Everything you ever wanted to know about SATAN.

I have always had an interest in the darker, more horrific aspects of fantasy…and I am not alone. Humanity’s lust for the demonic, terrible, and just plain evil reveals a sort of morbid fascination, the same thing that has us rubbernecking at the scene of an accident, subconsciously (or perhaps not so subconsciously) hoping to see a splatter of blood or a disembodied head lying on the pavement. Our obsession is reflected in our fantasies, in which our imaginations seem to know no bounds. Most modern incarnations are harmless, such as scary movies or horror novels, but there were once many forms of fabricated evil that were very consequential, some of which survive today. Undoubtedly the longest surviving and best known of these is Satan.

Invented to be the personification of everything bad (or rather sinful, and yes, there is a definite difference), Satan has become one of the most iconic characters of our time, but perceptions of him still differ widely. Satanists see him as the ultimate representation of our primal urges, with power equivalent. Fundamentalist Christians still believe that he is all too real, with an entire supernatural organization designed to insinuate blasphemy and temptation into God's poor, huddled flock through such mediums as evolutionary biology, Harry Potter, and buttsex. (Though to be fair, these last two may indeed be related.)

THE ORIGIN OF SATAN

So where did the concept of Satan originally come from? Clearly not the Hebrew bible, or Tanakh. Supposed mentions of a supernatural adversary to God, which are excruciatingly vague and meager to begin with, are really only mistranslations and misinterpretations. Even in the book of Job, in which Satan argues with God about Job’s loyalty, the word representing him is ha’satan, which means “the adversary,” coining only that this entity was against god in an argument. We cannot even call the ha’satan's violations of Job in the story works of evil on his part, as he only does what god has sanctioned. Indeed, partway through the torment, god steps in and tells him to wreck Job’s ass even worse!

The “serpent” in the Garden of Eden wasn’t meant to be Satan either (most significantly because the whole Original Sin scenario was totally “borrowed” from Sumerian myth). The common perception today is that they are one in the same, but this is due to later Biblical scholars desperately trying to square all of the rag-tag, contorted, and contradictory bible texts into some semblance of continuity (an attempt at which they ultimately failed). So the Serpent, the Dragon, the Devil, Satan, Lucifer, Anti-Christ – all of these have different origins and meanings, many of them having nothing at all to do with what modern society – and even modern religion – calls the Devil.

So does an ultimate evil exist according to the Jewish canon? The answer is a definitive no. Indeed, virtually every act of genocide, viciousness and torment is perpetrated by God. Even evil spirits who assault people are sent directly at his behest, so the lack of an ultimate evil is understandable. After all, with a friend like the Hebrew God, who needs enemies?

God's gonna fuck you up, son.

It makes sense in another way as well - Judaism was supposed to be about having only one god, so the writers of the Old Testament were careful to never present any challengers to his power. Zoroastrianism, a religion even older, posed a rivalry between two entities, one good and one evil, named Ahura Mazda and Anghra Mainyu, respectively. The dynamic of these two gods was very similar to what we now consider to be the relationship between God and Satan, for despite their monotheistic declarations, in time the Abrahamic religions began increasingly to adopt this concept, with Satan as their Anghra Mainyu.

Satan's most prolific depictions by far are presented in the New Testament, probably because the kinder, gentler Jesus wasn’t inspiring as much terror as before, and the ever necessary threat of punishment found a new incarnation. His most significant appearance is in the Gospel of Matthew (4:1-11), in which he tempts Jesus in the wilderness:

"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; (Wow, that must've been one freakin' tall mountain!) and he said to him, 'All these will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me.'

"Then Jesus said to him, 'Begone, Satan! for it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve."' Then the Devil left him, and behold, angels came and administered to him."

That sounded like a damned good deal to me, Satan. Where do I sign? But behold, Jesus was a pantywaste, and he refused. And I'm not sure exactly how these angels "ministered" to him afterward, but I doubt they were as fun as the ministrations you could get from Satan's crew.

In any case, this is the very first incarnation in which Satan is seen as a concrete being, and one capable of the power to reward and punish and serve as a possible replacement for God in our worship. With this distinction, Satan's formal rivalry with God over human souls had begun. Along with his increased importance came a jump in power, and Satan was eventually seen as, if not an equivalent to God, then at least as significant to God's flock (that's us). 

For all his supposed evil, Satan's body count compared to God's is pretty fucking weak.

Satan's heyday was most certainly during the Inquisition and the Middle Ages, when he was granted all of his powers and lackeys. When the Christian churches were at the height of their power and fighting for supremacy, suddenly not even the bloodthirsty OT god was terrible enough. They needed something even worse, something that would either punish sinners outright or simply tempt people enough to piss off God so that he would. Embracing the good god versus the evil god concept at last, the frothing Inquisitors and their followers proposed all kinds of evil supernatural creatures to populate Hell’s legions. Many demons even had names, and were patrons over men's sins just as named angels patronized men's virtues! Hell was truly let loose, and it exploded across Europe, conjuring more demons than you could ever get rid of, even if you can totally beat Doom on Nightmare mode. 

Think you're bad, son? Try Dark Ages mode!

Another reason for emphasizing the terribleness of Hell was to make heaven look better by comparison. Christianity has never been able to present a very sexy paradise, so the idea became making life and damnation both so goddamned awful that even Heaven would seem...well, like Heaven.

Zzzzzz...

As the Dark Ages wore on, yet more demonic fables and legends were added to religious folklore. The demon Lilith, for example, whose origins were actually Sumerian (again), was postulated to have begun life as Adam's first wife. She left the Garden o’ Eden because she refused to assume the missionary position during sex, which further shows not only that god obsesses about what you do in your bedroom, but that Adam was a fucking chump. He was "cursed" twice by women, first by a one who wanted to ride him to ecstasy, then by her replacement, who granted him all the knowledge of creation. We men should be so lucky as to meet either one of them.

Below is a contemporary depiction of a female demon. If this is what Lillith looks like, then here's further proof that Adam was either gay or stupid. She could ride me any day.

Horns can double as handlebars.

SATAN GETS A MAKEOVER

In the 4^th Century AD, after Christianity was finally given free reign to shove its shit in everybody’s face, conversions began en masse. Their main tactic in converting the old Pagan nature worshipers was assimilation, which explains, among other things, why Christmas and Easter are set on the Solstices. When the ancient fertility cults proved difficult to assimilate, early Christians resorted to demonizing the old gods. Since a great many fertility gods were depicted as having horns (a sign of virility as well as a connection with nature), it followed that Satan should have them too. Many other characteristics followed.

This was actually a good thing for Satan’s image because before he was the vehicle for demonization, nobody could say exactly what he was even supposed to look like. Originally appearing as a mindless, slavering monster, Satan became more anthropomorphic over time (and developed his scheming pointy beard) once his role as sly tempter became popular. Losing most of his furriness, his skin became either black or chili pepper red, evidently as a result of Hell’s toasty climate. The trident, another ancient symbol of domination, was placed in the new Devil’s hand.

SO WHERE IS SATAN NOW?

With the dying out of the Inquisition and (most) religious domination, Satan became far less of a threat. For most of us, Satan represents that dark allure, the temptation of being naughty, often personified by the playful little devil on our proverbial shoulders, and is a danger only to squares who refuse to live life to its fullest. He’s often portrayed sympathetically, as a symbol of those who refuse to submit to tyranny or other overburdening authority. 

Southpark's depiction of Satan is about as sympathetic as the infamous show allows.

Taking this perspective to the next level, the officially recognized religion of Satanism was organized by Anton LaVey in 1966…and yes, that specific date was on purpose. The central tenets of the religion itself are really nothing new. LaVey himself admitted that it was “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy, with ceremony and ritual added.” Accordingly, modern Satanists, as I can attest to from personal experience, are merely secular humanists with a flair for theatrics. Most of their efforts are engineered to be wanton blasphemy, but seeing as how this is against a God that they do not believe exists (even Satan doesn’t formally exist to them except as a metaphor), it’s clear that their primary goal has always been to shock and tease Christians. Unfortunately, they are so obviously harmless, so few, and so prone to lashing out at one another that not even fundamentalist Christians pay them much heed anymore.

Anton LaVey preparing to devour a small child.

That’s not to say that Satanic scares have fallen by the wayside. Satanic ritual abuse (SRA), a complete fallacy conjured up as a result of the MPD mania of the eighties, lasted for many years, ruined lives, and we are still feeling its effects today. There is much more to this matter, far too much for me to address here, but I would be pleased to recommend additional reading if requested.

I hope this blog has been informative and entertaining. If not, complain to this guy. He can tell you where to go.

The Lamentable Case of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

"It's devilish, Mr. Holmes; devilish!" cried Mortimer Tregennis. "It is not of this world. Something has come into that room which has dashed the light of reason from their minds. What human contrivance could do that?"

"I fear," said Holmes, "that if the matter is beyond humanity it is certainly beyond me. Yet we must exhaust all natural explanations before we fall back on such a theory as this."

- Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Devil's Foot

As written by the celebrated author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes and his friend and colleague Doctor Watson were men of science. Holmes was exquisitely educated on a vast array of subjects, from Neolithic artifacts to chemistry all the way down to the make and composition of cigar ash and bicycle tires. He possessed a great library of rare and informative books, a variety of clever disguises, and a keen imagination. Using these tools, he fueled a deductive mental power that made the public cheer and Scotland Yard scratch their heads in bewilderment. No puzzle was unsolvable by the great Sherlock Holmes, and having read every one of his stories and having grown up watching the excellent series by Grenada Television, Holmes was always one of my own favorite fictional characters. He made me glad to be smart in a world that nurtures ignorance and disdains critical thinking.

From time to time in his mysteries, Holmes was encountered with strange and frightening phenomena that others in their hysteria and ignorance were quick to credit to the supernatural. But Holmes, always the cold, analytical realist, pursued the cases with real world expectations and indeed always concluded them with perfectly earthly explanations. Even the dreaded Hound of the Baskervilles, a demonic, spectral dog that stalked the moors at night, turned out to be nothing so fanciful in the end.

When it came to ego, Holmes had this to say:

"I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are, and to underestimate one's self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one's own powers."

Excellently put, and one of my most favorite quotes…but this truth only applies if someone’s deductions are clear, i.e. if they are accurately gauging their own abilities. As we shall see, if we lack such discretion our egos can run away with us, and it is generally agreed that this is at least a contributing factor in what happened to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Needless to say, after his Holmes stories in particular, Doyle enjoyed tremendous success. He had truly achieved worldwide acclaim and was even knighted by the Queen. But the time was the 1920s, and the spiritualist movement was in full swing. Seances, auras, ghostly photography, ectoplasm and other such hoo-ha were all the rage, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle evidently promptly forgot about such things as gullibility, half-truths, exaggerations, false expertise, selective reporting, and good ol’ needing to believe…at least as they applied to himself. In other words, he dove into the bullshit pit head first and never came up for air again.

Indeed, Conan Doyle became one of spiritualism’s leading torchbearers, even as his friend Harry Houdini was making the rounds debunking the same nonsense. We are thus faced with a very confusing dichotomy between the writing and the man. To be sure, Sherlock Holmes was not his only rational work. He also wrote such novels as The Lost World which, while based on a fundamentally flawed concept, proceeded in the footsteps of reality and scientific inquiry.

So what the hell happened to him? I do not know for certain. I have never fully understood this grotesque transformation. The compartmentalization of the human mind is lamentably common, but a seemingly complete reversal of the rational mind of this magnitude is extremely rare and is utterly inscrutable to me. In Conan Doyle’s case it is sometimes speculated that the traumatic death of his son in World War I drove him to emotional desperation that destroyed his reason, but it is more generally agreed that he simply fell victim to his own fame. People figured that if Holmes was so brilliant, the man who created him must have been at least as much so. How could the “father” of the great Sherlock Homes, one of the most powerful minds in literature, possibly be wrong? Thus, Conan Doyle wrote his articles and spouted his nonsense fundamentally unopposed.

Perhaps his best known blunder involved a series of photographs that are now referred to as the “Cottingley Fairies.” On a lark, two little girls in Cottingley took a few trick photographs using paper cutouts and some simple developing techniques to create what superficially appear to be photographs of the girls interacting with fairies and gnomes. Frances and Elsie and their family placed no importance on the photographs until a friend of Conan Doyle’s wrote him a letter suggesting that the pictures were in fact real.

Conan Doyle immediately attacked the photographs with what I can comfortably call idiotic glee. He was reinforced in his error by a man named Edward Gardner, who was a believer in theosophy (a very long word that just means “retarded crap”). In turn, Gardner fed off of Conan Doyle’s fame, and together the two began building their massive castle of stupid.

Here are two of the pictures:

In the age of Photoshop and other illusory art forms in particular, these are perhaps too obviously phony to us, let alone to any expert in photography, even during the period in question, but the errors committed by Conan Doyle and Gardner in their “investigation” of the photographs are legion, far more than I have room for here, and they led the great author inexorably to the conclusion that these pictures were “utterly beyond any possibility of faking!” To cite one consistent example, Conan Doyle gobbled up special pleadings left and right. When it was observed in the first photograph that Elsie is not even looking at the fairy but a tad sideways, he became convinced that this is because looking directly at fey folk disconcerts them and will cause them to vanish. Thus, Elsie had learned to look askew at them! Excuses for why the second photo in particular must be depicting a moving fairy that is strangely clear and not blurry – something that would be common even in more modern cameras – are even more blatant and ludicrous. There was no attempt at proving any of it, only the barest and most shameless rationalizing that Conan Doyle could pull from his ass, and the list goes on.

And on and on...so long that it eventually resulted in a published volume. Conan Doyle released The Coming of the Fairies in 1922. Spiritualists crowed and non-retarded people facepalmed...but never in front of the man himself. I believe that if Sherlock Holmes had seen his creator chasing fairies he would have hung his head in shame. For where were Conan Doyle's own powers of reason and deduction? Where was his education? Can we really pin all the blame on ego? If so, how might things have been different had someone simply tapped him on the shoulder and said, "Hey Art, all this fairy crap of yours...well, it's making you look pretty freaking dumb. Maybe you’d better give it a rest.”

Of course, Conan Doyle is not the only person who is guilty of this sort of queer rational inconsistency, nor even the only author - An excellent modern example is Michael Crichton. Though his novels overflow with scientific modus, the man himself needed a good kick in the brain. From Wikipedia:

At Harvard he (Crichton) developed the belief that all diseases, including heart attacks, are direct effects of a patient's state of mind. He later wrote: "We cause our diseases. We are directly responsible for any illness that happens to us." Eventually he came to believe in auras, spoon bending, and clairvoyance.

If these are the sorts of things one learns at Harvard, then I'm inclined to think the school does not deserve its stellar reputation. I wonder what state of mind of his own Crichton took to be the cause of the throat cancer that rotted out his neck and eventually killed him.

He was also an outspoken critic of global warming, though I wonder how much he knew about warmth at all judging by his roughly 47 failed marriages. Ah, but I ad hom. Well, good riddance to him in any case.

I suppose what's important about these men is that their writings are what will live on, and if the authors themselves turned out to be fruit loops, at least their stories are purveyors of rationality and science.

But there are still people who believe that the Cottingley Fairies are entirely real thanks to the inventor of Sherlock Holmes.

Freedom of Speech Goes Both Ways

Not long ago I engaged in a disagreement with a random person online who was of the opinion that a British cockney accent is the same as a New Zealand accent.

Yeah this one is starting out weird, but bear with me.

Anyway, it is not. To anyone who has an ear for language, the differences are distinct and notable. Certainly, any New Zealander or Brit will tell you so. But this person evidently did not have a good ear (or brain, since his claim didn't make any lingustic or geographical sense), and couldn't discern the difference. When I told him he was wrong, he uttered the following sentence:

"Oh, I guess we're not allowed to have our own opinions anymore!"

I've heard this before, and it has always left me confused. When arguing, I've expressed that my opponent's statements are incorrect, ill-informed, or sometimes outright stupid, but at no point have I ever suggested that they not be allowed to state them, let alone have them! (Incidentally, if I want them to shut up, I sure shoot myself in the foot by pursuing an argument with them.) There is no parallel here whatsoever, and yet I've heard similar things everywhere, from matters of frivolous opinion to statements that are definitely and demonstrably false. If there's anything worse than a stupid argument, it's an irrelevant one. However, I think I have an idea of what its origins are.

I think it's a massive, distorted overflow from the political correctness movement. Specifically, we've been told that the best (if not the only) thing to do in an argument is to agree to disagree (and I fucking hate that phrase, by the way). Certainly, this is sometimes the most logical solution...or a solution to use in order to avoid pointless or unnecessary conflict, but these people have apparently taken it to mean that we should never express criticism of anybody's statements ever, even when they can be proven false! In turn, this jives with the notion that all opinions are created equal, and it's the same reason why politicians, TV shows, and news programs consult homeopaths and psychics alongside doctors and detectives as a means of "balance."

In addition to being close to impossible as well as completely unproductive, the whole idea carries with it a fundamental hypocrisy. Look carefully at my example. Who is really trying to squelch whom? By suggesting that I'm not allowed to express my opinion that someone is wrong, they are in fact censoring me! People educated in sociology or political science know very well that the Conservative/Liberal divide is in fact not a left or right division at all - it's a circle. Become so liberal that you begin suppressing free speech in the interest of not offending anyone, and you've crossed the midpoint and become exactly the same as any radical conservative who censors people he doesn't like to hear. Many liberals would balk at this, but it's absolutely true. Perhaps they really do dream of a day when a person can say that Richard Simmons is Indian or that pineapples can grow on the surface on the moon and be met with smiles and the phrase, "well, you're entitled to your opinion." I don't know about you, but living in a society like that sounds just as horrible to me as living in any Fascist state.

I would be remiss if I did not also state the obvious - that all opinions are not created equal, and how coincidental it is that the people trying to get others to shut up often have positions that are very weak in the logic and evidence department. Gee whiz, I wonder why that is?

Here's the bottom line: You have a right to have your own thoughts and opinions as well as the right to state them, and I have the right to express that they are moronic. Free speech does not mean "free speech as long as you agree or as long as you're nice about it." The moment you open your mouth in a public forum, everyone in earshot has free reign to chew up your brain droppings and spit them out along with everybody else. That's how it is, that's how it should be, and any outside attempt to protect your fragile sensibilities will inevitably infringe on the rights of others. If you want your ideas to go unchallenged, then you can always go find a place where everyone else agrees with you and express yourself there. But the free market of ideas is dog-eat-dog, and free speech goes both ways. Deal with it.

Sorry Buddhists, Your Religion Sucks Too

The first time I posted this blog, it was on Myspace. I was agitated by the opposition I received to it, not because of the opposition itself, but because much of it was at the hands of fellow so-called atheists and freethinkers. This seems to me to be a big problem, and so I feel it necessary to repost here.

Strictly speaking, I’m growing rather tired of Buddhists and their nonsense. I often see them worming themselves in with the freethinkers, no doubt convinced that they belong with us. Perhaps even more annoyingly, many in our court are granting them free reign to do so. In fact, it rather seems that the Buddhists are given, if not a free ride, then a dishonorable mention at best. Even among our most volatile atheist commentators Buddhism is hardly even mentioned.

Of course I understand that this is mainly because Western Buddhists cause so little trouble here. No doubt there are a lot more destructive and powerful religions running rampant in our society that deserve much more attention, but that's not the point, and it certainly doesn’t let Buddhism off the hook...except in Sam Harris’s case, because I’m told he actually considers himself a Buddhist!

Clearly, there is a great deal of misconception as to what Buddhism even is. Therefore, I'd like to begin by noting the distinction between Eastern Buddhism (i.e. real Buddhism) and its pop culture Western equivalent. Modern Buddhism in the West is essentially the same as any foreign import - just a castrated, mutated version of its true form. It’s molded to our culture and tastes in a way that fits us best for the purposes of selling it to us, often losing a great deal of its original purpose and meaning in the process. I think it’s very important to note that Buddhism in the East does not have the ever-so-cuddly track record that a lot of Westerners are told it does.

I should also take this time to note that unlike most, I actually do have an accurate concept of Buddhism. This is because I have an education, specifically five years of Japanese history, culture, and language. Par for such a course is an extensive study of all relevant Asian history, language, politics and religion, and this included Buddhism and its many applications throughout history. After my fellow supposed freethinkers read this blog, I was disgusted to see that all of their "facts" to the contrary consisted of decrees and descriptions made by Buddhist priests and practitioners, with only their titles as the source of their expertise! This should be an obvious red flag for the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. Indeed, it's a complete given due to the simple reason that a holy man is not an objective resource. All holy men have a vested interest not only in the delusion to which they've attached themselves, but to selling that delusion to you. Can you think of a less trustworthy source than that? Would you go to a Catholic priest to hear objective, historical facts about Catholicism? Not I, and nor would any serious researcher. Yet my unfortunate fellows were stricken with the blinds of compartmentalization and did not see this tremendous flaw in their thinking.

Of course Coke is good! Michael Jordan says so! Well, pour the Coke in your eyes and you may have an idea of what that level of stupid felt like to me.

In any case, when faced with facts about Buddhism that do not jive with their preconceived ideas, Westerners (whether Buddhist or not) inevitably still have the balls to opt for the defense that many religious people attempt…namely declaring that these more savage Eastern Buddhists must not be real Buddhists, that they must be doing it wrong. This is a fallacy, and one that should be easily recognizable to the practiced skeptic.

What makes this fallacy all the more outrageous is its source. Specifically, having most Westerners “educate” you on Buddhism is a lot like a dude from California trying to tell you that real Italian pizza has pineapples on it. In fact, Buddhism is so warped and diluted in the West that some insist it’s not even a religion at all!

Well then, they seem to be unaware of their biggest adversary...our government. We've given Buddhism tax exempt status as a religion, and yet I’ve never heard a Buddhist declare mistrial on this. My usual policy is to declare that the day I see these people disputing Buddhism’s tax exempt status is the day I'll listen to their assertions, and as I’ve never heard a single one of them utter a peep, I usually invite them to shut the fuck up. 

But in this blog I will deign to address these people and their claims about the cruddy neutered version of their religion. Don’t relax yet, Buddhists – it’s still not much better.

To address the “Buddhism is not a religion” claim, I quote from John Horgan’s excellent article Buddhist Retreat – Why I gave up on finding my religion:

“For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God. Buddhism "rejects the theological impulse," the philosopher Owen Flanagan declares approvingly in The Problem of the Soul. Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.”

Quite so. The notion inherent in reincarnation and karma indicates a supernatural force working on our behalf. It assures that justice is served, punishment and rewards are meted out, and everything will turn out hunky-dory in the end. In other words, Buddhism offers us the same two major outs for avoiding responsibility for ourselves and each other that the Christian god or any other actively theistic religion offers.

So there's your religion, Buddhists. Suck on it.

The problem is that people in the West have diluted Buddhism down to something so vague and meaningless that the very core tenets of the religion itself have been sacrificed, even including karma and reincarnation! This makes it annoying and tiresome to try and pin down anything that a Buddhist must believe in order to so title him or herself, but I think that as a Buddhist you must at least contemplate what are so very humbly (haha) referred to as the Four Noble Truths, which summarize Buddhism’s entire view and purpose. Here they are in all their divine glory: 

1. Life means suffering.

To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too. 

2. The origin of suffering is attachment. 

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a "self" which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call "self" is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe. 

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

The cessation of suffering can be attained through nirodha. Nirodha means the unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. The third noble truth expresses the idea that suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion. Nirodha extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment. This means that suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it. 

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

There is a path to the end of suffering - a gradual path of self-improvement, which is described more detailed in the eightfold Path. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); and it leads to the end of the cycle of rebirth. The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely "wandering on the wheel of becoming", because these do not have a final object. The path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, throughout which every individual rebirth is subject to karmic conditioning. Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.

I ought to mention that these passages are among the most intelligible Buddhism has to offer. Buddhism often takes things much farther however, traipsing freely within the walls of the metaphysically pretentious looney bin. Here’s a quick sample, the likes of which you can find on any Buddhist website:

The Seven Cosmic Laws of the Universe emanate from the Divine, and then descend through the four Octaves of Reality to finally manifest as the Laws of Nature in the Material World.

There is Enlightenment in seeing how things actually are, while recognizing the possibilities of what could be. From this, one figures out how to get there from here. You are the part of the Equation who fills in the blank.

What does that even mean?

I’ll save you the headache – it doesn’t mean anything. It’s fluff, it’s mind-waste, it’s as meaningful and substantive as a fart on the wind, and it serves only to appeal to pretentious dimwits who are impressed by pretty colors and who like to pretend they’re learned and sophisticated, but I'm sorry, I've forgotten how vague Buddhism is that such things may not be canon for every tofu-eater, so let's return to the Four Noble Truths.

Starting with #1, I guess my question would be…why focus on the negative? Life does mean suffering, but it means joy as well. It is odd that I of all people should have to defend this, but I do so on the strongest possible terms. Perhaps our periods of happiness and comfort are temporary…but by that same statement, so are our periods of sadness and suffering! Why say that life is just a shit sandwich peppered here and there by meaningless pleasures? Why not say that life is beautiful, with hardships and pain along the way?

When we place things in historical context, this makes more sense. In 500 B.C.E., when this philosophy first arose, life certainly was pretty damned awful. But things have changed. I’d be the last person to call our civilization ideal, but comparing it to the way it was 2,500 years ago is no contest. Today we have medicine and clean water and ample food and wet tee shirt contests and movies to go to and gifts to give. We can treat our loved ones with medicine and marvel at the wonders of nature with profound understanding. We can tuck ourselves in at night and not be afraid of wild animals and demons lurking in the dark. I rather think it would have been impossible to have what we would call a “good day” at all in 500 B.C.E.

But whether we set Rule #1 then or now does not change the fact that sadness and joy, pain and pleasure, wants and fulfillment are merely two sides of the same coin that is human life and experience. Emotions go up and down, we laugh and we cry...and the pleasures become all the sweeter when we come through the pain to reach them.

So I’m going to have to call bullshit on Noble Truth #1.

As for the other three “truths,” which constitute the bulk of Buddhism's outlook and sales pitch, I defer again to John Horgan:

“Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped.” 

Ridding yourself of desire is not a solution to life’s problems any more than not playing soccer is the way to win a game. “I’m going to go sit on my ass over here and I’ll win!” No, you’re not winning. You’re copping out, you’re taking your dolly and going home, and in the process you’re needlessly abstaining from the fun of a game of soccer.

As always, Buddha had some stock bumper sticker phrases to relate this idea:

“He who loves 50 people has 50 woes; he who loves no one has no woes.”

And no love either, douche. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater! I have something to knock that one out:

“It’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.” 

Apathy is not a solution. It’s giving up. It’s an escape. At best, it’s a coping mechanism. Apathy doesn’t bring you joy any more than not eating a hamburger makes you appreciate its flavor.

Because apathy is apathy, stupid.

Personally, I don’t want to not desire. I don’t want to learn to do without. Yearning for things outside of life is life, and denying it is what people in prison have to do.

Taking things to the next level, what proof do we have that adopting the Buddhist canon and being apathetic about life will make us better, more compassionate people?

"Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation.

Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous.”

Excusing the speculative conclusion in the second paragraph, let's focus on the example. For what could make one do something so hideously awful - and what could make one praise someone else who did it - but religion? Common sense would have anyone looking at this man and calling him what he was – a huge dick. Only through the delusional veil of religious praise and infallibility (or in Buddhism’s case, “enlightenment”) are such things so easily excused, let alone celebrated.

Speaking of Buddha and his catchphrases, I count their constant dispersion among the most obnoxious practices of active Buddhists. These people are like the free samples lady at the grocery store, popping in to dispense what they consider to be little nuggets of wisdom. Then they expect us all to be blown away by the amazing insight contained in the wisdom of Buddha. Well I have heard the words of wisdom decreed by their great prophet, and I am nonplussed.

Here are a few:

“A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker.”

“A jug fills drop by drop.”

“Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.”

“He is able who thinks he is able.”

Uh…seriously guys, are these fortune cookie rejects really what makes Buddhists all starry-eyed and groveling? Most of them are no different from the little cultural taglines we throw out every day:

“A penny saved is a penny earned.”

“A watched pot never boils.”

“He who can hear is not the same as he who will listen.”

You like that last one? I just made it up on the spot. Now make statues of me, build a shrine and worship me, and pay $1,000 to come listen to me talk about stupid shit like the Dalai Lama does.

Granted, I did pick some of the more insipid little tee shirt snatches in my examples, but that’s not the point. Even if some of these sound bites have some worth (as many of them do), none of them are anything even remotely profound or brain-bustingly wise. We certainly have far better moral and intellectual teachers today. You don’t need the titles and trappings of Buddhism to help you realize these things and far better, so why bother defining them as such?

Because it sounds cooler when you say it in Buddha-ese I suppose, you poseurs.

This touches on another point, one that culminates against the Western Buddhists: If you dilute Buddhism down so far that it has lost its very tenets of life-as-suffering and reincarnation, then what you’re left with is something so incredibly bare bones that putting on the Buddhist label…or perhaps even any label at all…is pointless. In my foray to meeting PZ Myers, a self-professed atheist/Buddhist accosted PZ about his denial of “spirituality.” In his rejection of religion, she said, he was eliminating the proven(?) benefits of such things as meditation and self-reflection.

“You mean spirituality without spirits, right?” PZ asked, and when she confirmed this, he replied that there was certainly nothing wrong with being calm and introspective and contemplative. In fact, it could probably do some of us a great deal of good. But in its incredibly watered down form, what need did she have to dress her habits in Buddhism, or even spirituality?

The question cuts to the heart of the issue. If you want to meditate, why can’t you just go meditate? Is all this talk of spirituality merely a way for people to define themselves as part of a hip group, or do they have an obsession with the ritual aspect of such things? And how beneficial is meditation anyway? As it turns out, not very. Its effects have been quite exhaustively tested for decades, and it has been shown to do things such as lower blood pressure and calm nerves.

The problem is that you can get the exact same effects by sitting still for a bit.

Ah, but don’t tell Buddhists – there’s a profit to be made on these meditation cushions.

Look at that floral pattern. How chintzy.

Here’s where I meditate:

Hey, I bet you’ve got one too! Try using it. It works.

In summary, sorry Western Buddhists, but you’re the ones who are doing it wrong.

Buddhism is a religion...inasmuch as you allow it to be anything at all, and you’re actually better off calling it a religion because as a philosophy, it sucks.

For a rationalist and skeptic any delusion is harmful, and Buddhism is no exception. So Buddhists, stay out of our territory, because you don't belong here.