NHRA
It seems that we rarely hear about the NHRA anymore. They used to be on TV often, but in the world of auto racing NASCAR has become more popular.
Yet I like hot rods better.
1. The track is shorter; I do not have to wait all day to see who will win
2. There are many small races instead of one big race
3. I like the funny cars and the nitro cars so I get variety, whereas NASCAR has the same type
4. Yeah I admit it, I like the smoke, the squealing tires and the sometimes crashes.
I guess some people like NASCAR and the rest like NHRA –maybe my attention span is just too short
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
On Anti-theism
A listing on the Democratic Underground website attempts to draw a distiction between atheism and anti-theism. The writer postulates that the anti-theist believes that all religion are not just wrong ( in a theoretical sense), but also bad. The effects of following religion is that the individual becomes brainwashed and is able to justify bad or evil acts.Further they contend that even those things that are considered good can be achieved independent of religion, such as feeding the poor, and healing the sick. In fact the write argues that these acts are weakened through a religious lens.
Two problems I see with this approach, and with those who espouse a strong atheism. First, they are blinded by the very biases that see in religious people. For them to be truthful, they need to account for the fact that just as not everything done in religion is good, the opposite is also true: that everything done from an a-religious, or secular ideology is also not always good. Unless an atheist can argue that the atheist belief system (and not just individual followers) can produce evil then they are biased.
Secondly, the anti-religious (which I contend is the correct term since ant-theism rejects a belief in a Deity but not in a religion per se), argue that what is primarily wrong with religion is that it is illogical, and irrational. They then believe that logic and rationality are key to a enlightened and "better" life. But, what is rational and logical? Unless one is willing to counter that certain things occur in an illogical, irrational or counter-intuitive fashion--perhaps only initially until better understanding or time passes--then these people are biased. But being defined as biased in not something that a logical, rational, and enlightened person is apt to admit.
Two problems I see with this approach, and with those who espouse a strong atheism. First, they are blinded by the very biases that see in religious people. For them to be truthful, they need to account for the fact that just as not everything done in religion is good, the opposite is also true: that everything done from an a-religious, or secular ideology is also not always good. Unless an atheist can argue that the atheist belief system (and not just individual followers) can produce evil then they are biased.
Secondly, the anti-religious (which I contend is the correct term since ant-theism rejects a belief in a Deity but not in a religion per se), argue that what is primarily wrong with religion is that it is illogical, and irrational. They then believe that logic and rationality are key to a enlightened and "better" life. But, what is rational and logical? Unless one is willing to counter that certain things occur in an illogical, irrational or counter-intuitive fashion--perhaps only initially until better understanding or time passes--then these people are biased. But being defined as biased in not something that a logical, rational, and enlightened person is apt to admit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)