RSS | Archive | Random

About



A quiz once told me that the word "sanguine" describes me.
Ask me



We eat, excrete, sleep, and get up;
This is our world.
All we have to do after that-
Is to die.

-Ikkyū
11 December 11

butnotinlove:

How Modesty Doctrines Made Me Hate My Body

Modesty taught me that I was a decoration. Everything about my life was governed by whether or not a man was watching. How I moved and what I ate or wore all depended on the male gaze. Modesty taught me that nothing I did mattered more than avoiding sexual attention. Modesty made me objectify myself. I was so aware of my own potential desirability at all times that I lost all other ways of defining myself. I couldn’t work out or get fit without worrying about attracting men. I couldn’t relax my eating habits for a moment lest my shirts start to pull a little in the chest. I couldn’t grow like a normal human adolescent because staying slim and sexless was the biggest priority in my world.

When you argue that what’s modest and what isn’t is a valid concern for women, you tell them that their appearance matters most. You objectify them. You tell them that whether or not you are sexually aroused by their actions or their dress is more important than anything they want to do or wear. You tell them that they must, at all times, be thinking about you when they are making decisions about their own lives. That’s arrogant. That’s immoral.

When you argue that modesty is just a ‘debate’ that must be won by those whose arguments are strongest in the abstract, you ignore the fact that the ‘debate’ has consequences you don’t have to live with. Women have to live with the consequences of modesty debates. Those debates impact every sphere of their lives: work, play, even their own health and wellbeing. If you think that, as a man, you can somehow argue ‘objectively’ about what women should or shouldn’t wear and ‘win’ a debate fair and square, let me remind you of a few things. If a man ‘loses’ a modesty debate, nothing about his life changes. If a man ‘wins’ a modesty debate, nothing about his life changes. But if a woman loses a modesty debate, the entire fabric of her existence changes. If a woman loses a modesty debate, she has lost whole areas of freedom in her life. She now has more things to worry about not doing so that men will not get aroused. There is no such thing as an ‘objective’ argument in which the stakes are astronomical for one side and nonexistent for the other. Furthermore, by even accepting modesty as a valid area of concern for women, you have accepted a premise that defines women by their looks and objectifies them. Women have already lost the moment a modesty debate begins.”

To be honest, I’m not entirely sure if I agree with this article and its arguments completely but the writer does make some very good points. 

Reblogged: unfriendlyatheist-deactivated20

10 December 11

Most of the relevant mental machinery is not consciously accessible. People’s explicitly held, con- sciously accessible beliefs, as in other domains of cognition, only represent a fragment of the relevant processes. Experimental tests show that people’s actual religious concepts often diverge from what they believe they believe […]


Religious believers and sceptics generally agree that religion is a dramatic phenomenon that requires a dramatic explanation, either as a spectacular revelation of truth or as a fundamental error of reasoning. Cognitive science and neuroscience suggests a less dramatic but perhaps more empirically grounded picture of religion as a probable, although by no means inevitable by-product of the normal operation of human cognition.

— Religious thought and behaviour as by-product of brain function (2003) by Pascal Boyer. (via scipsy)

Reblogged: scipsy

7 December 11
I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me.
— Richard Feynman (via crookedindifference)

(Source: en.wikiquote.org)

Reblogged: divineirony

6 December 11
pakistani:

Prostitutes peeking out from the doorways of their brothel. Photograph by Margaret Bourke-White. Lahore, Pakistan, 1946. (via legrandcirque)
My add: I last went to the red light area of Lahore (called Shahi Muhala - Royal Enclave, or Heera Mandi - Diamond Market) around 2005/06 and it is nothing like this now. But still a very dynamic part of Lahore with the best food I have ever tasted in my life. Two very important things I can never forget from that area would be, how once I saw a plague outside a house which read in Urdu, “this is a house of respectable people, please do not bother” and another how during Islamic month of Muahrram these women were sitting outside offering passing by people free Sharbat and Milk (part of a Muslim tradition where people offer free drinks “Sabeel” to passerby in memory of hardships Prophet’s family faced in desert).
Need to go back for a proper shoot soon. (via umalik)
Follow us on Facebook | Twitter or Submit something or Just Ask!

pakistani:

Prostitutes peeking out from the doorways of their brothel. Photograph by Margaret Bourke-White. Lahore, Pakistan, 1946. (via legrandcirque)

My add: I last went to the red light area of Lahore (called Shahi Muhala - Royal Enclave, or Heera Mandi - Diamond Market) around 2005/06 and it is nothing like this now. But still a very dynamic part of Lahore with the best food I have ever tasted in my life. Two very important things I can never forget from that area would be, how once I saw a plague outside a house which read in Urdu, “this is a house of respectable people, please do not bother” and another how during Islamic month of Muahrram these women were sitting outside offering passing by people free Sharbat and Milk (part of a Muslim tradition where people offer free drinks “Sabeel” to passerby in memory of hardships Prophet’s family faced in desert).

Need to go back for a proper shoot soon. (via umalik)

Follow us on Facebook | Twitter or Submit something or Just Ask!

Reblogged: pakistani

29 November 11
I suppose that one reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with ‘you’ in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me.
— Christopher Hitchens (via tcsgrv)

Reblogged: divineirony

Posted: 6:52 PM

Reblogged: revolutionaryatheist

Tags: religion
28 November 11
I’ve never understood the supposed difficulty in refuting the ontological argument for [a] god’s existence. Apart from the fact that it’s an argument from logic and reason alone, rather than from any actual verifiable evidence – which should rule it out as an argument to be considered seriously anyway in my view – it never seemed to make any sense. Still, some people apparently believe it, including one recent commenter who listed it among the numerous “proofs” that [gods exist], so I thought it was time I deconstructed it. As you’ll see, it didn’t take long to locate the logical fallacy that’s at its heart.

The Ontological Argument for God (via ryking)

It’s so obvious. The only way apologetics work is by misappropriating words and obscuring or switching their meanings; equivocation. The word “God” itself has endless definitions which allow it to be logically abused unlike any other.

(via divineirony)

(Source: diadoumenos)

Reblogged: divineirony

Posted: 5:03 PM
Look around you; look at the trees, the stars, the sun and the moon, the clouds and the sky, the different kinds of fruits, and the various landscapes. Look at all of these until your eyes get tired, you will not find a single mistake or fault in the creation of Allah. But still there are people who claim that everything happened by chance. Verily, mankind is not even able to create a fly.

(via islam2011)

As Stephen Fry once said,

And then five minutes later youre looking at the lifecycle of a parasitic worm whose job is to bury itself in the eyeball of a little lamb and eat the eyeball from inside while the lamb dies in horrible agony and then you turn to them and say, Yeah, where is your God now?

You know I mean you got You cant just say there is a God because well, the world I beautiful. You have to account for bone cancer in children. You have to account for the fact that almost all animals in the wild live under stress with not enough to eat and will die violent and bloody deaths. There is not any way that you can just choose the nice bits and say that means there is a God and ignore the true fact of what nature is.

(via depressingfacts)

Neil Tyson obliterates this argument for the existence of god. A very weak argument, in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJfqmZ0cuek&feature=related

Reblogged: dkyubey

27 November 11

Reblogged: saudihominid-deactivated2012052

26 November 11
artoftheunbeliever:

BECAUSE JESUS
art by NicoCW

BECAUSE ALLAH

artoftheunbeliever:

BECAUSE JESUS

art by NicoCW

BECAUSE ALLAH

Reblogged: unfriendlyatheist-deactivated20

24 November 11
People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah’s ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it’s about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (via cwnl)

(Source: dostthouquotethme)

Reblogged: ikenbot

23 November 11
Order, unity and continuity are human inventions just as truly as catalogues and encyclopedias.
— Bertrand Russell (via eloquentandhonest)

Reblogged: divineirony

18 November 11

theworldisconfused:

This is an awesome scene! It’s also probably the only time an e-mail forward (almost word-for-word) has been adapted into an episode of a major television series. :D

“In this building when the President stands, nobody sits.

I don’t know what show this is, but that’s pretty damned awesome.

Reblogged: divineirony

Tags: Religion bible
28 October 11

(Source: ranciavida)

Reblogged: cultoftheblacksun

Posted: 4:28 AM
The fact that something is old doesn’t make it true.
The fact that something has persisted doesn’t make it true.
The fact that something has a number of believers doesn’t make it true.
What makes it true is the actual evidence for the claims.
You don’t have evidence for the claims, what you have are accounts of the claims.
— Matt Dillahunty (via xombebe)

Reblogged: xombabe-deactivated20120616

Themed by Hunson. Originally by Josh