A Whore in the Temple of Reason

Just A Thought

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:14:13 -0500

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

-Buddha

USC Atheist Music Study

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:47:44 -0500

Calling all So. Cal atheists - do you have intense emotional experiences while listening to music? USC is looking for atheists who would answer yes to the following, for a research study.

While listening to music, I felt myself to be absorbed as one with all things or I became aware of a unity to all things.

They'll even pay you a nominal fee...enough to offset the gas to get over there.

I'd go, if I still lived in South Pas. I have had these "oceanic" experiences quite often.

You think they play any Led Zeppelin?

PZ Nails It

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:54:39 -0500

Excellent essay. Salute.

Bloody Crackers

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:00:07 -0500

In case you missed them, a couple of amusing crackergate videos. Love the Britishization (?) of PZ Myers' name.

And: Crackergate claims a victim!

What's really mind-blowing to me is all the atheists (or purported atheists) on PZ Myers' blog who think that PZ is over the top for planning a cracker desecration because it sends the wrong message, it serves no purpose, it's juvenile, or even sillier, because it actually is offensive to Catholics.

Frankly, I think it would be more to the point and more in line with PZ Myers' academic background to fund a scientific study of transubstantiation and demonstrate conclusively that at no point does the goddamned cracker become human flesh nor the wine blood. But I certainly understand the visceral appeal and PR value of fucking with the cracker.

h/t to Scary Reasoner and Friendly Atheist.

Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:26:22 -0500

Just in case you're one of the few people in the world who 1) don't regularly read the brilliant PZ Myers'' blog or 2) don't keep up with everything the equally brilliant but more twisted Joss Whedon does and and so, as a result of 1) and/or 2) don't know about Joss' newest project, go right now to see Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog. You only have a few hours left!! Well, after that, you could see it for a nominal fee.

Notes from the Master Plan

1) Why, Joss? Why? Why now, why free, why us?
Once upon a time, all the writers in the forest got very mad with the Forest Kings and declared a work-stoppage. The forest creatures were all sad; the mushrooms did not dance, the elderberries gave no juice for the festival wines, and the Teamsters were kinda pissed. (They were very polite about it, though.) During this work-stoppage, many writers tried to form partnerships for outside funding to create new work that circumvented the Forest King system.
Frustrated with the lack of movement on that front, I finally decided to do something very ambitious, very exciting, very mid-life-crisisy. Aided only by everyone I had worked with, was related to or had ever met, I single-handedly created this unique little epic. A supervillain musical, of which, as we all know, there are far too few.
The idea was to make it on the fly, on the cheap – but to make it. To turn out a really thrilling, professionalish piece of entertainment specifically for the internet. To show how much could be done with very little. To show the world there is another way. To give the public (and in particular you guys) something for all your support and patience. And to make a lot of silly jokes. Actually, that sentence probably should have come first.
2) What happens when it goes away? Does it go to a happy farm for always like Fluffy did when mommy was crying and the neighbor kept washing his fender?
No, Dr horrible will live on. We intend to make it available for download soon after it’s published. This would be for a nominal fee, which we’re hoping people will embrace instead of getting all piratey. We have big dreams, people, and one of them is paying our crew.

And for those of you who still lust for Buffy and the Scoobies:

Yeah, I know that first one's photoshopped. Still.

Returned from the Dead

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:49:59 -0500

Just to bring you some comix from a great site, Offended Yet? (click pix to enlarge)

I love the last one. Best answer ever to the ontological argument.

Go check out his other stuff.

How to Pray

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:31:12 -0500

America's Best Christian, Betty Bowers, offers a short and timely lesson on how to maximize the effectiveness of prayer. Because at any given moment, millions are bombarding the Lord with prayers. Jesus Christ, he can't answer them all!

While Jesus is absolutely obsessed with blessing the spoiled spawn of wealthy Americans - truly he dotes on them - he has yet to hear, much less answer, even one of the heartrending prayers spoken by starving tots in foreign lands. Their technique must be appalling!

And that's why I'm here, to make sure that when you ask Jesus for cash, gadgets or real estate, you don't make all the same sloppy mistakes those inept poor people must be making when they ask for, say, a bowl of rice!

Never forget to say "amen" children! "It's like Abracadabra, only Christian!"

For God's Sake, Get Them to the Altar On Time

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:20:08 -0500

Congratulations to the gay people of California, who have finally been granted equality under the law by the State Supreme Court. While this may be temporary if the religious lunatics can garner enough support for their November ballot initiative, I suspect that support for the proposed ban is going to dwindle as time goes on and people realize that gay marriage is not actually threatening their own marriage.

Unless they are secretly gay, I suppose.

Call me a romantic, but I got a little misty-eyed this morning, thinking about the milestone and triumph for civil rights this court decision represents. There really is no valid - or even vaguely rational - argument against gay marriage that I have ever heard. All opposition stems from people whose indoctrination into ancient mythology is so ingrained that they believe homosexuality is evil. So evil, in fact, that validating their existence threatens to destroy - not just straight marriages (which fail about half the time) but all humanity. Riiight.

If there's a secular argument against gay marriage, I have yet to hear it.

Make the most of it now, ladies and gentlemen. The more gay people flock to California to tie the knot, the harder it's going to be for the religious homophobes to justify denying them their equal rights here or anywhere else.

There and Back Again

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:24:23 -0500

La Famiglia della Puttana has just returned from a long trip to Europe. We visited Italy (Rome, Florence, Orvieto, Venice, Naples, Pompeii) Greece (Athens, Santorini, Mykonos, Rhodes, Corfu), and a couple of other spots...a total of 26 days on land and sea. Exhausting with a 5-year old (call us naive), exhilarating and educational. Never having been further than Canada or visited a city older than, say, New Orleans, I was blown away. Nothing compares with the actual experience of being there. The art, architecture, culture and ruins were rich, amazing, mind-expanding.

A few things I loved about Italy and Greece:

-The ruins. The Parthenon, Olympia, the Coliseum and the Forum, Pompeii...fantastic.
-The architecture. The big churches were magnificent, much as I deplored the waste of human resources (more on that later perhaps). The ancient forts and castles were marvels. It's almost terrifying to imagine the sheer amount of work these must have required.
-Italian toilets. A triumph of engineering. You will never have a clog with one of these babies.
-Bidets. A source of embarrassed amusement to us puritanical Americans, since they are an acknowledgement that human beings have a cunt and ass they might wash, but quite practical and handy. Unfortunately I can't figure out where to fit one into our house.
-Ceramics. Virtually the only thing I did buy for myself. But then I am a potter.
-Gelato. Ice cream makes me queasy but gelato is heavenly. Anyone with a good recipe for gelato di cioccolato (senza uovi) please post it here.
-Espresso. Yes, I got hooked. Starbucks really does suck.
-Trying to speak Italian with my little phrasebook. Nearly everyone we met spoke at least some English, but it was fun to try. Next time I vow to study more.
-Italian women beaming and calling the little guy "un angeletto". Who am I to argue? Heck, even the men thought he was adorable.

Surprises:

-It is possible to get burned out on ruins. I'm ashamed, but there it is.
-The food, to someone who lives in California, was not all that great overall. Maybe we didn't get far enough off the tourist circuit. The pasta was usually decent and the dolci (desserts) were often very good indeed.
-Italian fashion, which has a reputation for being all that, is, well, circa 1980 something. Big glasses, ugly prints, oversized handbags...How did they get that reputation? Some Italian men are snappy dressers, I guess, but frankly they didn't look all that macho for the most part. Didn't see one whose bones I'd be tempted to jump.
-The big cities are very big, very dirty and really ugly. I mean uber-ugly. Athens especially. Maybe I've lived in the country too long...The architecture, ruins and art are like gems scattered here and there. On the other hand, some places, like Mykonos, Santorini, and Venice, are pretty much just like the pictures.

Things that weren't so fun:

-Too many tourists, even in early May. I can't imagine going in the "high" season. What a nightmare. Next time I'll visit in March.
-The shopping districts of most tourist towns. Kusadasi's "bazaar" was the worst, with shop after shop of cheap designer (Prada, D&G, John Hardy, etc.) ripoffs. Even more appalling, seeing tourists wearing this crap. Uck.
-Greek toilets. Why the people who are credited with the genesis of Western civilization and democracy can't invent a toilet that you can put TP into (ANYWHERE in Greece) is beyond me.
-The expense. Everything is horribly expensive, although you can cut costs for stuff like Cokes by going to the little grocery places instead of restaurants.

Funny moments:

-Guards in Greek museums: "No posing! No posing in front of art!" Later someone explained that apparently people have been known to make rude gestures in front of the statuary.
-Standing in front of the hotel in Venice with another member of the tour who was feeling worn after a full day of travel. Him: "Maybe it's the altitude. What's the altitude here?" Me: "I think it's pretty much sea level."
-Coming upon a fellow traveler standing on a hillside path on Corfu, earnestly reading a map. Him: "Which way is up?" Husband, pointing uphill: "That way." Him, seriously: "Oh. Yeah. You think so?"

Last but not least, one of the best parts of travel is being where someone else does all the cooking and cleaning!

I cannot wait to go again.

Empty Handed

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:31:27 -0500

A new approach to high gas prices: pray them away!

Rocky Twyman has a radical solution for surging gasoline prices: prayer. Twyman - a community organizer, church choir director and public relations consultant from the Washington, D.C., suburbs - staged a pray-in at a San Francisco Chevron station on Friday, asking God for cheaper gas....

Twyman isn't begging the Lord for any specific act of intervention. He is not asking God to make OPEC pump more oil. Nor is he praying for all the speculative investors to be purged from the New York Mercantile Exchange, where crude oil is traded.

Instead, he says anyone who wants to follow his example should keep it simple.

"God, deliver us from these high gas prices," Twyman said. "That's all they have to say."

First, I have to say: Of all the stupid self-serving shit to pray for. Sure some people in the US are feeling the pinch a bit but what the fuck. Millions of children die of starvation-related causes every year. In Haiti, kids are eating dirt. Maybe the believers out there might want to pray about that. I mean, why not go straight for the big important stuff like helping some kids get food, medical care, and education?

No, instead, let's clasp our hands and cry "O Lordy, help us maintain our lifestyle of endless consumption and wretched excess! Jesus! We'll even carpool."

Second, folks, in case you haven't cottoned on to it yet, the American Gravy Train has reached the end of the line. It is about to derail. Gas prices are not going down long term. They are going to go up. Then we will have shortages. Why? We have passed peak oil production.

The way of life we've all become so accustomed to is about to end, and the debate is mostly about whether it will be a giant crash or a slow grind. If you have any means of getting out of the city and moving to a small town, now's the time. It's going to get ugly. Ain't no one going to pray this shit away.

True, the religious do not have a corner on magical and wishful thinking. But they do take it to a new level sometimes.

Bart Ehrman Interview

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Fri, 02 May 2008 22:46:07 -0500

This is a bit old, but if you didn't already hear the NPR interview with author Bart Ehrman on the Problem of Evil, check it out.

Ehrman has a new book out entitled God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question

In an earlier book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, I have indicated that my strong commitment to the Bible began to wane the more I studied it. I began to realize that rather than being an inerrant revelation from God, inspired in its very words (the view I had at Moody Bible Institute), the Bible was a very human book with all the marks of having come from human hands: discrepancies, contradictions, errors, and different perspectives of different authors living at different times in different countries and writing for different reasons to different audiences with different needs. But the problems of the Bible are not what led me to leave the faith. These problems simply showed me that my evangelical beliefs about the Bible could not hold up, in my opinion, to critical scrutiny. I continued to be a Christian—a completely committed Christian—for many years after I left the evangelical fold.

Eventually, though, I felt compelled to leave Christianity altogether. I did not go easily. On the contrary, I left kicking and screaming, wanting desperately to hold on to the faith I had known since childhood and had come to know intimately from my teenaged years onward. But I came to a point where I could no longer believe. It's a very long story, but the short version is this: I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life. In particular, I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it.

Why does God permit evil? It's a mystery.

What Does God Need With A Starship?

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:57:16 -0500

Joe Holman has a thought-provoking post on what I might call the Problem of Motivation, over at Debunking Christianity. He uses a example from an old Star Trek movie, The Final Frontier to set the stage:

Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Sybok are on the surface of a distant world called Nimbus III beyond “The Great Barrier,” where the ambitious Vulcan half-brother of Spock named Sybok has forcefully led them on a quest to find ultimate universal truth and meaning—a.k.a. the search for Eden and God. Moments after their arrival, they are met by a Father Time-ish being who, incidentally, couldn’t have looked more like Caucasian humanity’s version of God if all the artists in the world tried to get him to…but I digress.

This sagely-looking, incorporeal being of obviously great presence and power learns of the starship that brought them to his world. He informs them that he has been imprisoned in this distant world for an eternity, unable to reach the rest of the galaxy, and that the Enterprise would be his means of travel beyond it. But the red flag of skepticism had already been raised in the mind of Kirk, who boldly asked: “What does God need with a starship?”

"God" in this scenario punishes all who question him by zapping them with lightning bolts.

Joe goes on to say, "The question is priceless in that no matter what theistic concept is under investigation, it is the mere asking of the “need” question that leads to the unraveling of theism.....God doesn’t “need” anything. He can’t need anything, being that he’s omnipotent as the fully self-sufficient prime mover and sustainer of the cosmos."

Thinking about the possible answers to this question, why would an omnipotent god create anything? was one of the factors that led to my own deconversion from religion. I asked why (and/or how) can god need or want anything while I was still a believer taking religious classes, and I have asked it here as well. The teacher of my religious class said: "That's a good question!" No one has ever given me a meaningful or even remotely plausible answer. (The answer from fundamentalist Christians is generally: "Silence, infidel! Who are you to question God?")

It's logically incoherent to say that a perfect omnipotent, omnipresent god of the traditional sort would create anything out of desire or need. This seems difficult for some people to understand, but a "perfect" being cannot lack anything. This line of reasoning doesn't disprove god per se. It just makes the likelihood seem remote. It makes it clear that the god myths are simply holdovers from ancient times when we humans imagined ourselves to be the source of endless amusement and interest for sky-dwelling immortals.

Can't We Take A Joke?

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:01:22 -0500

Atheist bashing is alive and well in Shasta County. Here is the start of a real editorial that appeared in my local paper:

They can't be real Christians. They must be part of an atheist cabal.

Their goal? To undermine churches. To give religion a black eye. To plant in the minds of the young a twisted and evil view of Christianity.

How else to explain the perverse tactics of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, whose members travel the country to picket soldiers' funerals with a message of hate?

Yes, I understand the author of this intended it humorously. Think I'm being hypersensitive? Imagine using another group in place of "atheist." Would they write "Jewish cabal"? Of course not.

The thing is, they knew damned well this would play to their audience here in the conservative, fundamentalist Christian "North State."

Feel free to write the editor. I did.

Opium For Everyone

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:56:39 -0500

I'm reading a great little book of Vonnegut's miscellaneous writings (posthumously published), Armageddon in Retrospect.

The following is an excerpt from a speech written by Kurt Vonnegut and given at Clowes Hall, Indianapolis, in April 27, 2007 by his son Mark. This is a take on Marx's quotation I had not previously heard, and it's an interesting interpretation.

I might as well clinch my reputation as a world-class nutcase by saying something good about Karl Marx, commonly believed in this country...to have been one of the most evil people who ever lived.

He did invent Communism, which we have long been taught to hate, because we are so in love with Capitalism, which is what we call the casinos on Wall Street.

Communism is what Karl Marx hoped could be an economic scheme for making industrialized nations take good care of people, and especially of children and the old and disabled, as tribes and extended families used to do, before they were dispersed by the Industrial Revolution....

But there are still plenty of people who will tell you that the most evil thing about Karl Marx was what he said about religion. He said it was the opium of the lower classes, as though he thought religion was bad for people, and he wanted to get rid of it.

But when Marx said that, back in the 1840s, his use of the word "opium" wasn't simply metaphorical. Back then, real opium was the only painkiller available, for toothaches or cancer of the throat, or whatever. He himself had used it.

As a sincere friend of the downtrodden, he was saying he was glad they had something which could ease their pain at least a little bit, which was religion. He liked religion for doing that, and certainly didn't want to abolish it. OK?

He might have said today as I say tonight, "Religion can be Tylenol for a lot of unhappy people, and I'm so glad it works."

So Vonnegut thought Marx was in favor of religion, or maybe sympathetic to it, and it seems that Vonnegut himself thought religion was good for some people at least. Particularly the black community, as he went on to say. As someone pointed out, at the time Marx wrote those words, America had not yet freed its slaves.

But is there still a real need for religion for most people nowadays? I wonder about this a lot. While most Christians imagine that atheists reject gods to make their lives easier and more self-determined, the reality is that it's often more difficult to be an atheist, without any imaginary friend who loves you no matter how much of an asshole you are, and to face the reality of death rather than harbor fantasies about life everlasting.

I'm no student of Marx, but I do find that he goes on to say this:

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Which is to say: The blue pill, or the red pill?

Praying On the Weak

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:01:13 -0500

Recently, the parents in the Worthington case have pleaded "not guilty" to charges of manslaughter for praying for their daughter's healing from pneumonia and sepsis, rather than obtaining medical care. Police were considering whether to charge the Neumans, parents of the diabetic girl in Wisconsin who died last week.

There's already been a lot of discussion about these cases. But I have to ask, what decent Christian could, in good conscience, convict these people of any wrongdoing? Clearly it was God's will that these girls die. What right have Christians to question God's will?

There has been a debate about these case over at Debunking Christianity, in which the Christians argued the modern point of view, which is: God works through doctors/modern medicine/science. The parents should have taken advantage of the benefits of modern medicine in addition to praying. As it was, they were culpable in her death.

I have a couple of questions about this point of view.

First, modern medicine didn't exist until about 100 years ago and is still available only in Westernized countries. While these cases were both easily treatable with modern drugs, if these cases had occurred in 1708, or out in the African bush, prayer would have been the parents' only recourse. Prayer would not have worked then either, but no one would have condemned the parents. They would have chalked the death up to "god's will." Does god's will change in direct response to modern medicine?

Second, an omnipotent god surely knew the girls would die but did not intervene. He knew the parents would not seek medical treatment because of their religious beliefs, but he did not answer their prayers for healing. So clearly the deaths were God's will according to the Christian belief. Why blame and punish the parents?

Third, why would an omnipotent god need to work through an intermediary such as medicine or doctors? Don't Christians, pretty much by definition, believe in miracles?

Modern Christians treat people like the Neumanns and the Worthingtons as being part of the lunatic fringe because of their deeply held religious convictions. But I really don't understand where they're coming from - especially the Bible literalists. The current teaching in most churches, I gather, is that we should take advantage of all the benefits of modern science which god has provided. That was what my own church taught. "God helps those who help themselves" is the current thinking. Unfortunately, this quotation comes from Ben Franklin, not the Bible. And that prayer is primarily to get us in synch with God's will.

So where is the Biblical support for this position? When Jesus heals people in the Bible, he doesn't say "By the way, once modern science has provided cures for these diseases, then everyone will be healed (and don't forget to pray while taking treatment)." He said "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son" (John 14:12,13). In Matthew 10:8, Jesus sends his disciples out to "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils..." Later he says, "if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." (Matthew 17:20).

Either prayer works as Jesus claimed, or it doesn't. Which is it? If prayer works, then you cannot hold anyone other than God liable for these deaths.

Unless, of course, the parents just didn't have enough faith. Think the DA might charge the families with "insufficient faith while praying"?

Holy Easter Bun-nies

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:22:12 -0500

Put some Resurrection Rolls on your holiday table to celebrate the true meaning of Easter! Guess what the marshmallow represents? I won't ruin the surprise...watch for yourself and marvel. I just don't know what to say about the mentality behind this cooking show for Christian kiddies. Was her brain destroyed by zombies, or was she cracked out before she got saved?

Don't miss her series on Resurrection eggs. You can save time by viewing Episode #12, which recaps the entire dozen. And of course there's the ever-popular "Jesus Died For All the Children," guaranteed to help your child grow up mentally healthy.

After that, I need something wholesome and refreshing.

H/t to No Smoking In the Skull Cave for the beautiful pics.

Christopher Hitchens on the Immorality of Christianity

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:33:14 -0500

These two videos are Hitchens' opening statement, taken from a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath, who is billed as a "former atheist" and professor of Historical Theology at Oxford...excellent summary of the problem with Christianity. The debate aired last October but I just came across these.

You can find more of the debate on Youtube if you are interested. Hitchens is at his best here, IMO. And the illustrations make these even more entertaining.

H/T to Debunking Christianity

Far From Bland

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:51:34 -0600

I've been tagged for the history meme by a couple of fellow bloggers, Brian and The Chaplain. I'm not much on historical figures, but I've read a couple-three biographies in the last year, so I'll use one of those...

My choice is Edith Nesbit, who lived from 1858-1924. Those of you who enjoyed English stories as children may have come across her writing...most people have read or seen "The Railway Children" I suppose, although that's not among her works that I really enjoyed much. The stories I always loved were things like "Five Children and It," "Wet Magic," and "The Phoenix and the Carpet".

1. Although she lived in the Victorian era, Nesbit was quite a freethinker in many ways. At age 22, she married her first husband, Hubert Bland, while seven months pregnant. She was one of the first to cut her hair short (far in advance of the flapper era) smoked, and gave up the restrictive Victorian clothing in exchange for flowing gowns.

Nesbit was a "character." She wore numerous silver bracelets - they were presents from her husband, one for each book she had published, and she prized them greatly and wore them always, even in the bath. She loved to give parties and surround herself with interesting people. A friend described her thus in her later years:

[Edith] was always surrounded by adoring young men, dazzled by her vitality, amazing talent, and the sheer magnificence of her appearance. She was a very tall woman, built on the grand scale, and on festive occasions wore a trailing gown of peacock blue satin with strings of beads and Indian bangles from wrist to elbow. Madame, as she was always called, smoked incessantly, and her long cigarette holder became an indissoluble part of the picture she suggested - a raffish Rossetti, with a long full throat, and dark luxuriant hair, smoothly parted. She was a wonderful woman, large hearted, amazingly unconventional, but with sudden strange reversions to ultra-respectable standards. Her children's stories had an immense vogue, and she could write unconcernedly in the midst of a crowd, smoking like a chimney all the while.

2. Nesbit's husband Hubert was known for his philandering ways. At the time he married Nesbit, he was engaged to another woman, Maggie, and still lived at home with his mother, three days a week. This living arrangement continued from the time they were married in 1880 until his mother died thirteen years later. He also continued an affair with his fiance for a good ten years after he married Nesbit. Maggie, in fact, bore Bland's son shortly after he married Nesbit. In later years, Maggie moved in with the Blands.

3. Hubert Bland had an affair with a second woman, Alice, throughout their marriage. Far from being upset about it, Nesbit essentially adopted Bland's bastard children and raised them as her own. "Auntie" Alice lived with the Blands from 1886 on, and cared for all the children while Nesbit wrote stories to support the extended family. Despite the coziness of this arrangement, none of the children thought much of Hubert and Edith as parents - they tended to be busy and prone to tempestuous outbursts.

4. Nesbit and Bland were among the founding members of the socialist Fabian Society in London, and they jointly edited the society's journal Today. The society included famous members such as George Bernard Shaw and Annie Besant. Nesbit was an active lecturer and prolific writer on socialism during the 1880s. Supposedly, Nesbit also had membership in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, a Victorian neo-pagan cult.

5. Nesbit was in love with Shaw for many years. She wrote shortly after meeting him that he

"has a fund of dry Irish humour that is simply irresistible. He is a clever writer and speaker - is the grossest flatterer (of men, women and children impartially) I ever met, is horribly untrustworthy as he repeats everything he hears, and does not always stick to the truth, and is very plain like a long corpse with dead white face - sandy, sleek hair, and a loathsome small straggly beard, and yet is one of the most fascinating men I ever met."

It seems probable that they had a brief physical affair, though it is difficult to tell from their fairly circumspect diaries, letters, and published works.

6. Known for the children's books and novels which she wrote to pay the bills, Nesbit always thought of herself as a poet. Like many a romantic poet, she was not terribly good. Once she asked Shaw to write a review of a book of her poetry, "Lays and Legends" and he dashed off a note to her in reply which demurred and offered the following ascerbic review:

We have received "A Garden of Verses" by E. Nesbitt (sic). The cover is decorated by a flower, slavishly copied from a broken down Covent Garden product, stuck in a jar in the middle of the table. The author has a fair ear, writes with remarkable facility and with some grace, and occasionally betrays an incisive, but shrewish insight. On the other hand, she is excessively conventional, and her ideas are not a woman's ideas, but the ideas which men have foisted, in their own interest on women. It is needless to add that she is never original; and it is probable that if she ever writes a sincere poem, she will suppress it. As a poetess she is of the school of Mrs Barrett Browning. Fully as morbid and sentimental as her exemplar, she is shrewder and less conscientious; she has not the scholarship, the thoroughness, the fearlessness of the author of Aurora Leigh, and not having the qualities, she has not the faults of the qualities. Thus she does not gush, as Mrs. Browning undeniably did; and she is bitter where Mrs Browning was only sad. If the genius of Charlotte Brote were compounded with that of Mrs Browning and attenuated with vinegar, an E. Nesbitt might be the result. But it is by no means impossible that so clever a writer may be cured of her defects by the intellectual virour which such delicate and kindly but firm criticism as the present is calculated, by its virtue as a nerve-tonic, to inpart. We may perhaps have something to add when we shall have had an oportunity of reading the book, which up to the present we have not had time to open.

7. Nesbit was never particularly religious, though certainly not an atheist. She was raised Anglican, although she was educated in a convent, among other places. She converted to Catholicism when Bland did (it was then fashionable), but they rarely attended church and the children said later that they had received no religious instruction. At her funeral the following, which her second husband thought "summed up her faith" was read from her novel Dormant:

"It seems such a waste, such stupid senseless waste," said Bats. "His great thoughts, his find body that loved life, all the friendship, the aspiration, the love...all thrown away, gone, wasted forever."
"Who says that is wasted?" said the Jew. "It is his body that has served its turn and is cast away. The great thoughts, the friendship, the aspiration, the love; can we say that these die? Nay, rather, these shall not die. They shall live in the Courts of the Lord, for ever."

8. Many later authors were influenced by her work, including C.S. Lewis, Edward Eager, J.K. Rowling, and Michael Moorcock. Gore Vidal once wrote a review praising her writing.

Many of her works are read aloud on Librivox, a delightful site of free audiobooks which I found while writing up this post. Listen to "The Conscience Pudding," an excerpt from "The New Treasure Seekers" if you have a little time for amusement.

If you haven't been tagged, consider yourself "IT."

The Ethic of Reciprocity

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:45:25 -0600

Found this on Hemant's site today...

Reciprocity around the world: Don't do shit to other people that you wouldn't like done to you.

Click on the photo to see the larger version.

Original source: Scarborough Missions. Weirdly, these folks are Catholic but their website encourages meditation on inspirational sayings from all faiths. Liberal Christian churches are so cute.

H/T to Friendly Atheist.

Discipline? I'll Give You Discipline

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:21:30 -0600

I'm reading Parenting Beyond Belief, which I must say is a pretty good book so far (about 2/3 through). Certainly worth a read for any atheist parent, although so far I don't think there's anything shocking and revelatory. Rather, it's a good summation and reference, with further resources.

At any rate, the book includes this hilarious excerpt from our freethinking friend Mark Twain. I had either never read this before or read it so long ago I had forgoten, and I thought it was worth reproducing here.

Little Bessie Would Assist Providence

Little Bessie was nearly three years old. She was a good child, and not shallow, not frivolous, but meditative and thoughtful, and much given to thinking out the reasons of things and trying to make them harmonise with results. One day she said --

"Mamma, why is there so much pain and sorrow and suffering? What is it all for?"

It was an easy question, and mamma had no difficulty in answering it:

"It is for our good, my child. In His wisdom and mercy the Lord sends us these afflictions to discipline us and make us better."

"Is it He that sends them?"

"Yes."

"Does He send all of them, mamma?"

"Yes, dear, all of them. None of them comes by accident; He alone sends them, and always out of love for us, and to make us better."

"Isn't it strange!"

"Strange? Why, no, I have never thought of it in that way. I have not heard any one call it strange before. It has always seemed natural and right to me, and wise and most kindly and merciful."

"Who first thought of it like that, mamma? Was it you?"

"Oh, no, child, I was taught it."

"Who taught you so, mamma?"

"Why, really, I don't know -- I can't remember. My mother, I suppose; or the preacher. But it's a thing that everybody knows."

"Well, anyway, it does seem strange. Did He give Billy Norris the typhus?"

"Yes."

"What for?"

"Why, to discipline him and make him good."

"But he died, mamma, and so it couldn't make him good."

"Well, then, I suppose it was for some other reason. We know it was a good reason, whatever it was."

"What do you think it was, mamma?"

"Oh, you ask so many questions! I think; it was to discipline his parents."

"Well, then, it wasn't fair, mamma. Why should his life be taken away for their sake, when he wasn't doing anything?"

"Oh, I don't know! I only know it was for a good and wise and merciful reason."

"What reason, mamma?"

"I think -- I think -- well, it was a judgment; it was to punish them for some sin they had committed."

"But he was the one that was punished, mamma. Was that right?"

"Certainly, certainly. He does nothing that isn't right and wise and merciful. You can't understand these things now, dear, but when you are grown up you will understand them, and then you will see that they are just and wise."

After a pause:

"Did He make the roof fall in on the stranger that was trying to save the crippled old woman from the fire, mamma?"

"Yes, my child. Wait! Don't ask me why, because I don't know. I only know it was to discipline some one, or be a judgment upon somebody, or to show His power."

"That drunken man that stuck a pitchfork into Mrs. Welch's baby when -- "

"Never mind about it, you needn't go into particulars; it was as to discipline the child -- that much is certain, anyway."

"Mamma, Mr. Burgess said in his sermon that billions of little creatures are sent into us to give us cholera, and typhoid, and lockjaw, and more than a thousand other sicknesses and -- mamma, does He send them?"

"Oh, certainly, child, certainly. Of course."

"What for?"

"Oh, to discipline us! haven't I told you so, over and over again?"

"It's awful cruel, mamma! And silly! and if I -- "

"Hush, oh hush! do you want to bring the lightning?"

"You know the lightning did come last week, mamma, and struck the new church, and burnt it down. Was it to discipline the church?"

(Wearily). "Oh, I suppose so."

"But it killed a hog that wasn't doing anything. Was it to discipline the hog, mamma?"

"Dear child, don't you want to run out and play a while? If you would like to -- "

"Mama, only think! Mr. Hollister says there isn't a bird or fish or reptile or any other animal that hasn't got an enemy that Providence has sent to bite it and chase it and pester it, and kill it, and suck; its blood and discipline it and make it good and religious. Is that true, mother -- because if it is true, why did Mr. Hollister laugh at it?"

"That Hollister is a scandalous person, and I don't want you to listen to anything he says."

"Why, mamma, he is very interesting, and I think he tries to be good. He says the wasps catch spiders and cram them down into their nests in the ground -- alive, mamma! -- and there they live and suffer days and days and days, and the hungry little wasps chewing their legs and gnawing into their bellies all the time, to make them good and religious and praise God for His infinite mercies. I think Mr. Hollister is just lovely, and ever so kind; for when I asked him if he would treat a spider like that, he said he hoped to be damned if he would; and then he -- "

"My child! oh, do for goodness' sake -- "

"And mamma, he says the spider is appointed to catch the fly, and drive her fangs into his bowels, and suck and suck and suck his blood, to discipline him and make him a Christian; and whenever the fly buzzes his wings with the pain and misery of it, you can see by the spider's grateful eye that she is thanking the Giver of All Good for -- well, she's saving grace, as he says; and also, he -- "

"Oh, aren't you ever going to get tired chattering! If you want to go out and play -- "

"Mama, he says himself that all troubles and pains and miseries and rotten diseases and horrors and villainies are sent to us in mercy and kindness to discipline us; and he says it is the duty of every father and mother to help Providence, every way they can; and says they can't do it by just scolding and whipping, for that won't answer, it is weak and no good -- Providence's way is best, and it is every parent's duty and every person's duty to help discipline everybody, and cripple them and kill them, and starve them, and freeze them, and rot them with diseases, and lead them into murder and theft and dishonor and disgrace; and he says Providence's invention for disciplining us and the animals is the very brightest idea that ever was, and not even an idiot could get up anything shinier. Mamma, brother Eddie needs disciplining, right away: and I know where you can get the smallpox for him, and the itch, and the diphtheria, and bone-rot, and heart disease, and consumption, and -- Dear mamma, have you fainted! I will run and bring help! Now this comes of staying in town this hot weather."

This and more of Twain's writings at Positive Atheism

My Scarlet A

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:53:13 -0600

Like a lot of people, I have been pretty disdainful about the entire Richard Dawkins' Out Campaign/Scarlet A thing. I thought it was too subtle, I hated that it promoted the Dawkins network, and thought that it was lousy marketing. I also didn't like the entire Nathaniel Hawthorne connection. What a fucking lousy novel that was.

But a recent post got me thinking and reconsidering. And made me realize that I myself am starting to look for the A on other blogs.

So, in the interest of solidarity, I present my Scarlet A.

Okay, I did make minor modifications. The damned thing didn't match my blog theme, you know?

Lazy Slut

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:52:28 -0600

Truth be told, I'm more or less recovered, but I've been avoiding you. Actually the main body is recovered but the mind is still suffering from the lingering effects of flu-induced oxygen deprivation. That's my theory anyway. Greta actually wrote something mirroring almost exactly what I was thinking about this whole illness thing and how it affects one's self. I hate Greta because she always says what I was thinking, and so much more eloquently than I could have.

Anyway, and however, I've been tagged by BEAJ. And since these memes are mostly mindless I can probably handle this one, which is to "Share six non-important things/habits/quirks about yourself."

1. One of my prized possessions is a company coffee mug that says "COMING TOGETHER." This coffee mug, believe it or not, was given out to employees of the Big 4 Accounting Firm where I worked in LA when two of the offices were merging. Every time I drink out of this cup I wonder again, "What the hell were the people who designed this smoking?" I also think about having sex. Actually, I think about the sex first.

2. I cannot think of a day that has gone by in my life since age 5 that I have not read something. A magazine or a newspaper at least.

3. I'm a pessimist but I try hard to be an optimist. However, my dad used to say not infrequently:

"Cheer up," they told me. "Things could be worse."
So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse.

I feel I'm more or less doomed.

4. I once co-wrote an article that appeared as the cover story of a mortgage banking magazine. This is the only time I've ever been published to date (also the only thing I've ever submitted). Although I still harbor fantasies of writing fiction, I don't think I have the imagination for it.

5. My pet peeves all involve grammar or spelling. I could never love a man who couldn't spell correctly.

6. I loathed high school, and never finished. The school I went to had the felicitous policy of allowing students to drop the grades of any classes they were not passing. As a result, I was significantly short on credits by my senior year. Eventually I took the proficiency exam and dropped out. I graduated college with honors, though.

Now I can't decide if I should be a lazy sluttish party pooper or tag someone. If I were going to tag anyone, it would be The Chaplain, Primordial Blog, No More Hornets, Spanish Inquisitor, and Meme Pool, all of which I check out on a more or less regular basis. Oops, I guess you're it. You are all licensed to post again if you have been tagged. I'm not tagging Greta, though, because I'm jealous of her superior writing abilities.

Sick Slut

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:19:40 -0600

You would not think a little thing like a virus or bacteria would get you so down, for so long. I hope my doc will break down and give me an antibiotic tomorrow so I can get back to my usual witty, articulate self. I'm pretty tired of lying in bed, sweating, panting, and moaning. At least in this context.

Meanwhile, check out Greta Christina's Carnival of the Godless. Lots of good reading and many amusing vintage nudie book covers for your delectation. Also, the newest Humanist Symposium is up at Cafe Philos.

For real yucks, head over to the Barefoot Bum's place and check out his exchange with creationist Pastor Bob. Things got so hot on Bob's main blog he had to move the conversation to another blog lest we unbelievers frighten the faithful. (snort).

Photo by marek denko.

Camp Quest West Contest

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:25:22 -0600

Although it's been intimated by a certain friend that, due to my blog's adult content and frequently undressed models, I should not write about (gasp) children, I do have a couple of my own, so I feel justified in making the following nudity-free public service announcement. BTW, neither of them is particularly hung up on nudity, and I have my own nudie stuff all over the house. Maybe when my 5-year old is a little older, he'll realize how embarrassing they are...For now, underpants are still a joke he barely gets.

Anyhow: Spread the word. And if you know a freethinking family with a child in grade 6-8, let them know about the new Camp Quest West Essay Contest. The contest is open to kids in the Western states. Contestants have to write a short (200-400 word) essay about one of three questions on evolution; you can read the questions on their website. Some lucky winner will receive a campership to this year’s Camp Quest.

Camp Quest West is affiliated with National Camp Quest (Ohio), the first secular summer camp for youth in the history of the United States. Camp Quest was developed for children of agnostics, atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and others who hold a naturalistic world view. Actually, I can hardly imagine any theists letting their kids attend, regardless of the "naturalism" of their world view.

According to the website, the purpose of the camp is to:

Promote among the youth participants a sense of belonging to a large freethought community.

Encourage critical thinking to enable the young people to draw their own conclusions based on good evidence.

Promote respect for others even though they may have different viewpoints, values, and beliefs.

Provide a safe and fun environment for personal and social development.

I think these are all pretty important, but it is especially great to give kids a safe environment to hang out with other free-thinkers. It must be particularly hard to be a non-theist in school these days, with the Xians getting so militant and outspoken. In my own whorish opinion, having respect for "different" viewpoints that are non-reason-based is just pandering. But the camp sounds great, and I can't wait until the little guy is old enough for it.

For more information about the camp and the essay contest, visit http://www.campquestwest.org.

H/T: Parenting Beyond Belief

In Loving Memory

noreply@blogger.com (A Whore in the Temple of Reason) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:32:59 -0600

Sad news for the atheist community. My friend - maybe he was yours, too - Infidelis Maximus, apparently died suddenly last Sunday. He was 41 years old, and leaves a wife and five children behind. He was a gifted writer with at least eight published and highly respected technical books to his credit. Colleagues called him "a giant" in his field.

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that he is gone, and the tears just keep flowing. I first "met" Infidelis when he asked for my help on a small project last year. I knew him only online, but we exchanged emails for several months, and he has been a frequent poster here. I respected him for his intelligence, wit, and integrity and always enjoyed our discussions. He seemed to be a loving dad and husband, and he wrote to me and blogged about them a number of times. His family must be devastated.

In looking over his blog this afternoon and thinking about all this, I found something Infidelis Maximus himself wrote about a year ago:

You and I are temporal beings....we are not immortal. We do not live forever. So, the best thing we can do here is to make the most of this life....Do not put off doing good in this life assuming you will get another chance in the afterlife. There is no afterlife. The term itself is an oxymoron. After life, the atoms that make up your body will be absorbed back into the earth and ultimately become part of other living things. You and I get just one opportunity to love each other and make the world the best place it possibly can be.

From all that I knew about him, he did live up to that admonition to do good, love each other, and try to make the world a better place.

Death sucks, and sudden death is the worst. How can someone so vibrant, so full of life and love and plans and passion just be gone? It's almost beyond belief. And it hurts so much to know you can never again talk with your friend. I wish I believed in an afterlife. I wish I could imagine he was out there somewhere listening, and I could have a chance to say, "Goodbye. I loved you, my friend. I'll miss you."