Are Atheists Mentally Ill?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/

This article, aptly titled "Are atheists mentally ill", informs us that, while nonbelievers are more intelligent than believers on average, they're also leading miserable, short lives spent in agony and depression. The article culminates in the claim that atheism is a form of mental illness, the implied conclusion being that one should start believing.

Now, like many commenters to that article, I sincerely do hope that the article is meant as satire. After all, the same site also features a rather clever article explaining why you can't use statistics to show that one individual person is more or less intelligent than one specific other person.

There is a lot to say about why such statistics are extremely dubious, my main contention being, as I've mentioned before, the suspicious absence of the standard deviation. There is also the issue of isolating one variable - faith vs non-faith - from all the others: In a culture where faith is accepted but atheism is not, of course atheists have good reason to be less happy than their religious friends; if you're more intelligent, it might imply that you see more clearly the evils in the world, therefore being unhappy, while at the same time intelligence might correlate with atheism (but not necessarily imply it); etc. etc.

And of course, every time someone mentions "a vast body of research", the dirty smell of a fish market on speed rises to the heavens.

The absolutely hilarious twist, though, is this: if you ask the question whether god exists, then "faith makes you happier" does not answer that question. If we were living in the matrix, controlled by machines, and the real world was a gehenna of destruction and chaos, then my belief in the illusory world created by the matrix does not change that fact. God either exists, objectively, or he doesn't. I I want to know the answer either way, both in case of the matrix and regarding god, even if the truth might make me extremely unhappy. Because, you know, if I don't know it I can do nothing about it.

No, faith is not a virtue, and trying to align one's worldview with actual reality is not "a tragic deficiency". It's merely an attempt to be honest. It's a form of humility strangely missing in those who place so much emphasis on following that most humble of godsons.

I don't get how people can believe that arguments like those are convincing.

It's not even about me defeding atheism against da evulz christians. I'd have exactly the same contentions with statistics biased in favour of atheism. (Only, somehow those rarely ever show up on my tiny screen. Probably because atheism really is inferior. Or because atheists are not stupid enough to even try...).

As I said, I hope that the article is satire. But I'm fairly certain it's not. And even if it were, for every Poe  there are a hundred people subscribing to such b.s. in sanctimonious, ernest sincerety. And that is just sad.

A question to (catholic) demonology specialists out there

So, according to some, specifically the most mainstream christian traditions (like catholicism and mainstream protestantism), demons are fallen angels.

But, according to the same traditions, at least as far as I know, angels don't possess free will.

So, how do demons manage to rebel against god?

Tantric Sex and the City

Okay, this is clearly not what's going on in tantric beginners' workshops. Not from my experience, anyway. (Granted, I've only ever been to one, and never say never.)

But I thought it incredibly funny.

NSFW, of course. You have been warned.

Likes.com: Don't Fall For These 15 Unhealthy Salads

Likes.com: Don't Fall For These 15 Unhealthy Salads Uh... well, okay. So, what the article tells us is that ready-made salads bought from fast food franchises are not exactly healthy. (In fact, they might well contain more calories than your burger menu.) So... what else is new? Just a gentle reminder, folks: If you want to eat healthy food, you have to prepare your own meals.

My Tantra Peartree

The Great Big Universal Polarity Of Male And Female

Tantrikas, and esotericists in general, will often tell you that there is a polarity going on in the whole universe, on any level from galaxies down to subatomic particles - male and female energies abound, dance, seduce each other. Beautiful imagery.

I won't even go into why it makes no sense at all to assume that the physical universe conforms to human ideas of polarity. Somehow, if the universe is dualistic, and humans are dualistic too, that seems to "connect" one to the other in some fashion. Whatever... Let's just let that one slide for the moment.

Of course, male equals active, penetrating, aggressive - essentially, all the evil but desirable things that we crave for but don't admit to - while female equals passive, receptive, nurturing - all the good things nobody really wants to be.

They will then tell you that, of course, this is not a gender stereotype, since everybody has male and female qualities.

Well, duh - then why do you insist on calling it "male" and "female", "shiva" and "shakti" etc.? Why not simply call it positive and negative, or active and passive?

I think the answer is shockingly simple: It creates more emotion, makes for better imagery, it is easy to relate to, one can create wonderful stories about it and,  and, and... wait for it... well, yes, it IS a gender stereotype. Tadaaaaah.

The Problem With Tantrikas

The main problem I see with tantrikas on the web is that they have something to sell.

Mostly, it's their bodies, in chunks of 60-90 minutes, in the form of a massage (sorry, I meant to say "sacred ritual"). Sometimes, it's a book or a workshop.

To some degree, the part about having something to sell goes for everyone. We all sell off our precious life time to be able to pay the rent. We all dish out a white lie now and then, keep our opinions to ourselves for peace and money. It's a globalized capitalist society, and it fosters hypocrisy, dressing up for the occasion, producing a blinding light of marketing for ourselves, seeing ourselves as the product.

More to the point, it definitely goes for me and this blog. While I don't sell you anything for money (I have a decent day job to pay my rent), I do try to get you to read my blog, and I want you to like it (and by extension, I want you to like me). Not for monetary reasons, but for that most basic reason every blogger has: self-expression and ego-stroking.


The degree to which I am trying to get you to do something determines my degree of dishonesty. I will, occasionally, post on someone else's blog to leave some more or less useful, more or less witty comment - and I do this, of course, in the hope that someone will click on the link and land here.

As some may admit, trying to get you to spend a few minutes perusing my blog is less problematic than trying to get you separated from noteworthy parts of your money.

Those trying to sell their tantra massage sessions, who have become dependent upon this source of income, will obviously go longer distances to achieve their goal. They will spill out article after article, tweet after blog posting after facebook status message, to get you to read their site and then, hopefully, book a session. Those articles won't all be glimmering with bright and intelligent revelations. They will just rehash "authentic", i.e. archaic and often oddly conservative "tantric" teachings that, strangely, always seem to burn down to the same three points: breathe deep, take your time, enjoy male/female polarity. Depending on the author, they will be more or less kinky, more or less religious, more or less this-or-that. And they will always be filled to the brim with cute, sweet, esoteric jargon.

There is good reason for that: On the most general level, which is the only one that will bring in the customers (sorry, I meant to say "acolytes"), there is not a lot more to say about tantra. It is really that simple. The levels at which it gets interesting are those of deep personal experience, where it is often hard to even express your meaning coherently, where it is a question of decency and safety not to reveal to much, and prohibitively hard to create soundbites for the market.

The irony is that tantra is about being present, mindful, in the moment, and spiritual guidance might imply strength of character and lack of ego on part of the giver (or "goddess", as they seem to customarily call themselves these days). You can't be present and in the moment while you're meditating how best to drive people to your site, and I fail to see a lot of egoless enlightenment in lying through your teeth to sell me some sex, or wrapping up sexual services in fluffy religious jargon.

While we're all hypocritical in principle, while we're all guilty and shouldn't judge each other, there are different degrees of ugliness to our actions. Maybe my biggest lie is to my boss, yours is to your husband - it's not about the person, but about the action.

What I'm saying is, take it for what it is - a fun little roleplay for spicing up the action. Don't expect that a "tantra goddess" can give you any insight, healing, or spiritual guidance. Decide whether the relaxation and fun that can be gathered through a good "tantric massage" is worth your money. In my experience, it will probably be better than your run-off-the-mill pay-by-the-hour sex, even if it's not exactly a religious revelation.

In short, don't believe the hype.