LostMemorandum

A response to:

“It’s impossible to hate anything that doesn’t exist. Atheists hate God because he does exist.”

and

“The Muslim faith is violent. Christianity is not.”

Islam is very similar to Judaism, and Judaism involves the same stories of the Christian Bible with different characters. In many ways, Christianity also shares similarities with Islam.

More interestingly, though, Islam has a less pessimistic view of humanity in general. While they see us as being capable of both good and bad, Christianity postulates that humans are inherently bad, as exemplified by “original sin”. Actually, the word "punishment" was used in the Old Testament 51,713 times, while the word "love" was used 131. There are plenty of instances in the Old and New Testament where people killed in the name of God, sometimes with his explicit permission/command.

Deuteronomy 20:17-- You must utterly destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the LORD your God has commanded you.

When it comes to real world examples, the Catholics supported the Nazis during WWII; the Pope even signed a contract with Hitler. Then there are the Crusades, when Christians from all over Europe went to the Middle East, specifically to kill Muslims and take away their land. Then there are all the most recent hate crimes against gays, the instances where families drive their children to suicide by forcing them into conversion therapy, the religious Republicans trying to pass laws based on the Bible that would actually limit the rights of millions... Finally, there are the parents who murder their children because they feel as though they would be better off with God. A common argument against this is that not all Christians are the same, which is true, just as not all Muslims are the same. If you can cherry pick from your Bible, they can certainly cherry pick from their Qur’an.

So back to the main point of whether or not Atheists hate God: Most of us don't, because we really don't believe any God exists. The "Atheists who hate God" are really just jaded theists. Atheists believe we cease to exist after death, and our biological energy is recycled back into the universe to be made use of elsewhere. Most of us have done research on ALL religions, enough to have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter one way or the other what anyone believes about the creation of the universe. All religions are a different means to the same end--eternal life in paradise, which sounds very much like a fairy tale (and wishful thinking) to us.

If it turns out that there is nothing after death, we wouldn't know the difference. We wouldn't be AWARE that we're gone. I want to have actually made use of this life and left this world a better place for those who will inherit it next, because it could be all we have. If there were to be a God, he wouldn't fault anyone for improving the world and treating others well, regardless of whether they spent their life "worshiping" him.

In the end, worshiping your life away doesn't matter. What matters is what you do, how you treat yourself and others, and the amount of effort you're willing to put into actually understanding the world and the people around you. The Bible was against furthering your knowledge and self-awareness, but through furthering your knowledge and thus your understanding, that's how we learn to become good, moral people--by gaining empathy. If we were all to exercise a little empathy, we wouldn't need a 3,400 year old book constructed by men to tell us how to live, and we wouldn't need to seek comfort in the thought of an afterlife if we could just find value, beauty, and promise in what we have here right in front of us.

Often, you’ll hear someone say “I’m not the same person I once was,” but what does that mean exactly? More importantly, what is it that makes us who we are to begin with? In “The Self as Psychological Properties,” John Locke explores the idea of consciousness and personal identity. He offers some very insightful ideas, including that the “self” is dictated by memory; however, he mentions that when a piece of the body is cut off, it no longer is part of that body, which isn’t necessarily correct. For some, self changes are minor and gradual, while in others, traumatic events cause those changes to be far more dramatic.

To Locke, a person “is a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places…“ (Locke, 361) What makes us different from one another is our personal identity: “since consciousness always accompanies thinking.“ (Locke, 361) Some people would claim that the same conscious being would have the same thoughts always, making it the same substance, but Locke explains that forgetfulness and memory loss could change that.

The self could either be considered psychological and/or physical. Locke discusses that if you “cut off a hand, and thereby separate it from that consciousness he had of its heat, cold, and other affections...it is then no longer a part of that which is himself, any more than the remotest part of matter.” (Locke, 105) Despite the fact that the hand itself is separated from the body, the person can still feel its presence. This is called “phantom pains”, and many amputees get them. There are even people with neck injuries who experience feelings of “phantom” hats being on their head. “Every day at random times, sometimes lasting a few hours, I experience the sensation of wearing a headpiece of some sort. Some days it's a football helmet, some days a baseball cap, some a woolie or a cowboy chapeau. Sometimes, I have to go look in a mirror to convince myself it's not really there.“ (Carter, “My Bad Day”). More importantly, the removed appendage is still that of the owner because it can be traced back to the owner with the use of DNA.

I believe that the self is mostly psychologically-based, rather than physical. For example, we are not the exact same person we were in Kindergarten, but our memory of that time influences who we are today. Abused children, for example, tend to grow up with far more psychological problems, and it has been shown that their past greatly affects their future. Some things we forget, while others we do not. If we remembered everything, we wouldn‘t be the same people we are today. If I remembered everything I went through in Elementary school, I’d probably be a lot more cynical.

Since memory affects our self so greatly, how often do we change in our lifetime, and when can it be considered ‘changing into a different person,’ as opposed to just changing? Could it be that we’re the same person during five to ten-year periods, or is it a gradual change that causes us to become a different person every week? As time passes, we all undergo changes. Some of them are minor, while others are far more dramatic. Sometimes it’s for the better, while at times it isn’t. Our interests change, as do our major life decisions sometimes. I don’t really think you can measure the time between the debut of our new selves; it’s different for everyone.

There are always cases which are out of the ordinary. For example, people with Dissociative Identity Disorder (also called Split Personality Disorder) would be said to have more than one self, and each self could not be held accountable for others’ actions, especially in the event of a crime, such as murder. One persona could be someone’s best friend while the other is their enemy. Psychologists, when working with patients with Dissociative Identity Disorder, try to integrate all the personalities into one. Interestingly, DID often arises after prolonged child abuse, as highlighted in the book “When Rabbit Howls,” by Truddi Chase, which is written by a woman (with the help of her psychiatrist) who developed 96 different personalities due to intense sexual and physical abuse sustained from her stepfather when she was a child.

There are also cases where huge chunks of memory are lost. Does this change who the person is? Most definitely. “I say…in our consciousness being interrupted, and we losing the sight of our past selves, doubts are raised whether we are the same thinking thing, i.e. the same substance…“ (Locke, 105) Since he or she has nothing from the past to gather emotion or information from, they often start all over, as a clean slate. From 2004 to 2007, I was in a long-distance relationship with someone. That was around the time I was getting ready to graduate from high school, and I was making plans to move there to attend college with him. He had a lot of problems, many of which stemmed from his childhood. Eventually, it became too much for him, and he grew emotionally and verbally abusive towards me. I ended communication with him around August 2008. This summer, he contacted me via email because sometime last year, he was attacked and suffered severe head trauma. He remembered neither me, nor the time we spent together. He’d found my information amongst some notes he wrote years ago (he’s a writer), which he used to contact me. We spoke all summer, and I came to realize he is not the same person he once was. He’s more affectionate, never temperamental, and it seems as though he’s more in touch with not only his thoughts and emotions but those of others as well. Because of this, he has become a better writer.

Some could argue that his change in behavior is possibly caused by something else or even be of his own free will. Obviously, something has changed about him, and since there have been no other significant occurrences in his life between 2008 and now, I am lead to attribute this change to the memory loss. Often, he goes back and reads notes his “old self” left behind. Consequently, he knows a lot about his childhood. The only difference? He doesn’t remember actually experiencing it, which has changed the way he is affected by it. It’s no longer a burden he has to carry. It’s more like a story vaguely remembered. Essentially, he had to get to know me all over again. I can’t really imagine what it’s like to contact a stranger one day and find out they know everything about you and your past when you know nothing about them. He still asks me questions about his past and the people from it. We talk every day now and are currently making arrangements for him to move to an apartment here in June.

Today I decided that I wanted to "Like" the Freemasons on Facebook, but upon searching for them, I discovered just how misinformed people are about it. One person posted "Someone go run and tell the Free Masons that my GOD will unmercifully smite theirs. & that'll be in the name of his son Jesus Christ." Another said "Learned A LOT about the Free Masons tonight... not good, not good at all." This made me wonder "'learned'? Where are people learning this crap?" So I looked it up on YouTube, and I realized, like with so many other things, even the programs they post on the History and Discovery channels are wrong. They make it sound like some dark, mysterious, and even foreboding cult with dreams of world domination and tendencies of satanic worship.

So from where did Freemasonry originate? It dates back to the building of the temple of King Solomon in Jerusalem around 1000 B.C. Originally, their "secret" was how to build gigantic buildings such as cathedrals by using advanced Geometry. Eventually, their focus was moved to character building. That's where they came up with "Taking good men and making them better." It became a sort of fraternity, and many of the foundations of American society were built using Masonic beliefs, traditions, and values. Nine Masons signed the Constitution, ten signed the Declaration of Independence, and fourteen have been president of the U.S. There are Masons who are actors, authors, artists, farmers, police officers, architects, auto body mechanics, entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors, etc. There are an estimated six million in the world.

Well then, what are these "beliefs"? It's a common misconception that in order to be in the fraternity, you must believe in God. Instead, members must believe in a "Supreme Being." What does that mean? Well, it all depends on you and how you interpret it. As my father put it: "What is a supreme being? It's anything you want. You can worship a glass of water, a fence, the wall, or even yourself. Who says it has to be one specific thing?" Many of the men affiliated with the Freemasonry are Catholics, Christians, and even Muslims. What the Masons focus on the most is moral code (Brotherly love, Relief, and Truth). For example, the Ten Commandments is a sort of moral code which is very similar to that of the Masons. It's not a religion, as much as it's a lifestyle and a guidance to do good in your life (and bring good to the lives of others).

There are different sects of the Freemasonry called Appendant Bodies. These include Scottish Rite, The Shrine, and York Rite. Only members can get involved with the Appendant Bodies, and in order to become a member, one must reach the 3rd degree. Degrees are sort of like levels in the fraternity, and in order to reach those levels, they learn the precepts (a precept is a commandment, instruction, or order intended as an authoritative rule of action) by putting on plays, acting them out in full costume (When I was young, I got to see the costumes, and they were beautiful). If a Mason gives out information about the fraternity to a non-member (such as what the precepts are), he is kicked out. He isn’t murdered or hung from a bridge. He isn’t tortured. His family isn’t sent into exile, and they don’t tie his animals to train tracks. Masons are not monsters.

Finally, the Masons are very philanthropic, especially in the Appendant Bodies. The Shriners spend a lot of time raising money for children with diseases, disorders, and disabilities. The Freemasons don't really raise money, but they do donate very large amounts discreetly. Why be discreet? Simply because the act of donating is far more rewarding than getting attention for it. Masons don't shout it from the rooftops, and they don't seek a pat on the back. Anywhere you are in the world, you can count on a Mason to help you, even if you or your family aren't members.

"I knew a Mason who owned a supermarket here, and whenever someone's house burned down or they fell on some hard times, he'd take a shopping cart and he'd fill it up with bread, milk, hamburger-whatever the hell he wanted. It didn't matter if they were rich or poor. He'd take it up to the cash register and pay for it all. Then he'd take it to them, give them an extra couple hundred dollars and say 'here, go buy some clothes too.'"

My Management professor was talking about ethics today, and we got on the subject of stem-cell research. She mentioned that people are in great debate right now over whether or not someone would belong to the owner of the cure. What she means is, someone owns a cure when they find it. So if someone finds a cure (or even a vaccine) for cancer, for example, that alters a person's genes, they have ownership of that cure and thus have ownership of those cells; thus, they would still own those cells when they are transferred to someone else's body. So the debate is whether or not the recipient of the cells would then, in turn, belong to the developer and thus be required to devote themselves to the developer in order for him/her to continue using the cure/vaccine on other people.

As most of you have probably already heard, the reverend of a small Florida church is planning on holding a Qur'an book burning in a few days on September 11; he's calling it "Burn a Koran Day". Not only does this display a terrible amount of intolerance, but it creates a U.S security risk.

Ever since September 11, 2001, it has been widely debated whether we should blame the entire religion of Islam or just the sect which promotes suicide bombings/suicide attacks. Honestly, the answer should be obvious. It's the same reason why we show immense disdain for Nazis and not German citizens in general. It's the reason why we don't say all Brits are drunks or all Jews are money hungry. Most of us know the meaning of the word "diversity"; most of us understand that not everyone holds the same values. This is true, even with Christianity and Catholicism. How individuals interpret religion, and life in general, differs greatly. No one looks at things exactly the same way, and no one goes about doing things exactly the same way. That's the beauty (and, in this case, the tragedy) of it.

More importantly, though, degrading anyone for anything they believe in provokes harsh feelings. It provokes retaliation. When someone tries telling me that my beliefs are wrong, I get angry. Once the Holocaust was over, the Nuremburg Hangings was a form of retaliation. What makes anyone think this "Koran Burning" is any different? How do you think we look to other nations? How do you think the suicide bombers feel? You have to ask yourself this important question because how do you think they plan on reacting? Law definitely does not prohibit the freedom Rev. Terry Jones has to do what he is planning on doing, but what's going to happen if this sparks another terrorist attack? I know what the people will do, but what will the law do? Will he be arrested for treason? Can it be called treason? Can it really be called anything? And for that matter, would laws be amended because of it? You may say "They can't take away rights allotted in the Constitution," but things change when terrorism is thrown into the equation.

In the end, it doesn't matter that The President of the United States says he doesn't condone Rev. Jones' plan. The whole point is that Jones isn't alone in his beliefs. If he were, I don't think we'd have this problem; if no one attended the burning, it wouldn't really be called a burning, would it?

Some say it's best to live with no regrets. Each mistake we make is a learning experience, right? For the most part, I believe that's true, and up until now, I haven't had any real regrets.

I, however, now regret not being able to see my grandparents before they died. I regret not going to Delaware for the past six years. Never again will I sleep in my bed there and look out the huge window, seeing everything green, everything beautiful. Never again will I walkthrough the trees, down the hill in their backyard to the Brandywine River. I won't smell the same scent, the scent of the water on the leaves, the moss, the earth; it's so different over there. Never again will I drive down the winding road that leads to their home, the one that's so difficult to navigate in the Winter months.

I won't have the chance to sit on the porch drinking "Liquid Libations", as they called it. Over the summer, every night at around 5pm, they sat down to talk, smoke, and drink cocktails. Never again will I smell my grandmother's perfume or her breath when she spoke into my ear. I won't hear my grandfather's voice when he used to say "Oh, for goodness sake". I won't see the look he got on his face every time he leaned over to pet one of the many cats residing in their house. I won't have the chance to help him garden, and I won't have the chance to fight with him over how strong-headed I am.

No longer will I experience that fear when I went down to their basement, nor the wonder I felt when I turned on the light and began exploring the shelves in all the rooms. My grandfather's workshop will be empty, and never again will I hear the buzzing of his saw as he worked on his latest piece.

Finally, never again will I have the chance to pack up all my things, put them in my grandfather's Pathfinder, and sit in the backseat as we, as a family, drove to Salt Lake City. I'll never see that condo in which we stayed, and I'll never walk the beach holding my grandfather's hand as we looked for seashells washed up on shore.

I won't ever be back in that world again.

My biggest regret is that I never got the chance to show them the person I've become. They never knew me as an adult, only as a child, and I regret never having the chance to form a similar friendship with them that I have now with my mother. I'll never again see them in the airport and have them not recognize me because I've changed so much, and when I graduate from college, they won't be there to share it with me like they wanted.