The tartan of a life

This post is a Christmas card for my aunt and uncle in that beautiful, warm, green place by the water.

You cannot know how much I love you and how important you are to me and mine.

Everything that is good is grounded in you, that place, the now, and the forever-will-be-part of the very chequered tartan that is my colourful life.

Boys are often dumb...

I am endlessly curious about and fascinated by what seems to be a generalised belief held by many men that the type of car they drive, the name given to the work they do, the fabric their clothing is made from or the leather used to make their shoes (Snake? Really? They don't see the irony?) conspire to enhance their general attractiveness and the size of their physical attributes.

Boys, this is not true. Yeah, that's a cool car (your music sucks and is way too loud) but it doesn't make a man of you; yeah, your big, fancy title is interesting but you're probably being paid WAY too much for the actual amount of work you do and in today's times, post Lehman Bros et al, that title and your what's written on your pay stub are suspect; your suit is great but the likelihood you picked it yourself - pretty slim... and those shoes mate? C'mon. As for the physical attributes, let's just say, it's not the gun, it's the gunner....

Here's a tip, boys: real girls - and boys - like the colour of your character and the depth of your ethics; when all the accoutrements are stripped away, without excellent character and ethics, what is there?

Either....

I'm really smart and people agree with me

Or, they think I'm idiotic and my stuff's not worth commenting on....

Either way, I would love some comments, dear readers.

Debates with believers part a million....

This is yet another repost of an exchange that occurred on a social network. Before I get into this thread, I'd like to note again how readily believers read general comments, take them personally and wade into an argument. Anything that is italicised and bold has been added by me in this post to clarify my thoughts on the exchange.

I'd also suggest readers of this post (and other similar post that appear here also) note who is using the word "YOU" in their comments - and how and when they're using it, and who is using the word "I" - and also how - when commenting or replying.

The use or not of "You" is significant. I have bolded the occurrences of "you" in this thread (some may have been missed, however).

Also, although I have inserted the Latin term 'sic' behind spelling errors in the early part of this thread, I eventually gave up....

Finally, if you're reading this and it feels a bit like déja vu, you're right: I posted the early part of this conversation last week. This week, however, a bunch of other people decided to gang up on me.

As always, I invite your comments but PLEASE READ the entire post first, yeah?

  

Progressive Christianity: the definitive oxymoron.

This was my general, not-directed-to-anyone-in-particular comment.... This is the conversation that followed.

JP: Depending...

WriterWriter: I'm not sure how 'progressive' relates to '2000 year-old tribal writings'....

BW: here's my take on religion in general.....
If you believe.....then you can't persecute those who don't .....
If you don't believe....then you can't persecute those who do....
(Just to note, the person who made this TRUE comment resorts to some persecution and threats later in this conversation.*)

WriterWriter: True.
However, asking questions is not persecution.
Asking for substantiation is not persecution.
Pointing out fallacies, inconsistencies, falsehoods is not persecution.

Those are the rights of rational, thinking people in a democracy.

In THIS democracy, freedom OF and freedom FROM religion are protected by our constitution and Bill of Rights but neither of those protect any religion or any subscriber to religion (of any type) from being questioned.

JP: It can be when the tone is mocking. (I'm not sure what 'it' refers to here or when the 'tone' is mocking).  Its (sic) not a question when you are "pointing out realities" (actually, I said fallacies, falsehoods and inconsistencies).

For some people, this (I'm not sure what 'this' refers to here) is a part of their reality, and whether you believe their view of reality to be true or not, that (not sure what 'that' refers to either... )needs to be honored (sic) (WHY??).

Its (sic) not a question when you consider those who think rationally different from those who don't (no, the writer is correct; it is not a question to think those who think rationally are different from those who don't). 

There are lots of religious people who think rationally (Ok, I'll concede this point except they don't on the points of religion, which is not rational in any way and doesn't pretend to be rational: hence, faith). 

It's not a question when the "question" makes others feel small.

(Ah, yeah, it is. Their feeling small has no bearing on whether a question is a question).

 

Perhaps those within religion have made you (why did this suddenly become about me?) feel small and insignificant and that's why you attack* (question?) it with such vigor (sic). There is a difference between an opinion and a question. I respect yours (my question or my opinion?), as a rational, thinking human being (I don't know if the writer means they are or I am the rational being). 

I hope the same courtesy can be given to me. (When did this suddenly become about this commenter? My initial four-word post is entirely general).

WriterWriter: How did this become about anyone in particular???

Why is it people always try to find reasons (i.e. I've been made to feel small) for atheism? Why should there be any reason beyond there's NO evidence for any god: not the god of the christians and jews and not that of the muslims - no more evidence than there is for ANY of the 5000 or so gods that have passed through human history.

Here's a question: If you had been born in the Middle East to parents who follow Islam, would you still be a christian? (This question was never answered)

I will say I disagree intensely with the idea that religion 'needs to be honoured.' Why?

Being affiliated with a religion - ANY religion - does not make a person good or nice or honest or ethical; nor do such affiliations insure morality. So honour then based on what?

Tell me why I "need to honour" beliefs that are based on no evidence. Why should such beliefs benefit from any more honour than a belief in Thor or Krishna or pink unicorns?

... please give me any example of when I have attacked.

Also please tell me why questioning with vigour constitutes attack. (not answered)

WriterWriter: I wish I could take bets on how much - if any - of this excellent article will be read by certain participants here but there you go...

And before anyone slams me for being aggressive or mean or too frank whatever term, I didn't write this...

Progressive Religious Believers' Big Hypocrisy: Cherry-Picking the Parts of Religion they Like and Don't

If you're just going to use your own conscience and your own mind to decide what's right or wrong, true or false -- why do you need God?

JP: I didn't "slam" you for being too aggressive* (Um, yeah, ya did, by alleging I attack). I don't think you're mean or being to (sic) frank (We'll keep this comment in mind too, for later...). I'll read your article, if thats (sic) who you mean by "certain people".

WriterWriter: Lots of people are following this thread. Lots won't read that.... Like I said, don't take the general personally.

WriterWriter:  Just to quote you, " Perhaps those within religion have made you feel small and insignificant and that's why you attack* (question?) it with such vigor (sic)."... You suggested I attack... attacks are, by definition, aggressive.

What I will say to all the religious readers of this thread is this: my comments here provide you every opportunity to provide evidence, proof, backup, substantiation, etc. and provide you a wide-open opportunity to convert someone.

What I often - and I mean 99.9% of the time - get in response to my questions or suggestions is defensiveness, not reply. (for evidence of this, keep reading...)

I have asked SEVERAL people (two pastors) to define the 'beliefs' I have and have had NO answer - although they have both responded with insults (about my character and intelligence, much preceded by 'you are,' or 'you should' type comments) (Twitter).

I have asked for substantiation of the main players in the stories and have again had insinuations and outright insults but no answers.

I have asked simple questions like the one I posted today about Noah (where did he get polar bears and south-pole penguins, etc) and another about how 'god' managed to create light three days before the light source, but have been told (and YES I WILL pull the direct quote) that I am intellectually bereft and incapable of comprehending the bible.

I have provided endless links to excellent writers and research sources, videos, refutations, encyclopaedic references and have had back only biblical references to support biblical references: the concept of circular reasoning seems to escape.

Finally, I have had any number of insinuations about my mental health in the sense that I must be mentally damaged to be doubting something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

But not one has taken the much-proffered opportunity to convert an educated person who comes from generations - TEN - of staunchly christian family that has at least one pastor in each of those 10 generations (five in this one). (They have, however falsely accused me of saying they're stupid because I have read more than they have....)

If I were on the other side of this fence, I'd say that someone like me was a hell of a catch and I'd make every effort to research my sources, know what I was talking about, answer questions, read the heck out of every possible resource, back up my answers and be real in order to hook such a fish.

NOTE:

(I have emphasised certain words in the next comments to highlight the use of charged words. I just thought it was an interesting contrast to my having tried to keep my comments as neutral as possible, considering the subject matter)

GP: RESPECT !!!........a very SIMPLE concept......but not... seemingly for you!!!! (aaaannnddd cue the attacks).....RESPECT my son for his belief system......RESPECT me....for mine!!......I don't give a rat's ass for what YOU believe (So, I have to respect this person's belief system but they don't give a rat's for mine. OK.... )......it is YOUR belief system!!.....I listen to to (sic) what you believe......I don't question it (maybe you should?).....it is YOURS......your verbal retaliations (VERBAL? Maybe they're using reader.... Retaliations? WHERE?) come across as a personal attack.....no one is really caring to debate you.....most of us don't have the time or energy too (sic).....not that you would listen anyway's (sic)!!......you just delete friend's (sic)......or block comment's (sic)!.......because they anger you!.......and....just for the record......you have raised your children in YOUR belief system........so how are you different than ANY of ???......

(For the record, I have not raised my children in any belief system: they are and have always been free to consider all or none). 

GP: ‎~R~E~S~P~E~C~T........  Thank you BW....you nailed it! (relates to the third comment in this thread)

DN: I truly get a kick out of people who can open there (sic) mouths and spew their thoughts while while (sic) anyone who tries is so wrong (except I am STILL waiting for any of these people to comment on the SUBJECT rather than attacking me). Respect oh there's that word again. Respect. I guess that word only works for certain individuals. So unbelievable. i personally don't care to read someones link (translation: I don't care to educate myself....).

maybe these links are spewing propaganda for atheists (so, let me get this right; this writer won't read any links I post because they don't want to read anything that might be "atheist propaganda,' whatever that is...?). 

Oh yeah right i'm probalby not educated enough to understand. Im sure i will hear about it. My thoughts and beliefs are totally wrong (OK, if you say so.... ).

BW: I'd just like to know why it is you demand justification for someone elses beliefs? You seem to crusade against religion with radical passion, and respond with someone elses diatribes about their own personal convenient choosings and how that just makes a mockery of the whole belief system......You enjoy fitness activities and photography, and no one slams those activities or crusasades against them or blogs about the lack of proof that fitness activities are indeed healthy...no one on here challenges anything that you enjoy, believe, or take comfort in. And yes, the beauty of the web is that it is indeed an open forum, ...but using it to take a stab at the beliefs of a life long friend and her family , for all the world to see, shows a complete lack of respect. Ask yourself if the challenges are worth the cost of a life long friend?
(Ok. I must note here that I did not and did not intend to single out anyone. My comments were - and are, as much as possible - GENERAL. This commenter is suggesting - via veiled threat on someone else's behalf - that I should shut up or lose a friend)

WriterWriter: Nope. I did NOT attack, pinpoint, or disrespect JP with my initial post. It is GENERAL and not about anyone specifically.

Secondly, I note - as always - that the participants in these threads rarely, if ever, reply to specific questions and resort VERY quickly to attacking my character. (See? No names and no identifying information)

But this idea of respect is really interesting: I will say quite categorically that those of us who err on the side of evidence, proof, verification and reality are on the short end of the respect stick.

It isn't a question of not respecting the PERSON. Not at all: it is, however, a question of retaining respect at the same time as having the RIGHT (and responsibility) to ask questions about things that don't make sense, aren't true or don't add up.

I have always and will always have respect for people's beliefs - and for this country's constitution that protects the right to believe - and the right to FREE of belief.

HOWEVER, those who claim a belief in something are substantially responsible for providing some reliable evidence and support for those beliefs. What almost always happens is when those beliefs are put to the test, rather than a rational discussion ensuing, the above types of comments occur.

Reacting angrily and throwing insults at a writer who says something one does not agree with or know about is NOT a discussion: it is tantamount to a temper tantrum and has no relationship to discussion.

DN, PLEASE tell me - and QUOTE me - where I have "spewed propaganda for atheists," and what exactly that might be.

GP; Please, please, please tell me what it is I believe given that the definition of atheism is an ABSENCE of belief. Secondly, please tell me where I said anything disrespectful to or about J; and finally, SOMEONE please explain how a general comment became about anyone in particular!

BW, I am not 'demanding' justification: however, I am educated, as I grew up in a church environment and come from a very large family of religious people - and ten generations of the same.

Yes, now that I have stepped back and have spent more than five years reading everything I can get my hands on and researching what I grew up believing, I am asking people to substantiate what they say they believe (in this conversation because they jumped in to the conversation. I don't walk up to strangers and start in on them...although, sometimes I'd really like to.).

Re your comparison of real things - tangible things like running and photography - to things for which there is no evidence, proof or substantiation for 'real' it's a stretch.... (I have evidence for my photographs and for my running - or lack thereof at the moment, given my waistline; Believers have no evidence whatsoever for the claims they make)

I am SHOCKED by how angry those same people become when they encounter information that is at odds with what they say they believe. I am also shocked to comprehend how unwilling people are to read anything that challenges their paradigm.... wait. Actually, no, I'm not surprised by that at all: the only way to be sure of one's beliefs is to never put them to any significant test... but I digress...

To the original post: My comment, that progressive christianity is an oxymoron is NOT directed at anyone in particular ... (redacted); however ... chose to make it about ... and others here have gone there too.

Secondly, this is MY ... feed. I am comfortable speaking as I do and have no embarrassment about the opinions I hold or the research I've done or the things I post. If others are offended, they have several choices:
Self-censorship;
Research - and post countering opinions (but please understand that I may also continue to post other also-countering opinions and information;
Remove the 'friend' connection.

However, under no circumstances will I be cowed into censoring myself because others don't agree with me. Just because people don't agree does NOT mean that I am wrong or disrespectful. It means that I respect people enough to engage them in a very complex subject because I believe them intelligent enough to engage.

Finally, to the point of respecting religion in general: WHY. Why should any philosophy deserve any respect simply for existing? Why should one religion deserve more respect than any other - and more than no beliefs - when thousands of religions - and gods - have preceded it and when there is no more proof or substantiation for it than any other in existence now or in the past?

Why should the North-American version of religion deserve any more respect or be accorded any more 'truth' than religions elsewhere?

Have your beliefs but don't be surprised, and don't resort to insults and insinuations, when people who choose to really consider what 'belief' and 'faith' mean ask pointed questions.

And DON'T take the general personally: it indicates a certain insecurity.

As always, I hope you will, even in the smallest way, take advantage of the links I post here:
Greta Christina is one of my favourite writers: here is some of her work, particularly on the subject of believers debating atheists

.. and on the dangers of 'progressive' christianity':

Some readers may not like this stuff - but not liking it only means they don't like it, not that it's wrong;

Stuff that challenges one's paradigm will do one of two things: it will allow them - or force them - to go find material that supports their beliefs and paradigm or it will bust them out of their beliefs and paradigm. THIS applies to me too, which is why I read EVERYTHING for or against my subject matter.

GP:Wowzer's.....you just don't get it...on any level....

DN: Oh julie you crack me up. Your rants are hilarious

BW:You're strong in your convictions....we get that.....but so are GP and JP, and all who believe....
(Fine. My issue is that you hold these convictions you refuse to challenge AND you get all angry when anyone else challenges them.)

Your posts and questions indicate to me that you're looking for proof and answers (Congratulations, Sherlock....)

 but challenging people on a public forum isnt the way to go about it. (Women should shut up and not speak in public? Don't ask questions in public so we believers won't have to be shamed in public?)

Perhaps you should investigate a term at a bible college where you are encouraged find your own answers.
(Ahahaha... I can't imagine how a bible college would even consider letting me in or what they'd do with all my questions, but reading everything I can and asking questions of believers is exactly how one goes about finding their own answers... or do you mean finding the answers YOU want me to find?)

While you may view your posts/comments as matter for debate, they are delivered in such a manner that they are viewed as an attack....
(This is exhausting. "... viewed as" does not equal "are.") 

you're making these people defend and justify what they believe in and you simply DON'T have that right.
(Ah, yes, I sure do. I every right to question the extraordinary claims of 'believers.' its one thing to enter in to a fact based debate (Religion is not fact)...but the truth of the matter is that what you have here is a debate based on beliefs where there can be no victor....your beliefs/views and opinions cannot trump anyone elses just because you want them to (Ok, that's just dumb: these people all jumped into what was NEVER supposed to be a debate and then tearing me down because they chose to engage???)

Quotes from various blogs are also someone elses opinion that you seem to think back up your opinion....(Ok. I don't know if this person finished school but I'm pretty sure they went at least to grade nine or 10 - where they would have had to go to the library, read other people's writing and use it to support the points of their own essays.)

If you can believe said blogs without challenge (When did I say I 'believe' blogs without challenge?), why can't the faithful believers of the world believe in their convictions with the same courtesy?? (They can. They just can't be pissed off if I ask them a question and they can't answer it). you've made your point....your (sic) a non believer......no one bothers you about it (EXCUSE ME??? No one bothers me about it??? NO ONE has put a LOT of time into writing the above comments.... )......so let it go.......unchallenged as it is.... 

So, GP if I understand correctly, as long as I don't say anything - no matter how general - that you disagree with, all's well; but the second I make a general comment you don't like, or ask a question that I'd like an answer to it's a personal attack?

Are you also suggesting I have no right to question religion on my own Facebook page?

Are you suggesting that I censor myself because my opinions and the links to other opinions I post offend some people? Would you apply that same expectation to yourself?

DN, I'm glad you find this amusing. I also find it quite amusing that a completely general comment was taken personally to the point that four commenters came out swinging....

I'm not sure how my four-word general observation, or my comments in response to others here constitutes a rant or why the very pointed and very personal comments do not....

If anyone who has commented here would like to ante up and QUOTE me when I have personally attacked any specific person here, please do. Just be mindful that I will do the same.

One must be judicious in their use of the word "YOU" in exchanges such as these....

Anyway, this exchange continues, even as I write this blog. The players are either cornering themselves or exiting the conversation because what else can they do besides end up looking stupid.... E.G.:

BW: I have no interest in proving, or disproving any of it....it just doesn't matter to me one way or another....

I think it's weird to weigh in on something you not only don't know anything about, but when you actually don't want to know..... Adding this comment on 19-01-15, because I'm re-reading my blog and came across this last comment. This guy, despite my being VERY clear I DO know quite a bit about my subject matter, and HAVE expressed a very keen interesting reading the commenters' responses to any of my questions, suggests I don't know anything and don't want to know. It's like he - none of them - read anything I wrote. Also, the person who made this last comment is now an effective atheist and, is no longer very close to the two people he was defending. 

This is for all those sweet religious people who say I attack them...

Every time I say anything or ask any question pertaining to religion, a legion of the faithful tell me I'm a horrible person, that I don't respect them and that I have, essentially, no right to speak or to ask those questions or to hold them accountable for the myth they foist upon people - other people who can't or won't speak up or who are too lazy or terrified or brainwashed to do ANY research into what they think they believe.

NO, I do NOT respect that attitude and NO, I do NOT 'need' to honour someone just because that person chooses to believe in myth.

Until you, Mr. and Mrs. Religious-of-any-type can give me some EVIDENCE that your god - one of more than 5000 in human history - is the IT guy, then you can screw off with your admonishments in my direction.

So, I learned a thing or two today...

1. One's tone of voice impacts how a READER perceives the tone of a question... a written question....

2. Christians are defensive and will make the most general comments about them....

As evidence:
" It can be when the tone is mocking. Its not a question when you are "pointing out realities". For some people, this is a part of their reality, and whether you believe their view of reality to be true or not, that needs to be honored. 

 (OK, WHY should I or anyone honour - HONOUR - another person's reality??? Humans would be sucked into a vortex of honour; everyone has their own perception of reality! Good grief....)

(The question in question was WRITTEN; hence, no tone of voice - no 'mocking' can be heard. This writer is inferring based on his insecurities.... Full disclosure; he's a youth pastor.... whose dad consumed - when I knew him - a lot of porn...). 

Its not a question when you consider those who think rationally different from those who don't. 

 (I know. That is not a complete thought or sentence....)

There are lots of religious people who think rationally. (yes... except about religion)

It's not a question when the "question" makes others feel small. 
(Ah, yea it is; the feeling small part comes from not having a good or rational answer)

Perhaps those within religion have made you feel small and insignificant and that's why you attack (question?) it with such vigor. 
 (Ah, there it is: the veiled insult in the form of 'something obviously happened to you.')

There is a difference between an opinion and a question. (yes, there sure is) I respect yours, (my WHAT? My opinion? My question?) as a rational, thinking human being. 

I hope the same courtesy can be given to me." (OK, but this isn't about you!)

What prompted this soliloquy? My Facebook post that "Progressive Christianity" is an oxymoron.

Seriously, religious people, you TOTALLY give away your insecurity when you take general comments and observations personally. If you're SURE of your beliefs and your dogma, why are you so very fragile in the face of questions? AND, if your stuff is really that convincing and great, why, rather than taking the much-proffered opportunities to prove your point, do you resort to the defensive stance? 

It's weak. And unconvincing.

But you're not really convinced either, are you?..... 

I wish you wouldn't make it so easy and so fun to poke holes in all of it.... 

This one's for Rob..

My English nephew, Rob, was with us for several months last year. He thinks Canadians have weird customs.

Washing computer keyboards in the dishwasher was definitely up there on the list...



I won a mug!

According to people who think they know me better than I know myself...

... I am
Self-righteous
Self-absorbed
A 'feral heathen'
A liar
A bitch
Arrogant
A racist
A radical
Angry Atheist

These labels and insults have been thrown at me, in public, by 'friends' of the "flesh and blood" type.
Why?

• Because I question anything that doesn't come with a reasonable amount of logic and proof;
• because I think that professionals, who have spent years becoming educated, who do their jobs because they like their work and are committed to their clients and patients, should not be insulted with the implication that they can't or won't do their jobs without the go-ahead from an invisible man;
• because I am proud to be Canadian and because I think Canadians should not only understand their country's constitution and Bill of Rights but they should whole-heartedly support them - and each other;
• because the colour of a person's body organs - no matter what that colour is - should never, ever be used as a weapon or a defence against reasonable, rational questions;
• because I am willing to cause an uproar rather than be false or to placate;
• because if one makes a statement, they must be willing and able to back up that statement, provide support for the statement and be prepared to defend the statement; and they must be willing to add to their knowledge, change their opinion and abandon their 'beliefs' when they are shown to be untrue: resorting to insults rather than understanding, supporting and defending statements is an abdication first and and admission the person slinging insults does not have any grip on their subject matter.

Because she was a much more intelligent person than people ever gave her credit for being and because this quantifies me too, I quote Marilyn Monroe:

"I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best."

I add this too: "Well-behaved women never make history."

I don't presume to make history and I won't be "well-behaved," which really amounts to not saying things and  to compromising myself in order that people who choose not to understand things outside their own paradigms are not moved to discomfort. I refuse to be false and fake in order to assuage the sensitivities of people who presume to know me and tell me who I am and what I believe.

So, in response to the insults lobbed at me:

Yes, I am occasionally self-righteous; I come to that as a result of being a voracious reader, from having an insatiable curiosity, to owing a large, large dose of skepticism and from being endlessly amazed by human behaviour; and to a confidence in my own intelligence.

Yes, I am, like all humans, occasionally self-absorbed. If there is one among you who is, in this area, 'sinless' let ye cast the first stone. Self-absorption is the basis of insecurity.

Yes, I am a feral heathen. I have returned to a wild, undomesticated state where it concerns fantastical beliefs because I question everything - myself included - on a daily basis. I am proud of my flexible mind and I defend my - and everyone's - right to question. I encourage you to click and read the definition of "feral." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/feral

Yes, I occasionally lie - as does everyone. This is true of all of us and more true of some of us - see 'religious leaders' and politicians for reference. Also remember the last time you lied to someone because telling the truth would have ripped out their heart....

Yes, I can be a bitch. I am particularly bitchy when people call me names and tell me I'm a lesser human because I don't think or believe as they do. I am bitchy when people tell me I have beliefs but won't define what they mean by that; I am bitchy when people diminish the commitment and skill of those around them; I'm bitchy when I'm too hot or too cold; and bitchy when I'm hungry and tired. I know those things make me completely different than all other humans....

I, like all humans, have my moments of arrogance. I, also like most humans, temper those moments with many more moments of insecurity.

I am not a racist. There is no such thing as 'race.' This would take me 20 pages to explain so I shall direct you to anything written or spoken by Nina Jablonsky, who is an expert in this field and who is a passionate defender of HUMANS, regardless of biological adaptations (Click link for Jablonsky's TED talk).

I will agree there is 'racism' which is the name humans give to the practice of hating and killing each other based on the colour of a large body organ.  I do not care if a person is sixty ways from rainbow on the outside; I do care very much about the shades of their character. (added) Apparently, Morgan Freeman agrees with me.

Yes, I am a radical, which is the apt and correct term for anyone who does not immediately accept everything fed to them and who will challenge things that don't make sense or are outright fabrications; and it is an apt term for people - female people - who don't always behave as some people think they should. Dr. Martin Luther King was a radical; John A. MacDonald was a radical; Marie Currie was a radical; Joan of Arc was a radical; Queen Elisabeth I was a radical; Rosa Parks was a radical; Mandela is a radical; my grade 11 English teacher, Mrs. McLean, who was the only university-educated person in her Irish Catholic family, was a radical; Einstein was a radical; Copernicus and Socrates were radicals. Dr. Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and St Augustine are radicals (were, in the last case). Here are definitions of radical: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/radical.

I am an atheist. That state does not make me angry. Being reminded every day of my young life that I was a sinner made me angry; people 'praying' while their children die makes me angry; people hating other people for what goes on in their private lives makes me angry; people shooting/bombing/kidnapping other people because of fantastical beliefs makes me angry; the refusal of so many to scrutinize what they think they believe; to put their belief system to the test; to consider other possibilities and people who lack the ability to say "yes, I was wrong," make me angry.(CLICK THAT LINK!)

Yes, I am angered when people do not know what they're talking about, don't know what they believe, don't understand where their beliefs come from and won't make any move to put their beliefs to the test, opting instead for calling me angry, self-absorbed, arrogant, a bitch. I can hear those insults reverberating off the walls that make the corners into which those who insult me - rather than really understanding what they believe - have backed themselves into....

In addition to all these things, I am a compassionate person. I love my children, am proud of them and fascinated by the wonderful humans they are, by their endless abilities to form friendships, by their love and by their humour.

I am a curious and interested person.

I love my friends regardless of their foibles and their failings but for their humanity and their love. I am unsatisfied but that is my motivation and inspiration to learn.

I will end a relationship when it is a appropriate. I will be sad about doing so but I will not regret it.

I am loving and kind and flawed.

I am human.

I am me.

Human: suposed to be smarter than dogs... but not....

Photo: Leah Hennel for the Calgary Herald

Last week, a Didsbury couple was viciously attacked by a couple of akita dogs. This headline provoked howls of "put them down" (the dogs) and all sorts of knee-jerk freak-outs.

Not to downplay the seriousness of the attack - because it was very serious and two people are very seriously hurt - but the humans in this scenario fall just short of deserving what happened. Had they any sense, they would have known and they would have acted prior.

Here's the article - and there are loads of similar reports. However, not one of those reports expands on certain key details of what happened. The Herald(amazingly) quoted the director of this city's animal and bylaw:

"Keeping the parent dogs together after a litter was born isn’t recommended ...," said Bill Bruce, director of Calgary animal and bylaw services.

“It’s likely (the mother) is going to be highly alert and not trusting [the breeding male],” Bruce said.
"Bringing the beagle into the situation possibly aggravated things further," said Bruce.(ABSOLUTELY aggravated!)

What the media fails to report and what the humans in question utterly ignored is this: the female dog was protecting four-day old pups; a "threat" - the couple and their beagle - entered the garage, which amounts to her den for the bitch; the couple put themselves and their own dog at risk by invading (in the dog's understanding) the nursery. If the 'threat' was on the ground, meaning the beagle was loose or even on a leash, one could - and should - expect that the bitch would see that as a danger to her puppies and that she would react to protect them.

If, in addition to invading the den, the couple that was attacked came near the puppies at all but certainly let their beagle near them, an attack is exactly what one might expect to occur, particularly considering the proximity of the mating male.


The dogs' owners obviously had not enough breed knowledge but also didn't have basic dog knowledge or they would have know that the breeding male of any breed should never be anywhere near the pups or bitch. Had they had breed knowledge, they would have known this applies particularly to akitas. They would have also known to provide a safe, sheltered, away-from-traffic location for bitch and pups. The garage, through which the attacked couple had to pass every day to get to their accommodations, was not a safe place for the dogs, the puppies or the humans.

If one understands how aggravating it is for dogs that letter carriers come every day, make a bit of noise and leave, it isn't much more of a stretch to understand how a new mommy dog, who is already protecting her brood from a male that would just as soon eat the pups, could react to the annoying comings and goings of humans and yet another dog.

This is a horrendous situation for all involved but the events were predictable. Dogs, despite being domesticated, are instinctual and their instincts will override their training and their attachment to humans in certain situations - new puppies being an obvious case.

The owners are to blame to the extent they did not provide a secure, protected area for the bitch and her brood, where the other couple would not have to pass by, regardless of previous interaction. The attacked couple might also have informed themselves about what behaviour to expect. These dogs did exactly what an informed owner would expect them to do in this situation.

One can never, ever assume anything with any dog no matter how domesticated, docile or 'known' the dog is. Dogs are still animals and they will, when they perceive a threat, protect themselves and, as in this case, their young. Common sense. Any dog behaviour book will make this clear.

I can speak to this personally: when my eight-year-old dog was injured and in terrible pain, he did exactly what I expected and tried to fend off anything that might have been the cause of that pain. He didn't know what had happened; he didn't know if he was being attacked; he knew that he was in great pain, on the ground and unable to retreat so he made to bite me. I dropped a towel into his mouth, which allowed him to bite down but also to focus on me long enough to know I wasn't going to hurt him more.

What SHOULD happen in this "attack" (which is more aptly described as a protective attack) situation is that the couple that was attacked sue the owners for putting them and the dogs in a very dangerous situation; and the owners should be banned from ever owning dogs. What will probably happen is two healthy dogs, who acted on instinct - exactly how a knowledgeable owner would expect - will be euthanized to pay for the stupidity of their owners.

I theorize often that most humans WISH they were as smart as dogs but, given Dunning-Kruger ("...occurs when incompetent people not only fail to realise their incompetence, but consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. Basically - they're too stupid to know that they're stupid. they're actually not smart enough to realise it."),situations like this will occur again. For sure. Guaranteed.

In the age of the Internet, why dog owners don't access the endless free information out there is beyond me.

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm wrong: it might mean you're wrong and you're defensive

God is a creation of HUMANS

Earlier this week, a long-time friend posted pleas for prayer for her brother, who, as a result of a genetic issue, is prone to all sorts of stuff cropping up. He's 52 this year, which is amazing in itself given his syndrome - Down Syndrome: generally, people who have DS don't live to be middle-aged.

Over his relatively long life, he has always had teams of expert medical professionals caring for him and, again given his age, they've done an amazing job. He is very healthy, generally, funny as hell, smart and a really pleasant guy with a crazy memory for names and faces.

My friend has cared for her brother most of her life and particularly now, as her parents are both deceased - her mother within the last 18 months. She also has three adopted children who each have profound disabilities; one, a young adult, is severely disabled due to their birth-mother's alcohol abuse (Even knowing what I know about FAS and FASD, I am amazed at the extent of this person's disabilities; she is blind and has profound CP); another who is profoundly damaged due to having been shaken as an infant and who will be three months old for the rest of their life; and a third who also has Down Syndrome.

Suffice to say, my friend, who is an excellent caregiver and endlessly compassionate mum, has had a lifetime of involvement with medical professionals who are integral to the well-being of her children.


Although I appreciate that prayer - calls for it - seems to make people feel better in some situations, in this case, I thought it offensive; such calls imply that the professionals who have always provided excellent care for the children in this family cannot function - and their education, skill and experience cannot be activated - without entreaties to the invisible man, who, if one is willing to make the next logical (in terms of religion) step, is responsible for these children's afflictions in the first place.

I'm terrible at biting my tongue and, as my friend's message was in public on FaceBook, I replied that perhaps taking action and relying on proven medical people was much more beneficial than sitting around talking into the air (ok, I say 'prayer.' But I meant "talking into the air.")

The distinction I make in this case is this: my friend, who said her "God is greater than any doctor," implied that the more-than 50 years of medical support her family has had depends entirely on entreaties to this invisible, malignant spectre, who, one might easily assume, lies waiting to visit horrendous afflictions on the beings it is alleged to have created and can only be stopped by these beings constantly supplicating it. Such a presumption is disgusting and insulting to those who, regardless of entreaties, care for the wounded and afflicted.

She countered by saying "Respect my beliefs and I'll respect yours," which is stupid on all counts: does she believe in her proven medical team - a team that has proven its worth for ages - or does she really believe that unless she rounds up the troops and has them speak into the air, those medical professionals will not have access to their experience and skill?

She didn't answer my counter - that I don't have 'beliefs' but I do have confidence in doctors generally - and that she should specifically, given her family's history. I also asked her to define my 'beliefs' for me, which she didn't: she just removed all my comments.

I appreciate that some people are very, very uneducated and have never had any involvement with doctors on the level my friend has; in those cases, I appreciate their belief that prayer works on some level. But for my friend to so reduce the skill of the support team she has and make that skill dependent on the whims of an invisible man - it was simply offensive. That she deleted my comments indicates she was in a corner: either she had to respond and deny her belief in prayer or disengage. Either way, face was lost.

Prayer is a waste of time. Period. There is no evidence at all of an invisible spectre and equally none for the idea that talking out loud into the air is anything but just that.

When intelligent people who should know better and who owe a huge debt of respect to a group of doctors that has literally kept their children and sibling alive all these years, devolve to talking into the air, it is offensive.

One of my favourite myth-busting websites is God Is Imaginary. It puts forth 50 proofs that 'god' is a creation of humans (all gods, for the record) and not t'other way round.

The first two sections of the site deal with and explode the myth of prayer with research and refutations of the inane apologetics of the religious, who, it seems, would rather make up all sorts of defences for their perfect being than simply say "this is utter crap" and get on with their lives.

In respect to people removing 'offensive' comments, it is a sure admission that one knows they're wrong and they're in a corner. Removing comments (particularly those that request evidence for claims) serves nothing more that as a confirmation that, no matter how much they protest, rail, scream and carry on, the religious know that what they say the believe is baseless, stupid bullshit.