DesDownunder

I echo Cole, Wonderful James. Definite contender for poem of the year.

It is quite possible that religion becomes ingrained to such a degree in many people that it becomes futile to argue against those who have faith in it. Exposure to alternative, rational arguments for non-belief may offer varying degrees of release from dogmatism and bigotry. However, the underlying faith itself may persist depending on the indoctrination and acceptance of the explanations for the meaning of life, or projections for an afterlife. There can be little objection to such personal belief in a faith, but freedom of belief must be accompanied by freedom from that belief being imposed on others, if we are to avoid demands to submit ourselves to authoritarian tyrannies. Atheists are often accused of imposing their non-belief on others, but really, that accusation arises from the religious still applying the rules of dogma to the atheist's non-belief in any deity. The atheist in the purest form has no dogma because he has no belief. If dogma exists then there is belief and it is not really correct to call such a person an atheist. For this reason you may see many people now referring to themselves as non-believers. It's a little awkward, but if we think of them as not being subjected to a dogma it may assist us to understand their position of not being subjected or answerable to concepts of gods. For many people this will be a scary proposition; for others it will be a liberation from the demands of ancient texts and disciplines, including organised religions. If, as some would say, we are facing a confrontation between, and amongst, religious faiths, and those who have, for one reason or another, rejected religious notions, then let us hope we can be enlightened enough to accommodate the differences without returning to the forces of a new and terrifying crusade against heretics and non-believers on the one hand, and the believers on the other. We may also have to wait out the conclusion of horrifying confrontations in hope that some of us survive without the dogma. Of course, that will mean that we will be faced with the demanding, if not scary, proposition of understanding anthropology in psychological terms of the evolution of our cognition. This is scary because it might be easy to fall prey to a Darwinian model of survival of the most fit "id", or even the most dominant ego, rather than providing our species with the promise of human compassion; as stardust in search of evolving love.

My pet dislikes: ...would of...instead of would've (contraction of, would have. Also applies to should've, could've). Misuse of quiet, quit and quite. The authoritarian use, with disregard of facts, of "You know that is true (or untrue)", often used as an argument in debate. (It's a logical fallacy). This is now so common it can be heard not just in debates, but in movies and TV series as well. It makes me shake my tree.

For Cole: I thought he would say no if I asked him, but I had to try, and then he surprised me by saying, "Oh yes please."

An absolutely charming story. It really captured the moments of first times, and delightfully awkward family situations.

What about a hoot of owls?

The boyfriend is so supportive. No kid should have to suffer this.

Cole asks, "When did the truth become offensive?" I would answer, "The moment religion was conjured." As for the black kid being called black, I tell the following actual story that happened to me some years ago: I was tidying the front yard of my house with my shirt off as it was a very hot day. My skin is so pale that I could reflect sunlight like I was a second orbiting moon. I looked up from my yard work as one of my aboriginal neighbours walked past. He stopped and looked at me. I said, "Hi." He just stared at my pale chest and said, "Jesus, you're white!" To which I replied, "Christ, you're black." We both burst out laughing and became fast friends until he died at the young age of 50. I remember him with fondness.

My experience, suggests that kids respond to example provided that it is accompanied by explanation when it might appear to the kid that adults abandon what they preach. It is so easy to explain that "Do as I say," is part of a learning process aimed at providing the child or teen with skills and knowledge that permits them to acquire the ability to abandon the limits of the learning process. The more we can encourage the means to abandon the rules of limits, via education, the more we encourage the kid to utilise the knowledge they gain. Before any of this works, trust must earned and provided by both child and parent in this mentoring process. That it doesn't always work, is often due to the parent failing to accommodate the natural rebellion of youth. Too many parents try to limit the child's pathway to independence simply because they want the child to be a clone of their own ego. Protecting a young person is part of parenting and mentoring, but providing the young with the means to develop life survival skills, and their own unique perspective, is quite often restricted by both the parents and the culture. At best it is an endurance test for the adult and a burden for the young, but if there is a basic understanding of the value of questioning everything then the value of diverse acceptance will be transmitted as being unconditional love in both directions. Anthropologically, this amounts to the nurturing of the young for survival, but as we can see from ancient and even more recent examples, the adolescent eventually must be free to explore their own cognisance and experiences. Hopefully they will succeed in what really amounts to that common desire to pursue happiness, and if we have succeeded in the parenting/mentoring process, without harm.

Yeah, and I'm sure we can find arguments in favour of tagging geriatric dementia patients so they can be watched for their benefit and welfare, of course. It's bad enough having to conform to social customs let alone being forced to wear a personal GPS. The cell phone already comes fairly close to fulfilling that function. Stifling of individual expression and development that does no harm to anyone, is itself harmful; an erosion of human rights. The confusion of personal rights and social obligations usually ends with the individual having neither autonomy or social benefits. Make no mistake, there is a conflict brewing between those who demand compliance to rules of confinement, and those who pursue the freedom to exist without threat or harm to anyone; to question and discover, life and love. And people wonder why I am anti-authoritarian.

Wonderful, Wunderbar!

Quote: "I would chip them like a dog if I could," one mother said. I think that any mother who would chip her kids as if they were dogs is herself, a bitch.

Done and shared on my Facebook

My grandmother loved to crochet table cloths...extremely large table cloths. If I had kept one I could have had a crocheted toga.

The American Native beliefs as depicted in The Last Shaman are, for atheist me, quite acceptable in the story. The Creator is presented as a belief of Ravenhawk in the story and as such doesn't confront the beliefs of the others. The evil pastor however did use his religion as a demand to be obeyed, in attempt to control those around him. There's a difference between custom that does no harm, and irrational faith where such faith is a threat to the freedom of opinion and its expression. However, the atheist position of admitting that we cannot accept belief without evidence is not challenged by eloquent mythology when it is presented as myth.. Learning to live with the beauty of myth is part of the journey of our evolving understanding of our consciousness; our appreciation of reality.

So she was using her mouth on his mouth...that's just wrong.

Sometimes we need to lose something in order to recognise how much we value it. Seems like AD is priceless for most of us.

He has his own unusual method of CPR: :

Just remember that you asked for it, Cole, and yes I have watched all 2 hours of it. If you can make the time it is very worthwhile. http://youtu.be/wpK8ji1tADg

Cole, I love the vision of a nice paramedic, in the morning.

I've enjoyed the many YouTubes with Stephen Fry debating religion and atheism. He is so rational and yet compassionate; one of my heroes. I'll post from one of his more ardent and spirited debates, but Be Warned religious people may find it confronting.

Thanks Mike, they've taken me off life support now that the AD forums are back.

For the sake of transparency, I have to admit that "burden of priests" comes from my comment, in another thread, in which I coined, "priests of burden," being a play on the well known phrase, "beasts of burden." I'm happy for it to become common usage.

A burden of priests.