I've Got Better Things To Do

iamlostandfound.wordpress.com

When we look at the animal kingdom or plant life, none of it worships anything. The driving force for them is simply to exist, they only desire to stay alive and ensure the next generation.  That would be ours as well, but the difference is that we as humans also have the ability to create a life that we enjoy while we are staying alive and procreating.

So do plants and animals think they have a creator? No, they don't think anything, they are only driven by instincts.

That then begs the question - why would some of us here think we humans should believe there is a creator worthy of being worshiped? Easy bullet point answers immediately come to mind - indoctrinated as children, social structures bringing them into a feeling of community, not wanting to feel out of place or odd man out in the crowd, experience of trauma and saved by a religious community... just to name the obvious. These situations can all lead to feelings of compliance and one of let's 'follow the leader' just because of the individual experiences the people had. This is the set up for worshiping someone or something. Because who wants to stray from the one thing or person that gave them comfort or continual care during their time of need? Throw in a little fear of what will happen if they are not compliant and there is the recipe for ownership by a creator. It is all about emotions during the experiences that are thrust on them. From this it is hard to escape when those involved want to so desperately to fit in and maintain that level of comfort they've come to rely on.

When we look at things realistically and without the influence of religion, we are all just part of the natural process of life. Every time an egg and a sperm get together fertilization ensues in about 70% of couplings and voila! potential humans are created and brought to term. Once that whole process is complete and life outside the womb begins, our individual goal is ultimately to just have the best possible life; our comfort level and our quality of life being of utmost importance until the very end.

Choosing to believe in a creator that needs worshiping does not mean that all humans turn out the same way or have predictable and easy lives. Those controlling the people would like that to be the case, but even with the restrictions and guidelines for godliness in place, there are deviations from the plan... frequently. Of course there would be because every life experience is different, each encounter with other human beings and situations influences decisions made and creates many potential outcomes. Religion can't control everything, it would like to think it can but it can't.

But imagine what a different world we would live in if what we produced weren't just mindless robots programmed to function according to someone else's idea of what a full life should be. We'd be raising potential adults that are taught to let life be a teacher with many lessons, allowing those experiences to fully engage them, and letting them learn and absorb those experiences in awe and wonder. Allowing them to consistently question everything for themselves rather than just shutting down their minds from understanding the world around them.... oh what a world it would be! Teaching our spawn to be self-reliant, ever questioning and in control of their own destiny... yes, that would result in a much different dynamic. I predict we'd live in a world with a whole lot less fear and more of a sense of adventure and wonder at what is just around the corner.

Further, we would not automatically think we needed someone or something to worship because we would depend on ourselves and our knowledge to propel us forward. Fully participating in our own life would keep us on our toes and reliant on ourselves at all times. We would, in essence, be the ones we'd look to for comfort and reassurance. We are connected to this world and most importantly, we'd feel acceptance and belonging because of the shared experience. There would be no need to look outside ourselves for something to make us feel whole. Worshiping something or someone wouldn't be necessary, nor would we have time for it as our lives would be full of following our dreams and desires. Who would want to spin their wheels glorifying someone or something else when the things you do for yourself give you the satisfaction to engage even further and deeper into the experiences of your own life? Who needs a god when what you possess yourself instinctively and determinedly can take you places that only requires that you are engaged?

Frankly spoken, what a waste of your time to devote it to the worshiping of another. You should be inspired by those who possess skills you don't have, learn things from others who have insights to share, even admire others for talents you wish you had, but to idolize or worship someone just because they are allegedly greater than you... NO! Every person has value and every one's value is different, worshiping someone else is negating the value that you yourself have. That is just stupid and in my opinion, it is just wrong to ever let someone feel like that.

Personally, I'd rather vomit than worship anyone, specifically a man-made god created solely for the purpose of controlling others. Do yourself a favor, go do something meaningful or fulfilling with your life... do anything that doesn't require giving up on what you have to offer or what you want to bring to this world. Your value sky rockets when you give yourself permission to believe in yourself.

Killer, Hero... Dead

topoften.com

I learned of his death recently in the Time piece "Killer ~ Healer ~ Victim", where Mark Thompson glorifies Chris Kyle for his heroic actions on and off the battlefield. I would say somewhat rightly so, but it would depend on what you feel should be considered heroic.

It is tragic and sad that Kyle's life was cut short by Eddie Ray Routh, the man who gunned him down; the man that Kyle was trying to help. However, frankly spoken, I think we should be talking more about his recklessness for bringing a mentally unstable man to target practice. Even a retired Army colonel piped in that it seemed crazy to bring a troubled young man to a firing range.

My intent isn't to malign Kyle in this forum, but rather to question his decision-making processes and hopefully learn from this tragedy. I've not stepped into this topic very deeply or discussed it at length previously besides posting a few images on Facebook that reflect my sentiments, but this piece struck a chord for me. This story highlights the crux of the gun violence debate, specifically the ones that are the most devastating.

Routh was unstable. He had a history of steadily deteriorating mental health, battled with drinking problems and his inability to maintain steady work only compounded his situation. It was very evident that he had problems coping after his four-year stint with the Marines, one incident clearly demonstrating this was the attempt he made to kill his parents in September 2012.

As much as Kyle has been glorified for his past actions, privately and work-related, wasn't using some common sense in this situation in order? It would seem that he was a smart man, what with his history and all. Did he possibly just misjudge this situation or are we to believe that he just thinks that guns are appropriate in any and every situation? Either scenario tells me that there was something lacking in Kyle's critical thinking skills when he made the decision to bring Routh to the firing range.

We've all heard the suggestion that guns don't kill people, people kill people; at least the NRA and many of the loud gun owners proclaim this to justify holding onto their guns. Why did this exact line of thinking not cross Kyle's mind in this situation? How does bringing Routh to the shooting range for treatment, this potential killer with training and someone Kyle knew was mentally unstable, even become a viable option? How does Kyle not stop to think of the possible deadly outcome considering what he was aware of with Routh? It seems a little common sense was in order.

Guns do kill people, especially when we put them in situations that give them license to do so, and in this situation, it was obviously to Kyle's detriment. I understand that no one really knows what set Routh off and why he chose to act out the way that he did, but how did Kyle not stop to think that putting a gun in the hands of someone disturbed wouldn't make it all better??? Again, no common sense.

"Kyle was a killer who became a healer. How could he so suddenly be transformed again, into a victim?" He died because he felt that "shooting was a key part of the process of treating troubled soldiers. He felt this helped them be "treated like they men they are: equals, heroes and people who still have tremendous value for society." His heart may have been in the right place, but his head really needed to be there as well.

Yes, guns don't actually make the choice to kill someone; it takes someone to pull the trigger. But can we at least all agree that keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people is appropriate and in the best interest of those around them. The disturbed might not be the best people to hand guns over to when we don't really know what they feel themselves capable of doing.

Can we use some common sense? Please?

Utterances

I can't seem to form fully developed sentences about you/us/the time we spend together. They just don't fall out in a neat, well-delivered package... all I come up with are adjectives... breathless, full of passion and without cadence.

The Fallacy of Labels - Part Two

Atheists still rank as bad people according to an article released on March 21, 2013 by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution. Not surprised, but more importantly, really just tired of still being categorized.

Friendly Atheist thinks we should still be vocal and continue to speak out against people who claim the atheist label is an automatic given of 'badness'. And he's not wrong, but what I disagree with is that we should stand behind a label as if that is what represents us, as in "Hey man, you got the wrong idea about us atheists! We're good!"

Labels are simply many descriptors of who we are as individuals. Labels that we identify with tell people how we live, what we think, what role we play in a situation, what we pursue, where we come from, how we align politically, it gives others around us a general idea of our ideology and thought process; to name just a few.

Labels suck... I've said this before and this recent post brings me back to the original reason for my posting about it to being with. Labels, in and of themselves, suck. Claiming that atheists (the label) are good, is wrong. Atheists, like any other group or label, have the potential of being good people, and some just do not rise to that descriptor of being 'good' people. Their actions would speak otherwise.

We shouldn't be furthering the idea that atheists are just better people because the 'other people' got the definition wrong. No, we should be telling those people they need to stop buying into a descriptor they got wrong and in some cases we might actually have to say "Yeah, he's a bad person AND he identifies as an atheist." Teach those that would knock the label the difference... THAT is what we should be promoting.

It's cool if we want to identify as atheists (it's a great descriptor for not believing in a god), but if we want to show the world that we are 'good people' then we should damn well act like it, too! We should be demonstrably showing the world what kind of people we are through our actions. And this goes for any group - agnostics/non-believers/christians/hindus/catholics/muslims... you get my point.

We will never truly get to a place where stereotypes, labels or groups go away and we will continue to be dismissed, discriminated against or marginalized if we don't stop valuing a group rather than individuals and their contributions and efforts. If we continue to reduce the people to labels, that is all they will only ever be.

These studies and, honestly, the continued approval needed by any community from these kinds of studies only goes to show that we value a label more than we do the actions of the individuals who happen to identify with that label.

I just think that sucks.