I SOOO needed a nap today. (Instead, I just wound up drinking lots of maté.) You saw the time stamp on my last entry, right? Well, my one bright hope as I went to bed was that today was Wednesday, and I don't have to go to work 'til 1 on Wednesdays. I FULLY intended to sleep in. (Of course, I wound up forgetting to turn off one of my two morning alarms, but as you'll see, that didn't matter much.) As it was, I was awakened a half-hour *before* my first alarm was scheduled to go off by my bed vibrating. (No, I didn't put a quarter in it; the windows were vibrating, too. And the walls.) As it turned out, my street, which was "scraped" nearly three months ago to prepare it for paving, was getting paved. That morning. Without prior warning. With a REALLY DAMN LOUD STEAMROLLER. About the *only* good thing to come of this-- well, two good things-- is that the road is now paved (and it's lovely), and luckily, I didn't have to be at work at 10 (because I would've been stuck in my driveway). But I'm short at least 4 hours of sleep, so the rest of this will be on the short side.
So, my two new things for the day:
1) Percy Bysshe Shelley, English Romantic poet (whose birthday was today), was an atheist. Militantly atheist, in fact. He was expelled from Oxford in 1811 for writing a tract on "The Necessity of Atheism" and sending it to college officials and (this takes brass) bishops. And it wasn't only college rebelliousness... the year he died, he wrote in a letter, "I have not the smallest influence over Lord Byron in this particular, and if I had, I should certainly employ it to eradicate from his great mind the delusions of Christianity which, in spite of his reason, seem perpetually to recur." (As a side note, why do atheists do that? Sure, there's no absolute proof *for* the existence of God-- that's why they call it "faith," you know-- but by the same token, there's no absolute proof *against* it, either. Sheesh. If you're going to argue on the grounds of "reason," use some damn logic, why don't you? (And as another side note, does Quentin Tarantino do *all* of his interviews drunk? This is the third time I've seen him on Leno or Conan or whatever, and yet again, he's totally plastered. Hm. Maybe he has stage fright.)) (Oh, and I'm too tired to look up proper citation format for a day-by-day calendar, but this comes from "irreligion," in Jeffrey Kacirk's Forgotten English 2004: a 365-Day Calendar, Wednesday, 4 August.)
Anyway....
2) A flash flood in 2001 in a remote corner of southeastern Iran uncovered some *very* old graves. Archaeologist Yousef Madjidzadeh is now leading a dig in the location for what he believes may be a *literate* Bronze Age society that actually predates Mesopotamia. Go read the article about it in the May 2004 issue (35:2, pp 40ff) of Smithsonian Magazine, entitled "Rocking the Cradle."
Okay. Bedtime.
Posted by gris at August 4, 2004 11:29 AMI dunno, Karen. You may as well ask why Christians often seem to feel the need to "convert" people to their religion as well. (I don't. I don't believe in god, but I honestly don't *care* what other people believe as long as they leave me out of it.)
However, having had at least 3 visits from the Mormons recently, I'm in none-to-good a temper about the "faith" thing. :D
Posted by: KT at August 5, 2004 08:54 AMKaren, the reason athiests adopt the view that "God does not exist because he has not been prove to exist" is because in everyday life, when someone believes in something for which there is no evidence we call them crazy/delusional/insane/etc. As you point out, faith is meaningless if the issue can in fact be proven one way or another, which is why fundamentalists drive everyone crazy. Fundamentalist athiests won't admit that there are some questions that can't be answered, and fundamentalist worshippers won't admit that there is no evidence to support their position because it is a matter of faith.
Posted by: Jeff at August 5, 2004 10:02 AMGood point, Jeff. I suppose it would have been fairer of me to say, KT, that fundamentalists in general drive me crazy. I have no problems whatsoever with an atheist wanting to debate, or to convert people to his or her beliefs (or non-beliefs, as the case may be). Christians do it because "sharing the good news" (which is the literal translation of evangelism) is one of the central tenets of the religion.
But to refuse to admit that the person with whom you're trying to have a dialog has ANY logical leg to stand on...? That's not dialogue or debate or even conversion. That's just talking to make your own wind.
Posted by: Gris at August 5, 2004 02:45 PM