If you're getting an iPad ...

... just wait until they release the next version, because it'll have at least half the stuff it's missing now.

This is what aPple always does: releases a first-gen iToy which is beautiful but missing crucial, even obvious features and which gets snapped up by the usual "early adopters". They then wait until sales are up and release the next version which is slightly more useful and a different shape, rinse, repeat. Apple are experts at this - hell, they practically invented modelspamming (well, if not them, Nokia). How many different versions of the iPod are there now? Remember how the first iPhones only had a shitty 2MP no-flash camera and no MMS? Think that was an "oversight"? Think they "forgot"? Anyway, back to the provisional review.

Coffee and soul

A thought just occurred to me regarding the soul that I apparently have secreted somewhere on my person. This soul, I am told, is the immortal essence of "me", will survive my death and will exist eternally. It contains everything about me which makes me me: psyche, personality, hopes, dreams, thoughts, experiences, expectations, likes, loathes, knowledge, hungers, holes. It is my consciousness, my mind and, what's more, it's immaterial; that is, it is not part of my body; it is not a product of the biochemical processes of my brain. It is not governed by mere physical laws, it is ethereal. It doesn't "exist" in three dimensions of time and space, the same way my hand exists or my third coffee of the day used to exist as a milky, fatty suspension and now still exists but is being dissolved into its components by my digestive system. But I've had a thought, more than once, about the nature of this soul and how precisely it governs my every thought, word and deed.

 

The thought is actually more a series of questions, which I'd like to hear answers for from a theological point of view, if possible.

The enemy is indeed in our cross-hairs

Recent revelations that hundred of thousands of US servicemens' rifle-scopes are carrying references Gospel verses have littered the web recently. Today it's been revealed that Australian soldiers are using those very same scopes. The Bible references appear like any normal-looking serial number, for example ''2COR4:6'' is a reference to Paul's second letter to the Corinthians.

The manufacturer, Trijicon, was founded by a fundie Christian over thirty years ago and its website carries this message:

''As part of our faith and our belief in service to our country, Trijicon has put scripture references on our products for more than two decades,'' a statement on the company's website said.

''As long as we have men and women in danger, we will continue to do everything we can to provide them with both state-of-the-art technology and the never-ending support and prayers of a grateful nation.''

Ah, nothing like militarised Christianity. Nothing like lining up your enemies' skulls in a scope you know is blessed by the words of Jesus. Nothing like the old "God is in MY side but not YOURS' gambit, used by everyone from Moses' merry band of child-killers to the Crusaders to the loons who routinely blow themselves up to gain eternal paradise.

Twunter

Twitter dot com slash hank_vox

Drop in & say hi in 140 characters or less.

US religious group sends digital Bibles to Haiti (Rated M: coarse language)

Yes, some Yank bible-thumpers are sending iGods to earthquake-ravaged Haiti.

Source.

These are solar-powered audible Bibles that can broadcast the holy scriptures in Haitian Creole to 300 people at a time.

Called the "Proclaimer," the audio Bible delivers "digital quality" and is designed for "poor and illiterate people", the Faith Comes By Hearing group said.

According to their website, the Proclaimer is "self-powered and can play the Bible in the jungle, desert or ... even on the moon!"

Just what a bunch of starving, desperate, homeless, bereaved, scared people fucking need: to be fucking preached at by a fucking toy. Pardon my French.

Short n' sweet

Gold, mined here.

The general root of superstition is that men observe when things hit, and not when they miss; and commit to memory the one, and forget and pass over the other.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

These days, some call this phenomenon "confirmation bias". Others, like pop-psychic charlatans, faith healers and new-age full-moon crystal-chargers, call it "gravy." Well, if they're being honest with themselves, anyway, as I'm sure they are - but only when a long way away from other people, only in the privacy of their own minds and only very briefly.

Re-post Theatre: Why I am not an atheist

This is a re-post of "Why I am not an atheist", originally posted in July 2008 here and at Dangerous Intersection in September, where it kicked off a comment storm which was greatly enjoyed by all. I present it as something of an atheist FAQ - it might not be all-encompassing but it's a good place to start when discussing non-belief, particularly my own but perhaps many others as well.

Without further wossname: Why I am not an atheist ...

... and why I am.

I am not an atheist because:

• I hate God
• I prayed to God and my prayers weren't answered
• Militant/fundamentalist atheists converted me away from God
• I worship science and the works of man instead of God
• I'm rebelling against God like I rebelled against my parents & teachers in high school
• I think I'm better than God
• I had a bad experience with a priest or church or religious person
• I can't decide which religion to subscribe to
• atheism is my religion
• I think religious people are idiots
• I worship Batman
• I worship Satan
• I'm immoral/amoral and would rather do what I want
• I want to destroy religion

Read on, MacDuff ...

It's a racket

With a mobile phone/appliance rental/bank loan/investment product contract, it's all about the conditions - conditions which have been carefully put together to simultaneously protect the provider and the receiver. Default on a repayment or use your product or service in any way that's contrary to the conditions in the fine print and you lose your rights. They can take your TV back & sue you for payments, void your warranty, cut off your phone service; maybe they'll raise your interest rates without notice or perhaps the bank can go under and they can file for bankruptcy and be freed from giving you back any of the money you invested - but you agreed to all of those potential outcomes when you signed up. Perhaps you didn't read those parts but hey, you signed the bit indicating that you had, which makes you responsible.

But that's what happens with a normal contract made between two adults who it is assumed are aware of their rights and responsibilities. But what about the contract that Christians believe we're all bound to?

Comfort

No, not Ray Comfort, the odd little Kiwi who masturbated a banana and called it "the atheist's nightmare" (I mean, it was a nightmare, only not just for atheists *shudder*). Rather, this is about the state or condition of being comfortable or comforted; the mitigation or elimination of discomfort. Specifically, the point of view held by defenders of religion, both religious and not-necessarily-religious, that religious belief, even if demonstrably false & unsupported, provides comfort to those who hold it.

With special regard to death & bereavement, this is maintained all the time. Even if someone's religion is false, they might say, the fact that they believe their departed loved one is in a much better place is easing their pain and dulling their grief. Even in their bereavement and suffering, they take solace from their belief that the deceased person now sits with God. As they contemplate their own inveitable death, they may draw comfort from the prospect of finally meeting their maker and being reunited with those who went before them.

What I'd like to know is how comfortable these believers feel contemplating the afterlives of other people - specifically, people who don't share their beliefs. With few exceptions, most people in the world have relatives and friends of different faiths and/or of no faith at all. How comforting is it to think about what happens to them once they die? How nice could eternal bliss in Heaven possibly be with the knowledge of loved ones being tormented forever elsewhere or, as some religions maintain, simply ceasing to exist?

As a child, this troubled me. The thought of Hell was bad enough in and of itself, but the thought of friends or family being sent there while I went to Heaven was utterly beastly. Surely God would know that not everyone had the same religion, or if they were, not necessarily of the same sect (as a nominal Protestant, I worried about my Catholic friends and I'm sure they worried about me). Surely God knew that many people in the world, mostly good people, had never heard of Jesus. If they'd never heard of Jesus while they were alive and therefore weren't Christians when they died, were they to expect eternal torment? This still troubles me - not because I believe it's true but because so many people seem to be so damned okay with it. Some aren't though - hence the proclaimed aims of evangelism and the subsequent being woken up on a Saturday morning by one of two main brands of Bible-thumper - and that's almost admirable. After all, they're trying to save people from the worst fate they can imagine. However, I can't help but wonder why they're not asking themselves why God created Hell in the first place, especially if he was going to make it so easy to gain entry - it's not like he had no choice in the matter. I'd suggest they actually ask God what the deal is with Hell, but there's a glaringly obvious reason why I won't.

I'm just wondering how much comfort a Christian takes from her faith whilst at the funeral of her Jewish best friend, who she believes won't be joining God in Heaven and may even burn forever. Can a Muslim draw any comfort from his faith if his son, an apostate, an atheist, lies before him in his grave? What of the Jehovah's Witness on his deathbed, spending his last moments in abject sorrow because his children left the one true faith, the faith of his fathers? It would seem that, in these cases (which must happen every day across the globe), a person's faith would provide no comfort whatsoever. Quite the opposite.

Of course, some religious people say "specific belief doesn't matter - all paths lead to God," in which case there would be no point in subscribing to one belief system over another. But I strongly suspect people who say such things wouldn't convert to another religion or even just renounce their own for, say, five minutes, even to make a point. I think they say such things to comfort themselves as they contemplate the doom of a loved one. I think the fear of Hell (a cornerstone of even the most moderate Christianity - what did Jesus get himself executed for if not to save us all from the Hell of his father's - his own making?) will always be strong enough for most believers to remain in the fold.

So, no, I don't buy this "religion provides comfort" business - especially when talking of death, which is when comfort is most needed. Indeed, it would seem that the stronger your faith, the less comfort you can possibly take from it if the deceased isn't of your flock, or if you're contemplating your own death in the unshakeable belief that many of your loved ones won't be joining you. If I were still Christian, I could think of nothing more harrowing than the prospect of dying & entering Heaven to sit with God, only to see my wife, my brothers, most of my friends or my parents condemned for all eternity and out of my reach. No amount of racing Jim Clark down golden streets or long, stoned conversations with Hendrix or real-life Quake games could comfort me.

Now available on Planet Atheism

Greetings Loyal Reader

GSV is now fed to Planet Atheism, a great reading resource for heathens and one of my Daily Indispensables (see sidebar). Add it to your feeds today.

.m.

Google's digital burqa

Well, this is interesting. It seems Google is censoring itself when it comes to religious search terms:

In the search field type "Christianity is" and you will see recommendations of "bullsh*t, not a religion, a lie, false, a cult, wrong, fake, dying, Jewish, and not a religion t-shirt."

In the search field type "Hinduism is" and you will see recommendations of "monotheistic, false, polytheistic, the majority religion of, the oldest religion, not a religion, fake, most commonly found, characterized by, and wrong."

In the search field type "Buddhism is" and you will see recommendations of "not a religion, wrong, not what you think, bullsh*t, polytheistic, a religion, false, based on what concepts, the best religion, and atheism."

In the search field type "Judaism is" and you will see recommendations of "false, not a race, not a religion, a race, a religion of the book, not Jewish, a gutter religion, monotheistic, a cult, and a religion."

Try typing "Atheism is" and you will see recommendations of "a religion, dead, not a religion, wrong, the new fundamentalism, growing, a non-prophet organization, so senseless, illogical, a religion supreme court." Clearly they are not holding back on the Atheists.

Now, let's try Islam. Type in "Islam is" and you will see...
Absolutely nothing. That's correct. Google makes no recommendations based on searches of "Islam Is."

Why is Google blocking search recommendations for "Islam is?"

Re-post Theatre

I present to you a *rofl* classic from July 2008 - all about Satan! Click this: [linkage] or read the below the fold.

Irish Blasphemy Law - feckin stupid

In a baffling display of religious idiocy, Ireland decided in the middle of 2009 to backslide into territory normally occupied by medieval theocracies such as Saudi Arabi. How exactly? By making it illegal to blaspheme - that is, by making it a crime to express thoughts which are disparaging of or offensive toward religion. Yes, in fecking Ireland, a country which knows - which should know anyway - almost better than any other Western country the torment of religiously-based violence and division.


How this came to pass in Ireland, which is considered a Silicon Valley of the EU and has suffered more than its fair share of pain at the hands of religious fanatics, is beyond me. Nonetheless, there it is in black & white: have a crack at faith and you'll pay the price:

...publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted

... is now a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to €25,000.

That's around $40,000 AUD. What the feck?

Atheist Blogroll

Greetings

General Systems Vehicle 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.

:)

Paula Kirby on Ireland's avenging angels

Paula Kirby at the Washington Post nails it as usual. She identifies Ireland's Murphy & Ryan Reports into the decades of institutionalised abuse of children and subsequent cover-ups by the Catholic Church as the most important religion news of the past year.

The Ryan Report, published in May, shocked a normally phlegmatic world with its catalogue of physical, sexual and emotional abuse perpetrated on generations of Irish children, mostly at the hands of Roman Catholic monks, nuns and priests. More shocking still was its conclusion that this savage abuse, far from being the random acts of a few out-of-control mavericks, was both endemic and systemic and, furthermore, was actively covered up by the Church, whose only concern was the preservation of its own reputation.

The Murphy Report, which was published just a month ago, focused on the way allegations of sexual abuse were dealt with in the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, by both church and state authorities. This report found that:

The Dublin Archdiocese's pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.

Happy arbitrary New Year

Apparently it's been 2010 years since the birth of Jesus.

I wonder if the mad-as-a-cut-snake birthers in the US - the ones who keep bollocking on about Obama's alleged un-American Kenyanness being reason to have him deposed - are equally concerned about Jesus' pedigree? Records of Jesus birth' are spotty as heck and, although they specify a place, don't mention a time whatsoever. Dude could be a Gemini for all we know! Do you really want to trust your soul to a flighty messed-up Gemini?

Anyway, happy 2010 CE and I hope your hangovers were awesome.