Dear Xtians & Why They Should RTFM

Coming in early 2013; God Fodder: Imbibing the Opiate of the Masses.  I wanted to write an account of religionists not from the scientific atheist perspective, but from the social atheist perspective.  People can argue the semantics of associating 'humanism' with atheism until the cows evacuate their bowels on your car, I'd still venture a guess that scientific atheism is closer to gnostic atheism while 'social atheism' is closer to agnostic atheism.

Forgoing the prolonged agony of explanation... suffice it to say, I am planning something of a minor tour de force of a wretched page turner.  I hope to unnerve the pope... or perhaps just have him think "whoa, dude, I really do look like Emperor Palpatine!"

I intend to have examined and cross examined, then cross examine the cross-examination of the substructure of Christianity in the English-speaking world.  As will be further elucidated, I find it to be a trite argument to argue against beliefs and actions as the same ilk of conviction, where this leads into the argumentative dozens of shades of grey.  And without lascivious content being expressed (let's face it, that's most of what the Bible is... as such, it's been done) I intend to do my very best to fulminate the "what if you're wrong" argument and the pusillanimous mentality that comes with it.

Will I be successful?  Only time will tell... but, Hitch, eat your heart out!  Assuming the worms haven't already.  They call it eternity because it never ends and hence has no beginning (wriggle your way out of that one, Watch Tower) see you all at the rat races.

Creation vs. Regurgitation

The question as to the nature of art is one that brings incumbent swarms of if's and but's... for me, I am not precisely sure what to make of it.  Of how one chooses to present themselves, is that not art?  I would have to wager that claim that it is not.

Art must first be recognized as art in order to be art.  I have heard erring replies from the other side of the field, and I have always ignored them.

While it is true that art is a personal endeavour, this is only where it begins.  A man who hallucinates a pink unicorn and draws a picture of it will still get nowhere with his craft unless he can convince others of its existence.  If he explains to them what it looks like, all they're thinking of is a pink horse with a bony growth on its forehead.  However, once people come to his understanding, it becomes quite clear what a unicorn is, and perhaps that they are the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

However one chooses to present themselves is important.  Having said this, do people choose to recognize his vantage of perception?  Will anyone actually read this post?  Perhaps not, on both counts.  However, van Gogh wasn't recognized in his time, just as Lovecraft was not.  What does this amount to?

The difference between success and originality is vast.  It's one thing to come up with someone everyone likes, it's another thing to come up with something truly original.  Bridging the gap is the hard part... but LaVey, as much as I often despise him, put it best; be aware that this is one of the keys to brainwashing people into accepting something new and different, when in reality it’s something that was once widely accepted but is now presented in a new package. We are expected to rave about the genius of the creator and forget the original. This makes for a disposable society.

So whom dredges the inner confines of what is abhorrently referred to as 'the soul' and who merely inverts the creative trash bins?  I'll leave that to the rest of you mutants...