't quite hit the high part ("I hear you call my name"), especially since I had food in my mouth, somehow, so I just stayed silent for that line, and then, I think, after "and it feels like... home..." that's when I woke up. Very strange...

By the way, I really like the song. It's the subject of a joke I'm sure I stole from a music magazine made up. One reason I like the song so much is that it's vague, so I'm not sure what it's about. Is it about fellatio, or is it about God? Or is it about performing fellatio on God?

Friday, July 24, 2009

Breitbart!!! *shakes fist* [Please, No Lightbulb Puns]

Hello, beloved readers. Did all of you see Andrew Breitbart's appearance on Real Time w/ Bill Maher? [Yes, I know it was in March, but that's beside the point]. He had the misfortune of having to argue with Bill Maher and author/genius Michael Eric Dyson1. I won't comment on who fared better in the discussion. The video speaks for itself.

Let me first state this perfectly clearly: there is absolutely nothing racist about the song "Barack The Magic Negro." The song is based on a paragraph or so from an LA Times opinion article by David Ehrenstein. It's a satire of racial pot-stirrers and opportunists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and, like the article, speaks against the use/embracing of the "magical negro" archetype by guilty white liberals (GWLs). Of course, I can see how a person might think it inappropriate for Paul Shanklin to impersonate Al Sharpton. ["You're out of your element, Shanklin. The racial-tension-exploiter with the funny haircut is not the issue."] After all, what authority does Shanklin have on Sharpton? Do black people in general have the obligation to recognize the moral authority of any white conservative in matters of race? I strongly believe that one needs to have [i.e., earn] a certain amount of credibility with others before s/he can tell them anything with authority. Otherwise, what's stopping the target from saying "You don't know me, motherfucker! STFU!" That is why, when Prop 8 was passed in California, [white] people generally protested at Mormon churches instead of black churches. They thought that they would have more moral authority among people with whom they shared more similar life experiences. Also, the $25 million that the CoJCoLDS [which for some reason retains its tax-exempt status!] donated to the Yes on 8 cause seems slightly more significunt than the 5% of Californians [or something like that] who happen to be black who voted for prop 8. Also... white people protesting/picketing outside of a black church? That wouldn't look right. That is what those who were critical of the Mormon church-protesters simply do not understand.

Breitbart asserts that the worst possible accusation you can level against a person in Amerika today is the charge of racism, because it affixes a Scarlet Letter on a person who is "guilty until proven innocent" and the charge is very difficult to disprove. I believe there is a lot of merit to Breitbart's assertion. But let's be clear on this. Racism nowadays isn't as obvious as it was in the past. No longer is it "get these niggers out of the pool!!" Racism in Amerika today is a lot more subtle. For example, is it racist that black people tend to be pulled over more on the highway than whites or that blacks and Hispanics tend to be arrested on drug charges at a higher rate than whites even though drug usage rates are the same across the board? I think that even if it's not the intent, the result is certainly "racist."

Further, is it racist for Rush Limbaugh to claim that "the advancement of colored people" is sometimes based on the desire of GWLs to see minorites succeed rather than actual accomplishments? I actually think that Rush has a legitimate question (even though in the case of McNabb, it was an assertion rather than a question). I certainly believe that everyone should be judged according to their merits. But as Dyson said, it would appear that, since McNabb did succeed so greatly in his own right, perhaps race was not the reason for the accolades so many bestowed upon him. Let us remember the "glass ceiling" there had been on black quarterbacks for so long that has only [relatively] recently been broken.

And hey. Don't even get me started on the crowds at last year's McCain rallies and the tea parties or certain jackass stunts performed by the elephants during the last election season. You can't tell me there's nothing racist about the Obama food stamps or the "little Hussein" Curious George doll.

On the other side, there is the aforementioned Magical Negro archetype. The most blatant example of this is Michael Clarke Duncan's character John Coffey from "The Green Mile." This is a terribly racist movie. "Oh yes, let's turn the functionally illiterate negro into Jesus titty-fucking Christ. That'll play great in San Francisco!" There has never been a more literal take on the magical negro archetype in any movie I can think of. And what happens? The white guy learns some sort of lesson and gets miraculously cured of dick-infection but is "cursed" with the affliction of having to live for a long time, while the black guy is executed for no reason. No, that's not even the most racist part. At least there's some kind of point to that [yes, the death penalty is bad. We know]. The most racist part is that Duncan's character isn't even a real person! He's more angel than human being. The prevailing theory is that these characters exist so that [some] GWLs can be assuaged with the knowledge that they are not racist without the burden and inconvenience of having to deal with actual black people who may have flaws, etc. Of course, I have no idea how accurate that is.

There is also, as Dubya put it, "the soft bigotry of low expectations," though it can be potentially difficult to distinguish from the simple realization that the system has been gamed in favor of those who have always been running it and that it's not enough to simply say "Everything is equal now, so what are you complaining about!?" This was the subject of Pat Buchanan's last appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show, and her subsequent correction of his gross errors.

The problem I have with Rush Limbaugh is that, yes, even though there are those who still see everything in terms of race even though it's not the best explanation for "how the world works," Rush too often accuses people of "seeing everything in terms of race." In my opinion, overuse of the accusation is just as bad as the "crime" itself. On top of that, let's be frank, Rush Limbaugh is clearly an opportunist who is not above using any racism his listeners might have in order to get them riled up. I would assert that this is, in fact, the purpose of his overuse of the accusations I mentioned.

Breitbart: If you're reading this, let me say that I am honored. Let me further say that I'm not quite as sensitive as Dyson was to things like "code words," so I can't really help you there. In case you're wondering, I'm Hispanic, but culturally, almost entirely "American." The only deviations in my upbringing from the "norm" were that we often ate "Mexican food" and my mother would sometimes watch Spanish-language soap operas. My parents both speak Spanish, but they never really taught me. :'( I did not have the good [depending on who you ask] fortune to grow up around a lot of black people, so black-white relations was never one of the top issues I had to deal with.

EDIT: More racism from McCain supporters and/or Obama opponents. [Yes, I'm sure there may have been as much ignorance on the other side. I will definitely post it if given a link.]



1Why is this guy's name so similar to "Myles Bennett Dyson" from Terminator 2? I've always wondered about that.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

The Four Horsemen of the Adderall Apocalypse

Hi, readers. This was inevitable. I couldn't resist incorporating the so-called "Four Horsemen" into a blog post or a title, at least. I just found this video of a two-hour discussion between these guys. It's good. To me atheism isn't worth talking about all that much, but that's because atheism has been around for thousands of years and all the arguments against the supernatural have been made and the type of religion that is used to control people has been shown to be a paper tiger and a naked emperor1. People still believe it because of the self-perpetuating nature of faith. So I don't see the need to keep talking about the same things repeatedly. Once you study the facts, you'll know that there are a lot of things that we can't really know. To me, questions that are beyond the realm of what it is possible for us to know don't really matter all that much. On some level, who cares whether or not there is a higher power? Is that higher power going to do anything? Is s/he/it/them going to tell us how to cure malaria or solve the oil crisis if we fall to our knees in worship? And sure, "religious experiences" are great, but don't tell me that you have the only way of attaining something like that. As they say in the video, "religion isn't the only game in town" for that sort of thing. P.Z. Myers had a great post on Pharyngula recently in which he was saying that religion as it is practiced by most people makes claims of a God who interacts with the physical world. These are claims that can be tested scientifically. In science, faith (in the religious sense... we can talk more about that later) isn't necessary because we have ways of testing claims and the scientific method is self-correcting. It's ok that we can't be absolutely sure of anything. The point is that positive claims require evidence. And "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

But maybe you'll find this discussion informative. If anything else, you'll see that these people don't want to eat babies or rape your children or anything like that... Sure, Hitchens is a bit too "America, Fuck Yeah!" for my tastes... but my point is that people are people. Let's remember that.



Hour 1:


Hour2:


P.S. If you are so inclined, you can buy the DVD of this conversation here



1You can say that I'm going to hell, but neither of us really knows that for sure, and we can't really know until we're both dead. But by that time, I'll be dead, and by then, it doesn't seem like it'll matter to me all that much. Will there be no other sign given to me to indicate you're not completely bullshitting me?

Monday, July 13, 2009

Announcement: Addition to Blog List (with Overthinking)

Hey, "everyone." (Surely, there must be so many of you...)

I added the incomparable blog "horse hung" [NSFW] to the blog list. This is one of the best blogs I have ever seen in any category. So I'm promoting it even though it probably has much more traffic than my blog (though mine has been around a bit longer). I'm a straight man, but who isn't a fan of looking at gigantic cocks? ...Well, lots of people are fans. If you don't believe me, just go to youtube. There are videos of elephants mating on that site that have millions of views. I don't want to seem as though I'm promoting the ludicrous idea that large penises have more intrinsic value than small ones. The "truth" is that people have "value." They have value because other people gave it to them. There's no objective standard we can use to determine how much value any individual has in a metaphysical sense. Neither do I claim that penis size is an extremely important part of the sexual experience. I don't know. Some women (or men) may prefer average or smaller dicks to large ones. It depends on the individual. It's not as if [a man with] a smaller penis is inherently less capable of giving a woman an orgasm than [a man with] a larger one. So there's no reason for anyone to be insecure about it or to develop an inferiority complex. There's no reason not to be satisfied with the size you have now. It's not really one of those things you can (easily) change [safely]. For all you know, there might be some disadvantages to having a large penis. You know, it probably gets in the way; unplanned erections are probably more difficult to hide; underwear doesn't fit as well... penises are probably sort of like breasts in that way. Except it's easier to change the size of those.

...Anyway, enjoy!

Friday, July 10, 2009

"Bitches Ain't Shit But Ho's and Tricks!"

UPDATE: Follow-up post here

Thank you, rap/hip-hop/whatever, for so enriching the vocabulary of the English language! But let's take a more in-depth look at the meaning and implications of this type of language. Our society has basically been set up to make people feel ashamed of themselves: who they are and what makes them feel good1. One purpose of religion is to impose this view on people to ingrain into their minds the idea that they are fallen and they need to be redeemed, or else they'll burn in torment and anguish for eternity! They need to be ashamed simply for being human, because by nature, humans are totally depraved and society would descend into unbridled chaos and destruction were it not for the auspicious hand of providence keeping us all in check and were it not for the fear of his awesome2 vengeance. The shame is usually not explicitly endorsed, but seems to be the effect. In this view, pleasure is, at best, good for some people, in certain situations, but not most. It is a necessary evil to keep the human species alive, but never! to be pursued as an end unto itself! Unless, of course, you're a guy. Then the rules are a bit different, depending on who you ask. Some are at least decent enough not to have a double-standard in that area. Obviously, those who hold this view would claim that they're definitely not anti-pleasure, just against certain actions that some people happen to find pleasurable, and the solution is for these people to somehow (through religion or some other means) transform [i.e., conform] what they find pleasurable to acceptable activities. You can see this in many religious movements, for example, ones involving abstinence until marriage or "curing" homosexuality. Hopefully, you can see that it's still a blatant attack on the human "spirit." Telling a person that s/he is not "good enough"3 is a terrible way to treat another human being, but it's an excellent way to sell something (anything, really)!

Now that we live in modern times, it's a lot easier to pursue pleasure, since we no longer have to spend so much time pursuing wildebeests. But many of these restrictions are still in place because of the memetic nature of the ideas behind them. Typically, if you're a woman who has enlightened herself to the idea that pleasure can be pursued as an end unto itself, we have some special titles for you designed to devalue your humanity, and we will use them at every opportunity! We will also tell you that you're being used and/or lied to. We'll say you're being stupid and that you don't value yourself highly enough, which is strange, because that's exactly what the person who calls a woman a slut is doing [if s/he means it in a derogatory way]! [Of course, I'm sure there may be women in such situations who really are "being used," but let's have that discussion another time.] This is what's fucking us all up! This is why women can't be honest about the fact that their sex drive is no weaker than that of a man! I find it to be a common observation that women don't want to be judged, and they don't want to be called sluts, so they have to be "careful" about who they have sex with. So our society has set up elaborate social rituals so that women can "cover their asses" with respect to accusations of whoredom. I don't have a lot of experience with these rituals, but my understanding of one of them is as follows: people go to a bar; a guy sees a woman he finds attractive, or maybe she sees him; anyway, they talk for a bit; he buys her a drink, never explicitly stating that he wants to have sex with her, but let's not kid ourselves [she is, of course, under no obligation to the provider of said drink; the male assumes all risk in the interaction]; she goes home after she's had her fill of free drinks and has sex with her boyfriend; the guy goes home in frustration and masturbates to a video on youporn.com [NSFW]. [There. How did I do? Was that an accurate description of the ritual?] You see how smoothly this system works. Occasionally, some asshole will ignore the rules and assert that the female is under some sort of obligation to him, which is why bouncers are so large and lacking in empathy. In a more honest system, we wouldn't need to pretend what our goals were or were not, and we wouldn't have to endure such elaborate rituals.

I would now like to discuss a few related issues. I have observed that there is a double-standard regarding the level of sexual experience among men vs. women. If you're a guy and you're still a virgin by the time you're 18, some people (usually other d00dz) tend to think less of you, you queer-pussy-homo-faggot. The amount of respect men confer upon other men seems to correlate positively with the amount of sexual experience (i.e., "conquests"... wow, what a bullshit term that is!) they have. Of course, there comes a point at which a man will come across as a "player" to women, and I have heard that most of them don't like that kind of guy because they have the idea that he "uses" women, which is odd considering that women who might otherwise be considered "players" are more likely to be called "sluts" and are accused of letting men "use" them, as I previously mentioned. It seems strange to me how one person can do the same thing as another person, yet others will have exactly the opposite opinion of the two people depending on who they are. For women, I believe the general conception is that an 18-year-old female virgin is less of an oddity than an 18-year-old male virgin, and that at some point, women will respect another woman less the more sexual experience she has. I don't really know why this is, but I am curious. It might be related to something I do know slightly more about: women who get mad at women who "steal boyfriends." If you are one of those women, then listen, sugartits: Nobody can "steal" your boyfriend because he isn't your property. You can't "own" another human being. That would be sort of like slavery. I will grant you that, yes, "boyfriend-stealing" is wrong, but if I were you, I'd be more angry at the man for whatever commitments he made to you that he subsequently broke... whatever...

Anyway, my own experiences with women have sometimes been unpleasant. I could at least partially blame my upbringing for that because until very recently, I was under the delusion that premarital sex was somehow inherently wrong. My father had some bad experiences earlier in life involving divorce, custody battles, child support, etc. You can see how he could become disenchanted with certain aspects of male-female interaction after such ordeals. He and Mother would likely attribute these bad experiences to the fact that Dad had premarital sex. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that he didn't use protection [properly, anyway], right? All my parents ever told me about sex was "don't do it!" and I was home-schooled during those crucial grades 5 - 7, so the only sex-ed I had growing up was The Learning Channel and the Clinton Impeachment Hearings4. Taking my parents and the Bible (i.e., their fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible), etc. seriously, I basically kept myself as far away from sex as possible. I've never even gone out on a date or kissed a girl, and I'm in my early-to-mid 20s (sure, I've felt a couple of tits in my day, but those were largely "freak occurrences"). How many people do you know at my age who can say that? If you wanted to spin this as positive, I suppose you could make the argument that this action [or, more accurately, lack of action] may have protected me from "getting hurt," but you'd be stupendously mistaken. Some degree of pain is inevitable regardless of what precautions a person takes. I have been hurt before. The level of pain is a function of the level of emotional investment. How can I control how I feel about another person?5 How can I control that person's reaction when she inevitably finds out? I've also heard the idea that somehow, sex is more "special" if you only do it with one other person in your entire life. Again, I assert that these people are tragically in error. Sex is no different from any other activity or experience one person can share and enjoy with another person [or persons], except that (from what I've heard) it feels better than most other experiences, and probably as a result, has more potentially severe consequences.

Our genes "programmed" us to want to have sex because it helps them survive into the next generation6. But we have progressed to the point in our evolution at which it is possible for us (consciously) to figure this stuff out, and use that knowledge to figure out other stuff. The robot has become self-aware! We are here because of our genes. But our genes are merely mindless self-replicators. They have no power to condemn us to eternal torment! So is there any reason for us to deny ourselves or others of any of the joy (or pain) of the human experience (as long as a person does not infringe upon the privileges of another person... you know, those privileges we gave ourselves, and as long as "society runs smoothly")? Life is enough of a struggle on its own, isn't it? We don't need to make it more difficult by limiting our opportunities to enjoy it! I believe that we should celebrate those experiences7. As someone who does not see himself finding joy anytime soon, I know how difficult it can be, and I can greatly appreciate it when someone else experiences it (it's like schadenfreude, but the opposite). And I consider it an abomination for those of us who have the necessary political power to use it to restrict others less fortunate from pursuing the same happiness as the rest of us simply because they have a natural inclination to pursue it differently. And I don't mean "abomination" like the snowman, or like eating shellfish. I mean "abomination" in the same sense as torture, slavery, and the Holocaust (though probably to a lesser degree).



1 And in some cases, even feeling good itself, although, thankfully, that seems to be in decline.

2 Wow. What happened to this word? This word is used quite often in many translations of the Bible. How, in the 1980s, did this suddenly become a ludicrously overused surfer/stoner term?

3 Ok, so let me get this straight... God loves us, but we could never possibly be good enough to spend eternity with him. He made us in His image, whatever that means, but now we're fallen. So do we no longer "look like" God? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

4 I don't think I found out what sex really was until I was 13, and I don't think I knew what masturbation was until shortly after I started doing it (I think I was almost 13). Sure, I "knew" it was "wrong," but how can you expect a teenage male not to masturbate!? That's beyond insane! No, believe me, the guilt was "punishment" enough. Do you know how much that kind of guilt can fuck a kid up!? I don't even know if the average person [not exposed to such childhood trauma] is capable of imagining the effort I exerted and all the time I spent praying that I would be delivered from these awful, terrible, sinful, damnable thoughts and feelings that every other human being just so happens to have as well. I'm almost surprised I never underwent an aneurysm! ...Alright. Maybe I'm overplaying my hand ["That's what SHE said!"]. It's possible... And finally, yes, I had to figure out what oral sex was solely from the clue that Clinton [may or may not have] said that it was "more like having sex with a pair of lips than a person." At the time, I was in my early-to-mid teens and I had only recently found out what sex was (though I don't remember how I learned that... probably TLC). But after rolling that quote around in my head for a while (again, I don't remember how long it took), I was able to reach a conclusion regarding what the definition of oral sex is. I probably thought it was gross at the time. psh... kids...

5It's too bad, if there were some sort of God who demanded my emotional purity, that I was always on my own in this department. My parents were never much help, either, especially my dad, because "Girls are evil, you know, unless I've met them first. Otherwise, if you even mention a girl to me, I will say the vilest things imaginable about her (or at least the vilest things I can imagine)." The Second Coming of Rose Muldoon, over here... what a guy!

6 What, does this argument sound circular? Sexual reproduction does provide evolutionary benefits because it results in more variability than asexual reproduction, which better protects the genome from drastic changes in a given environment. If a given trait provides an advantage, it will naturally spread.

7 Like when a child discovers masturbation through self-examination or when a gay couple gets married or when two retards fall in love... generally, any time a person who has experienced mostly hardship in life finally finds joy.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Teh Internets is a Virus! 2.0

Another announcement: I joined twitter today, just to increase my interwebz footprint, I'm sure... blah. I'm sure I'll be posting monumental outrage in 140 character intervals non-stop! Yeah... really, I just wanted to make sure no one else took the username "AderalApocalyps." There was such a high risk of that, right? Right...

A Couple of Announcements [Welcome, Users of "The" Atheist Blogroll and The OUT Campaign Blogroll!]

Good news, everyone! This blog has been added to "The"
Atheist Blogroll
. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The
Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to
Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey
at Deep Thoughts for
more information.

Also, below the blogroll, I have placed "The Scarlet Letter of Atheism" as a sign of "solidarity" with all the other human beings who feel as though they cannot reveal this aspect of who they are in public or to certain people they may know and/or love.

Happy Trials!