The Octogenarian Breathetarian Pt. 2

In my previous post, I ended by asking what would have to be true if Prahlad Jani truly and honestly abstained from food AND water for 70 years.

Well, first we shall examine his claims:

• He hasn't eaten since he was 11 years old.
• He receives nutrition from a secretion in his pallet by the divine power of a deity.
• He never passes stool.
• He never passes urine.

So based on these claims then, what would have to be true? These are some of my thoughts, which could be wrong. But I think they are worth considering:

• If Jani has any teeth left, they would probably be special teeth. And if he has no teeth, then the loss of his teeth raises questions in my opinion.

If he hasn't eaten since he was 11 years old, his teeth will be hardly used. A dental examination might show his teeth to be different from most other adults. I'm assuming he has some of his teeth still. If not, then why did he lose them? Malnutrition? Poor dental hygiene? An unspoken point behind researching the claims of a 70 year fast is that Jani is in good health despite his food abstinence. His teeth might be able to tell us a lot.

• One way or another, he receives nutrition. The source of his auto-generating nutrition should be verifiable.

We can take a swab of the hole in his pallet and analyze the juicy goodness found in those claimed secretions that he has. He isn't truly living by air alone. He says so himself (whether he knows it or not) by claiming that the goddess he worships drips a sort of elixir down his throat to keep him sustained. If there's no juicy goodness in his throat, then he is sustained by other means and misunderstands his own method of survival.

Or maybe his auto-nutrition comes from the sun or simply breathing as others have claimed.

Or, perhaps he's made fraudulent claims.

Either way, some source of nutrition has to be going on in his body. The proper tests should be able to ferret out the source.

• He cannot have symptoms of starvation since he is nourished somehow.

Since he actually does receive nutrition somehow, his body mustn't auto-digest. So, weight loss should be negligible. The guy looks so skinny that he doesn't seem to have any more weight to lose. But other signs of malnourishment might manifest themselves if he were kept under longer periods of observation. He should be kept for a month or more under strict observation before we get too excited about the last two studies published concerning his feats of fasting.

• He produces at least some waste.

Jani's bladder does produce urine. Producing urine highly suggests he produces some sort of waste from his nutrition source. Why doesn't he pass it then? Testing his urine would be very interesting, too. And why does he have bowel gas? The tasty treats dripping in the back of his throat don't produce stool? This stuff must be pure goodness! Even his urine is nutritious and gets reabsorbed by his body!

These are just a few ideas I have after some thought about his claims.

And what would have to be true if he's lying?

• He will pass waste, eventually.

Someone needs to analyze his bath water.

• He will sneak off into the jungle and eat some leaves off the trees or something. He'll stoop down at a nearby brook and slurp up some H2O when he thinks no one is watching.

Someone simply needs to stalk him with a camera for a bit. They might just be rewarded by catching him coming out of the jungle with a big ol' slurppy cup from Seven-Eleven.

Or maybe he'll get caught coming out of the jungle turnin' up a 40 oz. of Mad Dog 20/20.

• He won't have any verifiable signs of auto-generating his own nutrition

I think this point hurts the two studies. They didn't do any invasive procedures such as taking blood samples and such. All they did was monitor Jani. If he greased the right palms, someone could have slipped him something to eat and drink if the observation methods weren't strict enough to prevent an inside job. He sat in ICU for 24 hours before the observations began. He could have made some deals or gulped down some water before the testing began.

Anyhow. Jani claims he's nourished. Signs of that need to exist and I think can be easily verified by some blood tests and some microscope slides.

At the time of writing this, I haven't heard if someone has caught Jani contradicting his claims. Nor have I heard any scientific hypothesis that explains why he seemed to endure a 10 day and 15 day fast without passing any waste.

I don't believe Jani based on his word. And I'm not too confident in the study so far. I've been lied to in my life too often to simply accept their claims without some hard proof.

Until then, I maintain that Jani is a lying about his 70 year fast, but maybe has the uncanny ability to fast longer than the average human because of his meditation techniques.

Otherwise, I need to start worshiping Jani's deity, huh?

Passion Against the Christ

Now that I have labeled myself as an atheist, I'm beginning to see how colorful and amalgamated my new cohorts truly are.

I see many who have deep passion for action and change. Brimming with ideas on how to make society become more accepting of our non-belief, many atheists wield an unfettered openness and fearlessness. I see people anxious to go "head to head" against the status quo concerning the negative views theists generally have against atheists.

I believe these sentiments are noble and worthy; I privately watch such atheists with admiration and envy.

I also see many who are passive and quite. Change is desired, but prudence restricts their openness. A sensitivity is there amid a simmering passion for change. Caution is on the lips of such an atheist. This type of non-believer constantly reiterates the fact that we need to evaluate our activism before we try to change the world around us.

I am one of the latter types. I'm still in the closet, peeking through the crack I've made in the door frame. I want to come out, but too many people are watching me. I don't want to ruin important relationships that are too meaningful to me. I'm flexible enough to accept any changes they might make, but perhaps they wouldn't know what to do with me. We're simply not at the same level of tolerance.

I'm not referring to the casual acquaintance or even the stranger on the street. I don't mind if these people know about my non-belief. Rather, I refer to family members which I love deeply; loved ones that may only have a few precious years left in my life. Should I become open before such people, I would lose them long before necessary. I also have close friends that would perhaps feel betrayed should I ever come out in an open, fearless, and brazen fashion.

And then, there is my place of employment. One never knows how Christian employers my treat an apostate atheist.

Hey -- I gotta eat.

So, I keep quite -- except around a few select people and within the medium of this blog.

I think nearly all atheists can agree that we want more acceptance from the religious world. We want to know that we can be open and expressive about our non-belief without the backlash of possible discrimination.

We want others to realize that we atheists do not have horns on our heads and a pointy tail. We are not amoral by default. We're not imps of the devil.

In light of this, we must also be careful that we remember that religion in and of itself is not always the problem. Intolerance is the problem. Yes, religion easily fuels intolerance. In many cases, religion even creates intolerance.

But the religious have a right to enjoy and express their beliefs just as we as atheists desire the same rights to free expression of non-belief.

I've noticed that many people who possess high mental acumen in a particular subject matter -- or overall -- have a tendency to be impatient with those who do not share their mental gift.

Have you ever talked on the phone with a tech support representative who was gruff and terse? Usually this is because they do not want to spend time helping anyone with such elementary things as double-clicking. Geeks generally do not want to help someone figure out a problem which, in their minds, has such a painfully obvious solution. Either that or they were busy being geeks and didn't want to be bothered by your support call.

This seems to happen in any facet of life.

I think the same happens between many atheists and theists. The logic that convinces one to become an atheist becomes so apparent and obvious. At the very least, all the faiths of our time are mythological at best. So, should god truly exist and the atheist were mistaken, god would still probably be far more understanding at our mistake than his alleged followers would ever be. After all, shouldn't god actually transcend humanity? Isn't that the whole idea of being a deity?

So, I think many atheists become impatient with theists. Why can't the religious zealot open his or her eyes and see? Can't theists see the abuse? Why don't they see the hurt? Don't they see the obvious mythological elements to their beliefs?

No, they don't. Because they are brainwashed.

I was brainwashed, too. At my earliest memories, I was Christian. Family members have told me that I tried to witness to people when I was very young. My devotion to Christ spans beyond my own memories.

Can you imagine the difficulty in deprogramming this mindset? Impacting such a phenomena takes time -- and the results happen at a pace of one person at a time in many cases.

But, to imply that the religious are totally devoid of reasoning is dangerous. I wouldn't be writing this blog today if that statement were true for every religious person.

If atheists are to do much good in changing how the religious sees us, we will have to be tolerant, patient, and understanding. We can't simply reduce the theists and religious to "dummies" or "idiots" all the time. Name calling and being belligerent won't help -- even if many religious people are that way towards us. Theists need patient help over time before they can have any hope of overcoming the hurdles of their own bias concerning their faith and their misguided feelings towards the atheist. This change must come in small doses. A little here, a little there.

So be patient with anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you -- regardless of what you believe. Be patient with anyone who hasn't arrived to where you are yet.

Be mindful that your impatience may undermine your passion for activism and change. Your zeal for tolerance may produce the very intolerance you despise.

Oh My God . . .

I thought the word holiday was akin to the word vacation.

Somehow the words holiday and vacation seem to only mean busy and work.

Anyhow, I have finally found a moment to post.

Why do theists generally believe in certain gods while excluding other gods from belief?

Christians tend to only believe in Christ.
Muslims generally only believe in Allah.
Jews tend to only believe in YHWH -- minus Jesus.
Cult followers tend to only believe in their wonderful leaders.

Consider the ancients of long ago. They tended to believe in the respective gods of their time -- Thor, Oden, Isis, Dionysus, Zeus, Ra, and so on and so on. Even the polytheistic worshipers had to sort out the rivalry within any given pantheon.

But reason and logic seem well equipped to explain why Jesus, Allah, Thor, Oden, Isis, and the other gods of history are nothing more than characters of mythology. Flawed religious texts and doubtful "eye witness" accounts are all that proclaim the divinity of these mythological beings. Archeology, science, and astronomy sorely contradict the so called truths of scripture and human experience. The earth, solar system, and universe could not have been created in the manner that ancient scripture texts have claimed in the past based on current scientific discoveries.

And just like that -- the weak and flimsy notion that any of the previously mentioned deities serve as Governor of the universe is easily cut down by Reason's razor.

Upon considering this, I've realized that discussing God and his existence becomes murky if we do not pin down a definition for exactly what or who God is.

I've often heard that the idea of God can neither be proven nor disproved. Reason and logic alone may not have enough facts to totally explain why God cannot possibly exist. Nor, can reason and logic seem to explain why God must exist.

I can feel quite sure that none of the mythological figures of the past are true manifestations of God, should he possibly exist. After all, if God should exist -- he wouldn't be a myth, now would he?

And should God exist, what definition might God offer of himself that we might know who he (or she) is? (Remember, we have already discounted the Bible and other religious text for the reasons mentioned above).

Well . . . unless God comes down from the sky and convinces all of us of his (or her) nature, I'm afraid we will only end up with a new myth on our hands.

Perhaps God is frustrated that he (or she) cannot communicate with all of us. Perhaps God is like a tesseract -- a four dimensioned object which can only be expressed as a shadow in our world. In such an event, God would be ill-equipped to communicate with us.

That idea is starting to sound like deism to me.

Agnosticism, anyone?

By the way, why should I bother with being a devout deist if God doesn't even interact with us?

Why hold to theism if we must all conjure the definitions of God and worship him (or her) in those very terms which we create. I might as well make an idol with my own hands and worship it.

So, here I am . . . staring at atheism.

Oh my God! Maybe you can prove God doesn't exist!

Religion, Spirituality, and Atheism

Time for an English lesson:

Religion: noun

1. a Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

   b A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship

2. The life of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teaching of a spiritual leader

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

Antonyms: (That means opposite, by the way . . . .)

agnosticism, atheism, disbelief

Spiritual: adjective

1. of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material

2. of, concerned with, or affecting the soul

3. of, from, or related to God; characterized by divine or godlike nature

4. of, or belonging to a church or religion; sacred

5. relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural

Now . . . . lets start our e-musings in light of these defined terms.

Religion is a set of beliefs or practices. I assure you that the beliefs and practices within the same religion don't always match. For instance . . . Resurrection Sunday doesn't always fall in the same month with Passover – which was essential to the crucification and resurrection of Christ. Tradition trumps beliefs and has caused Easter to follow it's own schedule which only matches Passover most of the time.

Spirituality deals with matters of spirit – the immaterial, metaphysical, or supernatural. But, not necessarily with any specific religious rules or dogma. Many times, yes, but sometimes, no.

Fundamentalism is considered to be strict adherence to a belief set within a religion. The belief is often taken literally and accepted unquestioningly. Usually a religious text and spiritual leader give the layout for the religious rules of the fundamentalist group. Fundamentalism usually involves spirituality.

Fundamentalist believers of religion have no room for opposing viewpoints within or from outside of their sect. As a result, such religious groups often splinter due to disagreement over doctrine. These disagreements often turn into power struggles for authority. This, in my opinion, is to be expected; Imagine the difficulty of turning metaphysical things into rigorous rules upon which everyone must agree!

Try getting a group of people to gaze at a cloud and insist they all perceive the exact same image. Everyone is entitled to an opinion – especially with finding shapes in clouds, wouldn't you say?

Spirituality minus religion allows people to acknowledge the metaphysical and experience the metaphysical without strictness of any sort. Everyone can see whatever image they desire from the cloud in the sky. Why not? After all . . . it's just a cloud. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right?

Of the three great religions – Judaism, Islam, and Christianity – fundamentalist belief is most exuberant and (I dare say) most dangerous. All three fundamentalist variations of these faiths lean towards the expectation of a cataclysmic series of events. These events will herald the act of God taking back control of the earth (Taking back? What happened to his omnipotence?) War and conflicts are almost welcomed – at the very least, expected. Thus, invasions, suicide bombings, terrorism, and military retaliation are viewed as necessary to fervent, radical fundamentalist believers. Some even think that these events can accelerate the advent of the Apocalypse.

Am I saying that the world would enjoy total peace if all the Jews, Muslims, and Christians disappeared?

No, absolutely not. I am saying, however, that fundamentalism needs to largely disappear. Spirituality is welcomed to stay – regardless of the religious faith.

Oh, and as final note – I really wish people would stop buying into the idea that atheism is a religion. Atheism can only be considered a religion to the degree that someone is devout or zealous over a concept or idea. Concerning the true definition of the word “religion”, atheism is no more a religion that my devotion to keeping myself caffeinated with fresh brewed, organic, 100% Arabica coffee made from fresh ground whole beans.

No instant, pre-ground, or stale coffee – please.

Religious? YES!

A religion?

NO!

Religion requires a deity as the object of worship and often has a leader who is the object of leadership towards the rules and acts of worship and adoration to the deity in question.

Atheism is the opposite of religion. A-theism. No belief in a deity or god. No object to worship or adore or serve. No religion to follow, as a result.

If you are one that says atheism is a religion, then what is the opposite of religion?

Agnosticism?

Spirituality?

Science?

Reason?