Stop Being Offended by Holidays!

To start off, I want to make my position – and the position of many other atheists – very clear. Last year, in my post titled “Merry Christmas Atheists,” I argued that “the problem of saying ‘Christmas’ vs. saying ‘holiday’ is not an atheist battle, but rather, an inter-faith battle. Just the other day, this was confirmed by a post to  r/atheism, (“the web's largest atheist forum”) asking, “As an Atheist, are you offended when wished "Merry Christmas"?” The response was a resounding “No,” and several expressions of openness to the holiday. “Slacktoo,” a fellow ‘redditor’, responds:

No, in fact I wish others Merry Christmas and celebrate the holiday joyfully. While having origins in pagan and Christian mythology, it has evolved into an exciting festive holiday that can be celebrated by people who have no adherence to such superstitions.

But this openness is not just unique to atheists. It is a quality I have encountered in many religious people and minorities as well. Here is the key to this attitude: not believing the “holidays” are about ONE privileged group. Rachel Olivero, in a news article, says it best when she states:

In 2011, can we celebrate Christmas in our schools? Absolutely — say Merry Christmas!" she said. "At the same time, don't be offended if someone comes up to you at another time of year and says, 'Eid Mubarak' or 'Happy Diwali’.

Whether one celebrates the Pagan ‘solstice’, the Christian ‘Christmas’, the Capitalist ‘Christmas’ (often referred to as ‘holiday’), or any other tradition, is irrelevant! Drop your self-important holiday identity long enough to feel a sense of ‘joy’. But who are these religious Scrooges?

There are two supposed ‘types’: the group labeled “politically correct” who are “easily offended by Christmas”, and the Christians who are reacting to popular use of “holiday”. The first group is said to be composed of minorities who have “taken over” and atheists who are trying to “hijack Christmas,” whereas the latter can be seen complaining on fox news. I claim that the first group virtually does not exist – it is a strawman put into popular discourse by the latter group.

It is ironic that “happy holidays” is considered the politically correct phrase, when it is actually more likely to offend someone. So what is the main reason given by those feeling threatened by “happy holidays”? It all comes down to the argument that Christmas is no longer accepted as politically correct. But this is to deeply miss the point of the word “holidays”.

The use of “happy holidays” is not meant to replace Christmas, but rather, it is meant to include Christmas, along with any other tradition observed around late December. The “offended minorities” and “angry atheists” are but mere fictions. On a private individual level, no one is banning the use of “Christmas” –  or any other tradition title for that matter. The word “holiday” is merely a viable option when talking about the holidays in general, or when governments/ public entities want to send out a festive greeting from all of its groups, rather than just one of them. Notice I use “from” rather than “to”.

Wish me the title of your tradition, and I will wish you the title of mine. Being offended by holidays –  particularity, the word “holiday” itself – is to miss the point. With that being said, I’d like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a fantastic holiday season.

A New Personal-Development

Maybe self-improvement isn't the answer.... Maybe self-destruction is the answer.  ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

How do you partake in personal development, if self-destruction is the answer? Eckhart Tolle’s spiritual insight and Owen Cook’s ‘Real Social Dynamics’ seem to be part of a new genre of personal development where the goal is actually to destroy the ‘self’.

The old models of self-improvement seem to emphasize self-esteem through building up the ego. Eckhart Tolle, in his books “The Power of Now” and “A New Earth”, is quick to determine the ego as the target of destruction. In his books, the ego represents a ‘false self’ constructed by social conditioning upon which the identity of the individual rests. This identification is said to be the root of all human struggles; we are constantly trying to reinforce our positive sense of self by reacting against all those who threaten the boundaries of our ‘self' concept’.

What does it mean to enact self-destruction? Rather than trying to build up a sense of self by collecting more and more STUFF (material possessions, physical characteristics, belief-systems, and ideologies), the act of self-destruction says “screw it all".

The things you own end up owning you.  It's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything.  ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

How does this relate to spiritual belief-systems? Having a belief-system is like owning a material possession. They say you are not complete without one; therefore, ‘dissatisfied lack’ is the default state of ones constructed reality. In the same way consumer culture constructs our desire to be ‘complete’ through commodities, spiritual belief-systems construct a reality where ‘lack’ characterizes the individual who is not able to identify themselves under a specific tradition.

The good news is that this reality does not apply to you if you are simply aware that it exists. This will also allow you to understand why so many religious people are quick to defend their faith; their sense of self depends on it.

Attacking someone's belief system is like attacking their sense of self in the same way that insulting their clothing may offend them. This is not to say we should avoid dialogue with religious people in fear of offending them; the opposite is the case. We should engage in conversations about spiritually more often. But remember, don’t be a dick.

The socially conditioned ‘self’ does not dissolve without a fight; attacking it will only make it stronger. The ‘self’ will sense threat, pump itself up, and come back bigger and stronger than before. Rather than setting up this reality of ‘battle’, the method of seduction is far more effective.

Be the change you want to see. Only when your own ego is dealt with will you be able to offer complete value to all you encounter. This state of being is the art of seduction (weather it be in the context of work, family-life, or dating). Arguing with religious persons for the sake of being right only builds your own sense of identity as superior. Rather than taking value in the form of argument, one must provide value in the form of careful dialogue. 

If value is light, taking value leads to darkness. We can not get rid of darkness with more darkness. When your sense of ‘self’ is not the measure of your value, the value you offer provides the basis for your happiness.

Beyond Atheism

You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world. – Tyler Durden

You are not your belief system. You are not even your lack of a belief system. In the same way theists gain a sense of identity through their display of a belief system, atheists gain a sense of identity through their opposition to belief systems. Doesn’t this sound absurd?

I understand the word ‘atheist’ has served well in mobilizing an opposition to the harmful side of religion, but I say lets evolve.

Fuck off with your sofa units and string green stripe patterns, I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may. – Tyler Durden

Only when we can stop messing with the tasteless decor of outdated belief-systems, can we design a masterpiece. Lets focus on what we stand for, rather than what we don’t find fashionable. By fixating on the belief systems of others, we’re being drawn into their reality of identification. With identification comes boundaries, opposition, and a world full of resentment.

It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything. – Tyler Durden

It is not enough to lose rigid belief systems. Oppositional identities maintain the same belief as the failing “war on drugs”, “war on terror”, “war on crime” mentality; the belief that “we” have the truth, “they” are wrong and now we must stomp them out.

The days of “militant atheism” must come to an end before atheists spark the next ‘religious war’.

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... – John Lennon

When John Lennon talks about no countries and no religion, he is talking about no boundaries. Having “no religion” can not mean a world of atheists since atheists can only maintain their identity so long as theists still exist; an ‘us vs. them’ mentality is vital to defining yourself in opposition to an ‘other’.

Evolve. When boundaries are dissolved, the identity you hold will stop holding onto you.

Arguing with Religious Fanatics

We all know the popular brand of atheism which tends to poke fun at religion and assert its truth by appealing to science and rationality, right?

I've come to see this type of atheism as reactive rather than proactive, and makes people seem arrogant rather than pushing them to understand the deeper issues.

This reactionary atheism also makes religious people angry rather than logically convincing them of anything. I don't think logic and rationality are the best tools in these types of arguments and this is why:

Contemporary religion and the increasing level fundamentalism is a reaction against techno-capitalist culture where everything is ultra rationalized to the point where some people are not feeling satisfied or fulfilled in an environment they perceive as sterile. Most atheists think more rationality and logic is the cure, but this is a mistake since its like adding fuel to the fire; they will only get firmer in their beliefs since someone is trying to give them more of the "problem".

Look at it this way: If a religious person tries to convince you that they are right, they will give you mystical reasons which, in your perspective, is just more of the problem. As an atheist, one should consider arguing in ways which do more than just shake up the hornet-nest.

Appealing to the motivations of the other person is one of the most effective ways to argue. If their problem is a lack of emotional depth in the world, than maybe atheists should consider their sense of reality rather than appealing directly to science and rationality. This is not to oppose emotion to science, Carl Sagan does a wonderful job at articulating the two simultaneously. 

I don't condone the religious atrocities, nor do I have anything against science and rationality. Although I think the popular brand of militant atheism is probably liberating for people who have recently 'came out', I encourage people to develop more sophisticated ways of looking at the issues rather than getting stuck in a reactionary rut.

Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse

Sam Richards: A radical experiment in empathy

Video and description from TEDTalks April 2011

By leading the Americans in his audience at TED step by step through the thought process, sociologist Sam Richards sets an extraordinary challenge: can they understand -- not approve of, but understand -- the motivations of an Iraqi insurgent? And by extension, can anyone truly understand and empathize with another?

The Mountain

The Mountain from Terje Sorgjerd on Vimeo.

This was filmed between 4th and 11th April 2011. I had the pleasure of visiting El Teide.
Spain´s highest mountain @(3715m) is one of the best places in the world to photograph the stars and is also the location of Teide Observatories, considered to be one of the world´s best observatories.

The goal was to capture the beautiful Milky Way galaxy along with one of the most amazing mountains I know El Teide. I have to say this was one of the most exhausting trips I have done. There was a lot of hiking at high altitudes and probably less than 10 hours of sleep in total for the whole week. Having been here 10-11 times before I had a long list of must-see locations I wanted to capture for this movie, but I am still not 100% used to carrying around so much gear required for time-lapse movies.
A large sandstorm hit the Sahara Desert on the 9th April (http://bit.ly/g3tsDW) and at approx 3am in the night the sandstorm hit me, making it nearly impossible to see the sky with my own eyes.

Interestingly enough my camera was set for a 5 hour sequence of the milky way during this time and I was sure my whole scene was ruined. To my surprise, my camera had managed to capture the sandstorm which was backlit by Grand Canary Island making it look like golden clouds. The Milky Way was shining through the clouds, making the stars sparkle in an interesting way. So if you ever wondered how the Milky Way would look through a Sahara sandstorm, look at 00:32.

Available in Digital Cinema 4k.

Like my Facebook Page for updateshttp://www.facebook.com/TSOPhotography
Follow me on http://twitter.com/TSOPhotography
Press/licensing/projects contact: terjes@gmail.com
Music by my friend: Ludovico Einaudi - "Nuvole bianche" with permission.
Please support the artist here:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/una-mattina/id217799399

Thank you to my sponsors:
http://www.canon.com
http://www.g-technology.com
http://www.dynamicperception.com/ (Best dolly in the world!)

Ric Elias: 3 things I learned while my plane crashed

Video and description from TED Talks April 2011

Ric Elias had a front-row seat on Flight 1549, the plane that crash-landed in the Hudson River in New York in January 2009. What went through his mind as the doomed plane went down? At TED, he tells his story publicly for the first time.

Dalai Lama on Religion

"Developing love and compassion and reducing anger and spite is a universal activity which requires no faith in any religion whatsoever." - Dalai Lama

In a previous post I talked about the problem with modern religion in order to consider the potential ‘religion’ may hold as an institution. This quote from the Dalai Lama adds another layer to that critique. Don’t you find it ironic when you hear stories about angry religious people who are full of spite? I don’t think religion is inherently bad, but I find many people either miss the point or move away from it since they don’t see a point. Those who miss the point – at the most extreme level – are out protesting in anger and burning the holy books of other religions groups (See Terry Jones). Those who don’t see the point have most likely been turned off by religious extremists, or have been brought up in sterile traditions which shove morality down your throat – or both. So what’s this point I’m talking about.

The point is increasing happiness – what we all look for anyway – through cultivating ‘love’ –Basically learning how to love harder. Now If you’re skeptical, let me explain. As Plato’s Socrates said, the highest purpose of love is to become a lover of wisdom – for him this is equivalent to becoming a philosopher. Wisdom, in its mystic sense, can be found at the core of each religion – hence the term ‘wisdom tradition’. If you strip religion of all its doctrine, hierarchies, and ‘unwavering’ laws, you will be left with its core ‘wisdom’.

By wisdom I don’t mean hidden rules or knowledge; I mean practices – particularly, practices which cultivate love. The benefits of specific practices can be seen in within the field of positive pychology (click to view insights into Buddhist practices). Loving-kindness meditation is actually considered a practice of Buddhism. This is not limited to Buddhism, but can also be found in Christian monasticism and several other religions. When you get down to this level of religion, it begins to lose its strong attachment to faith, authority, and other modern institutional structures.

So how does this relate to the Dalai Lama’s quote? He says love and compassion “requires no faith in any religion whatsoever." He has also said “kindness is my religion”. By equating religion with kindness, this eliminates the institutional structure altogether. If religion becomes ‘kindness’, where is the need for faith? The alternative to focusing on faith – which presupposes knowledge and laws – is the focus is on practices which are a tool for growth. Of course, this is a break from ‘religion’ as we commonly know it.

Rather than being a mere part of the flock, over-determined by the laws of a master, one must make religion into ‘kindness’; only then can freedom and individual growth begin to occur. On that note, I will end this post with another quote:

“All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness, the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives.” – Dalai Lama

A Peaceful Stand Against Pastor Terry Jones

Photo Credit: Ian Kushnir

Hundreds of people from different faiths came together Thursday afternoon to take part in the opposition against Florida Pastor Terry Jones. The InterFaith Leadership Council of Metropolitan Detroit organized the event, held at Dearborn's Islamic Center of America.

The ICA hosting committee greeted visitors at the door and provided head scarves for women upon entrance. Just before entering the main hall, a large white banner that covered a long table had a number of attendee signatures written on it. In the center of the hall laid a red carpet that led to center stage of the religious panelists. 

As people filed in to take their seats, smiles were exchanged and hugs were shared, giving the gathering a peaceful atmosphere. The attendees, though diverse in the faiths they practice, were unified in their message.
Exerpt from The Dearborn Patch

This is a sight I like to see: unity in difference. But here is a different perspective on the recent events. ‘Spirited Atheist’ Susan Jacoby Writes:

Respect for religion—any religion—is not required under American law, despite the wrongheaded idea that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. You can burn copies of the Torah, the New Testament, or the Koran…

There is absolutely no moral equivalency between the symbolic act of one demented pastor—who apparently commands a congregation of only 30 warped souls—and revenge killings abetted by the voices of so-called religious leaders in Afghanistan
Exerpt from The Washington Post

This is a reaction to the claims of those who blame Pastor Terry Jones for the revenge killings which resulted from his actions.

Of course there is no moral equivalency between disrespect and killings. Although respect for religion is not required by law, I stand for earned respect – those in Dearborn have earned respect and deserved to have been shown it. But lack of respect is not the main issue here; the issue is Jones’s hateful speech and actions. His actions are a perpetuation of a cycle of hate. Hate and anger only leads to more hate and anger.

But what about the interfaith gathering? This breaks from my logic of harm begetting harm. The gathering is significant because it is an example of a hateful action causing a positive reaction: a diverse community uniting. These are the reactions we need to see more often.

In the end, Paster Terry Jones is an example of a hateful person who will merely create more hate in those he is against – this is the downward spiral we need to watch out. Rather than engaging in negative reactions, we must first consider the harm we may be perpetuating. The interfaith response is an example of a path one must consider before engaging in protest.

Perhaps one day responses like this will not only be ‘interfaith’, but inter-faith/non-faith. What a day it will be when atheists will be welcome with arms-wide-open in a country were they are currently its #1 hated minority. Until then, all I can say is this: always consider your reactions; they can be part of the problem or part of the solution.

The Arrogant Atheists vs. The Dogmatic Religious

This reminds me of the popular Atheist vs. Religious debates: O'Reilly vs Dawkins, The Richard Dawkins Forum (which I had once been a regular contributor), Reddit Atheism, the Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate and several other Youtube videos.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a hardy laugh at religious ignorance; as well, I can appreciate an eloquent argument by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, or Sam Harris. Although they can be amusing, these discussions are usually futile and breed resentment. 

By giving attention to what we don’t like, we actually strengthen its stance. This creates a looping effect where each side gets firmer in their stance and more resentful of the other.

Lastly, both sides tend to make the same fundamental error of judgment; they both appeal to the absolute worst/must harmful individuals of the other group. This is especially evident in the Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate where Christopher generalizes the fundamentalist stance on ‘religion’. The same goes for Christians who think all atheists are arrogant or immoral. We should be careful of the tendency to judge ourselves by our best characteristics and the other by their worst.

I find discussions on religion quite fascinating and think they have the potential to unite differences rather than merely dividing them.

Arguing Against Religion

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Gustav Jung

Original Link: Rage Comic

Sigur Rós – Gobbledigook

The Problem With Modern Religion

“For of the fast stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: ‘Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart’” – Max Weber

Why keep talking about religion? Well, I think it has something to offer. There is something to be said about a regular collective gatherings which encourage states of intoxication. That’s right, states of group intoxication – and I’m not talking about the bar! This doesn't sound like the religion you know? Well that’s because modern religion has been sterilized, sanitized, and stripped away all the fun stuff – the bliss.

Max Weber’s quote appears in his book Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1908). It was written in response to a dramatic rise of modern ‘work ethic’. Basically, this ‘ethic’ consists of working as hard as you can to please God; but there’s a catch (there’s alllways a catch with God): you can’t enjoy any of the profit you earn from your work; it must be strictly invested and never used for pleasure. This is the modern ‘ascetic ideal’ – the same ideal Nietzsche hated. This ideal boils down to one thing: being completely rational and disciplined all the time wile avoiding any kind of pleasures.

So what’s wrong with being rational? Well, this is not you’re ordinary type of ‘rational’, this is extreme rationality where every action must be reflected upon for its instrumental utility. In pushing ones self so far in this direction one grossly neglects some of the most important things: passion, sensation, and emotion.

Now I’m not trying to get all ‘new agey’ here. I really think we need to start paying more attention to these other parts of the human experience. The protestant ethic did not disappear; it is alive and well in almost all religious and corporate institutions. The difference is that we no longer place God at the top (Nietzsche was right when he said God is dead). Money is our new object of worship.

So now what. How can we bring back passion to institutions that have been hollowed out? How can we bring meaning back to a sterilized zombie religion and a psychopathic corporate world? We don’t need a new God to save us; we need passion. We can learn a thing or two from the pre-modern world. We once thought of them an unhappy ‘primitive’ world which needed happy civilizing. I’m starting to wonder if we had it backwards.

Here are some clips to consider. Enjoy!

Human Planet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12618167

Gross National Happiness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zqdqa4YNvI

Einstein Quotes on God

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.

God always takes the simplest way.

God does not play dice.

God may be subtle, but he is not malicious.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.

I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.

I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.

Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.

When the solution is simple, God is answering.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.