"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.


Beepbeepitsme 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.

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Monday, February 27, 2006

Belief - O - Matic

Even if YOU don't know what faith you are, Belief-O-Matic™ knows. Answer 20 questions about your concept of God, the afterlife, human nature, and more, and Belief-O-Matic™ will tell you what religion (if any) you practice...or ought to consider practicing.

Warning: Belief-O-Matic™ assumes no legal liability for the ultimate fate of your soul.

Monday, February 20, 2006

The Wacky Fortune Cookie Generator

Your Fortune Is

Better to be pissed off than pissed on.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

What If God Was One Of Us? - What If God Smoked Cannabis?

  • Question of the Day: If you woke up and found you were God all alone in the universe at the beginning of time, what would you do?
June said:
no plan
no rules
do nothing
go nowhere
being perfect
never got laid
knowing everything
same shit every day
no need to eat or sleep
knowing how it will come out
no point in planning anything
haunted by my past incompetence
like that fucked up solar system
where my idiot son got himself killed
sometimes I wish I could kill myself
it's hard to know I will fail again
but I will fail again and again
being god should be more fun
knowing everything sucks
being perfect sucks
never get laid
go nowhere
do nothing
no rules
no plan

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Random Thoughts on a Lack of Belief

I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." But," says Man, "the earth and the universe are a dead give away -aren't they? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore , by your own arguments, you don't. "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

  • What it comes down to is basically this: Christians and muslims both believe that god created everything. That god is omnipotent. omnipresent and omniscient. This concept is an anti-intellectual position. It is anti knowledge and repressive. If religious people end up dictating what will be taught in schools it will sound like this: REPEAT AFTER ME: "God created everything. No questions will be tolerated. Now please go to play lunch which god also created."
  • Faith attempts to reduce knowledge so that all that is required is the following of "belief".
  • That the gods created man in his own image might be one of the earliest and most successful pieces of propaganda. I would suggest that the reverse is true and that man created the concept of god in man's image. So that all that mankind is capable of, all his aspirations, character flaws and strengths, and all his desires and hopes and dreams have been formulated into a "god concept" in order to attempt to explain and rationalise existence. Therefore, people who are vengeful appear to delight in the aspect of a vengeful god and those who are loving they delight in the aspect of a loving god etc etc. If we are to accept that this proposition is true; that mankind created a concept of god in mankind's image, it goes somewhere to explain the contradictions associated with religions and religious texts.
  • I cannot know about the unknown through faith. I can only know by knowing. Hence I cannot know of the unknown through faith.
  • Religions are man made constructs particular and peculiar to the geographical, political, social and economic needs of the time in which the religion was constructed.
  • The "beauty" of religion as far as the powerful in society are concerned, is that it can be used as a method of societal control. Religion and faith demand that you do not question. A lack of knowledge is not evidence of god. If you follow this to its logical conclusion, god requires faith. Therefore knowledge or the lack of it, is superfluous.
  • Faith desires stasis so that all is reduced to that of religious text and religious belief. Consequently, any knowledge which might be in opposition to faith, must be debunked, in order for faith to survive.
  • He is one of those people who deny the existence of everything except his god concept. Apparently he lives in mortal fear that his computer will turn into a homosexual if he doesn't believe in jesus.
  • Religions require belief without question. There are punishments for questioning in most religions. So if you are brought up to be a believer, you are essentially brought up to not critically analyse anything for fear of punishment.
  • Religions persist because people are taught to believe without question. Those who are taught to believe without question do not develop the skills needed in order to question. Therefore they continue to be believers. This process is self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating.
  • Belief systems thrive on fear and though fear is part of human beings' survival mechanism; too much fear or overwhelming fear, limits the chances of survival. Religions persist in upping the fear levels in order to retain believers.
  • If god did not need a creator, then god came from nothing. Something can come from nothing?
  • If god did not need a creator, then god came from nothing. Which means that something can come from nothing. If something can come from nothing, it means we also can come from nothing which leaves no need for a creator.
  • The three major monotheistic religions all justify killing in the name of their omnipotent god, which is totally bizarre as if a god is omnipotent, it does not require man to do any killing to protect it.
  • Neither god belief nor the lack of it, will guarantee moral or ethical behaviour.
  • Religion is used by many people as a way of justifiying their political actions. If those political actions require them to kill others, they feel happy and justified to kill in order to protect their religious beliefs. In doing so, they create the evil they say they detest.
  • Is it love to create a heaven and a hell, then tell people they better do as you say and love you and get your damn name right or you're going to burn them for eternity?
  • You can find the same attributes of Jesus as being shared among the following gods that came before Christianity: Adonis, Attis, Baal, Bacchus, Balder, Beddru, Devatat, Dionysis, Hermes, Horus, Krishnu, Mithra, Orpheus, Osiris, Tammus, Thor, and Zoraster. So why should anyone disbelieve them while selecting only the human Jesus story to believe as reality?
  • There is the claim that atheists cannot prove the non-existence of god and theists cannot prove the existence of god, and that therefore these positions are in same way equal to each other. I would suggest that these positions are NOT equal to each other. They do NOT cancel each other out. As theists make the claim for the existence of something, it therefore behoves those who make the claim to have the burden of proof.
  • The atheist position is a reaction to a group of people who claim that god exists. These people are called theists. If there was no claim for the existence of god, there would be no atheists.
  • If I make a claim that aliens exist, it is not up to the disbeliever to go to every planet in the universe and disprove my claim. It is up to the person who claims that they exist, or to the person who believes that they exists to come up with the evidence or it is considered a claim without merit.
  • What if religion is just a memeplex that infects people's minds, pushing them into mindless servitude to some powerful, but untrue, concept? What if people are brutalized by practicing religion? Christianity, for example, has guilt as a major commodity. Would I be happier if my life was riddled with guilt? Would I appreciate and experience all the beautiful moments that I have on Earth if I was torn by a sense of hesitation?
  • Now, while I know that theists sometimes like to paint atheism as a sort of conspiracy by unwitting dupes of satan to fool the public, there is no doctrine of atheism. Nobody undergoes a course or passes a test to be an atheist; there is no catechism, no personal relationship, no moment in which the spirit fills you or feel the Word move upon the face of the earth. There is no commonality of positions in any meaningful way. And yet, becuase this group of people CAN be separated from the remainder, it is entirely valid to label them as non-believers, or atheists. That is a DESCRIPTIVE term. But that term does not imply a dotcrine to which allegiance is given.
  • What sort of confidence do you have that your methodology for ascertaining the veracity of information is logical, or unflawed? That you have considered all the variables and nuances that allow you to say that there is a statistical certainty that your belief system is correct? How do you ascertain the veracity of information? How do you become a discerning consumer of information?
  • "Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If faith is evidence, there is no attempt needed to justify belief. So stop trying to justify belief by posting things from the bible.
  • Is faith just an excuse to believe anything? No matter how implausible this belief might be?
  • How does a believer ascertain the veracity of information? There is no need for a believer to ascertain veracity because belief excludes the need for examination. If there is no need for examination, then all belief is possible, no matter how implausible or insane that belief might be.
  • If all belief is possible, then all gods are possible, even the ones I make up now. If all belief is possible, how do people choose?
  • Atheist Blessing: May your thinking processes expand in order to surpass your blind belief paradigms.
  • God belief is a recipe for everything theists consider to be the unknown. Then they go for a few hours telling you how they know the unknown.
  • Religions are like some sort of compulsive/obsessive disorder. People suppose that they have to do certain rituals in order to survive, when in fact the performance of those rituals could be the source of the problem in the first place.
  • "Jesus Loves You" and if you don't believe he will torture you eternally.
  • Gods/Goddesses do not exist merely because they have been defined to do so.
  • If there is evidence of god which is irrefutable, no one would need "belief" in the existence of god, they would "know" of god.
  • The willingness to believe is the path of least resistence and the willingness to think (or be logical) is the path of greater resistance. Therefore people have a propensity to follow the less challenging path.
  • " What is it that you do in your daily life that benefits mankind, that I can not do without the belief in your god? " SiberianGypsy
  • "God is unique. He is the supreme being, the creator of the universe. He must by definition exist." Things do not exist merely because they have been defined to do so.
  • "Then it seems to me that nothing will ever convince you that God exists." A clear definition of 'God', plus some objective and compelling supporting evidence, would be enough to convince many atheists.
  • The evidence must be objective. Anecdotal evidence of other people's religious experiences isn't good enough. Strong, compelling evidence is required, because the existence of god is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  • Being an atheist doesn't bring with it a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense.
  • Atheists live their lives as though there is nobody watching over them. Many of them have no desire to be watched over, no matter how good-natured the "Big Brother" figure might be.
  • It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in random events. However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the sort of thing that has a "meaning".
  • Asking "What is the meaning of life?"might be just as silly as asking "What is the meaning of a cup of coffee?".
  • If god is the concept for the unknown, god should not be able to be defined, for once god is defined, it is not unknown and ceases therefore to be god.
  • The universe is no more conscious or sentient of the individual parts which comprise it, than I am conscious or sentient concerning the individual cells which comprise my body. Therefore it has no need of my worship, my money or the slavery of my mind.
  • God belief is inherently dangerous because with god belief comes the competition between groups as to what constitutes god. Believers are people who are marching in lockstep towards a mutally assured destruction with insane smiles upon their faces as they hack their way through those who do not believe as they do.
  • After human beings anthropomorphised the universe and called it god, they attributed all of the workings of the universe to god. Then it was an easy task to make up the human characteristics and attributes for "god".
  • Human beings like to create order and will attempt to create order even if none is obviously perceivable. "God concepts" are an attempt to create order, in a world or universe that still perplexes people.
  • There might be an order in the universe of which I am unaware, but that is a different thing to saying" there is a god" and ascribing a definition and characteristics to that entity. One position is of speculation, the other is of imagination, dogma and belief.
  • Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." We share about 98% of our genetic code with chimpanzees and about 50% with bananas. We share no genetic code with dirt.
  • What sort of confidence do you have that your methodology for ascertaining the veracity of information is logical, rational and objective? Do you analyse to see if you have taken onboard the variables or the nuances that provide you with the conviction that your conclusion is valid?
  • Mankind does not know all the answers. So if mankind does not know all the answers, mankind's answer that it is god, might be incorrect.
  • If jesus were to stand up today, he'd be gunned down cold by the CIA.
  • If god is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.
  • It is a leap of faith to say that everything requires a cause except god.
  • "Belief" appears to be a pleasure seeking response. Knowledge recognises information regardless of the level of pleasure one derives from it.
  • The more heavily invested one is in the emotional content of a belief, the more likely one is to believe without requiring any evidence.
  • Believers appear to be like "battered wives". No matter how much they are battered, they are so emotionally, and psychologically invested in believing that "their master/god" loves them, that they deny evidence to the contrary. They put down the beatings or the horror to an aberration rather than an indication that there is something wrong with the relationship.
  • Believers deliberately create and elaborate upon the concepts of evil, that is their job. They create the concept of evil and then set up a business, namely religion to "save" us from it.
  • For every believer there is a different god, as each person creates the god which fulfills their emotional and psychological needs.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Do Dakinis Dance The Objection Tango Backwards?

Shakira - "Objection Tango"

(or an anachronistic perspective of the au courant feminine psyche)


Dakinis or 'sky dancers' are traditionally viewed in buddhism as enlightened female beings who appear in many persuasive forms. As there are many branches of Buddhism; concomitantly there is a profusion of dakini manifestations. There are worldly and wisdom dakinis. Within these there are vajra dakinis, ratna dakinis, padma dakinis, karma dakinis, and buddha dakinis. They manifest in dreams and in reality in a multitude of paradigms. Though aspects of an individual dakini image are in direct correlation with her role; she is frequently depicted with her right leg raised to symbolize dance.

On an individual level, their roles and abilities vary, though essentially their purpose is to supposedly act as an intermediary between heaven and earth. The concept of the angel fulfills a similar role in other religions and myths. They represent the feminine forces that in buddhism, are said to awaken dormant spiritual impulses in the subconscious. That is, dakinis are said to be in the 'space of becoming', where the range of enlightened activities occur.
According to buddhist belief, these activities include: pacifying, enriching, magnetizing and destroying. (1.Pacifying energy allays one's fears and sufferings. 2.Enriching energy increases long life and health. 3.Magnetizing energy supports spiritual development. 4.Destroying energy cuts through obstacles faced on the path.) Ingenuously, these energy covenants form the methodology of the Dakini's Dance.
The 'dance' of the dakini though not entirely prescriptive; would be in accordance with the four energy transfers. Any other 'dance', forwards or backwards would be considered unnecessary or unworthy. The tango, though a compelling and sensual experience wouldn't come under a dakini's "Must Do List" because the image of a dakini dancing the tango is an anarchronism. An anarchronism is the representation of someone or something as existing or happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.
That is, it is neither synchronous with the purpose nor the historical and religious contexts. The 'Objection Tango' is a song by Shakira. Though it is a catchy piece of music which portrays an aspect of the contemporary feminine pop culture; no dakini worth her vajra would contemplate it to be a dance worthy of performing. A dakini, supposing they exist, would only dance away from it. That is, she would dance it backwards.
There is a plethora of angel/dakini symbolism in our modern popular mass media culture. The symbolism though originally only used in a religious/cultural context, now graces almost every aspect of our consumerist culture from pop songs to pasta and from paintings to patio furniture. Consequently, it has become a way for women to define themselves or a way to claim special knowledge or power.
By attributing the title of dakini or angel in an arbitary way upon themselves, they assert to also ascribe the religious/spiritual powers of that entity upon themselves as well. This seems to be fashionable in a society enamoured with the notion of the supernatural, and consequently such symbols are worn purely as a fashion statement. Male dakinis, dakas, are also mentioned in buddhism, though this is rarely realized in western cultures. Hence, for those who consider themselves dakini or angel, I suggest that you may only have a fascination with the 'au courant feminine psyche'.
For, no matter how many belly dance classes or tango lessons you have attended, nor how many tai chi configurations you have performed, nor how many 'Awakening the Inner Goddess Symposiums' you have sojourned in, nor whether you can perform a dharmachakra mudra whilst standing on your head; the odds are:
(just like me) ~
you are ~
an ordinary woman with the CD player blaring at full blast ~
dancing to the strains of the 'Objection Tango'.