This is only speculation on my part, but.. I can understand why someone would be offended when I say "I'm atheist".
When I say that to someone, especially when they're extremely devoted, they will take offense to it, or at the very least be somewhat taken back.
Essentually, when I say that I'm atheist, I'm saying:
"Everything you hold sacred and center your life around, I've rejected as truth."
Now, if you take this sentence and apply it to anything you've ever held dear or sacred, you too would be offended.
However, there is a major mistake being made from the offended. They assume that the atheists have dismissed their belief off-hand without investigation or without thought. This is, for the vast majority of the time, not the case at all.
But when someone replies with "I'm muslim" or "I'm hindu" or "I'm mormon" or "I'm Christian", it infers some level of acceptance of the divine. So, it's more along the lines of:
"I accept a form of your sacred truth, just not yours in particular"
Which is a bit easier to swallow. It could be thought of as misguided or incomplete.
I don't care what people think. I've investigated all my life and continue to investigate the question of the existance of god and the divine. I have found NO evidence that would lead me to think there is an inkling of a divine.
That does not mean there isn't one. However, I can as safely say that there is no god as safely as I can say there is no superman living among us.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
What would you do if you were....
What would you do if you were Omnipotent?
What kind of universe would you create?
This requires some level of intellectual honesty and you have to have a broad understanding of infinity or near infinite perception.
What I mean by intellectual honesty is... "I would make it impossible to lie". Well.. idealogically that's a great concept... but do you really think that's the best? I mean, if you've ever lied before, or ever told a white lie, you'd know that sometimes it's not for malicious intent. The honesty of the scenario is to create the universe of your design to be the "perfect" universe for you, If your perfect universe consists of impossible to lie... then that's fine, but are you sure you want that?
What would you create? Would you allow war? Suffering? Destruction? Would you intentionally create wars? Intentionally create evil?
I wouldn't.
I would create a world that follows it's own laws and cause my existance to stop. I would ensure that these creatures live by their own creed live as I've created them... To exceed and excel to better themselves without my guidence. I don't want to be worshiped, I them to even have an inkling of me. I wouldn't create an evil that would permeate the existance of my creation. If they have created evil... they shall live with it.
How come this seems more like the reality of the world than what religion wants you to think?
How does your universe compare to what religion wants you to see it as.
What if.. I create a world, then create something that is directly destructive and with powers far greater than the weaker creatures. Then... I promise them great power and wealth if they worshiped me. But to those who don't, I'll hurt them forever. Or at the very least... toss them away from me.
... how vain is that?
What kind of universe would you create?
This requires some level of intellectual honesty and you have to have a broad understanding of infinity or near infinite perception.
What I mean by intellectual honesty is... "I would make it impossible to lie". Well.. idealogically that's a great concept... but do you really think that's the best? I mean, if you've ever lied before, or ever told a white lie, you'd know that sometimes it's not for malicious intent. The honesty of the scenario is to create the universe of your design to be the "perfect" universe for you, If your perfect universe consists of impossible to lie... then that's fine, but are you sure you want that?
What would you create? Would you allow war? Suffering? Destruction? Would you intentionally create wars? Intentionally create evil?
I wouldn't.
I would create a world that follows it's own laws and cause my existance to stop. I would ensure that these creatures live by their own creed live as I've created them... To exceed and excel to better themselves without my guidence. I don't want to be worshiped, I them to even have an inkling of me. I wouldn't create an evil that would permeate the existance of my creation. If they have created evil... they shall live with it.
How come this seems more like the reality of the world than what religion wants you to think?
How does your universe compare to what religion wants you to see it as.
What if.. I create a world, then create something that is directly destructive and with powers far greater than the weaker creatures. Then... I promise them great power and wealth if they worshiped me. But to those who don't, I'll hurt them forever. Or at the very least... toss them away from me.
... how vain is that?
Monday, November 8, 2010
Out of Mormonism
I'm reading a book of a real life tale of a woman's struggle with Mormonism. She was initially sucked in by the kind gestures and well mannered nature of the faithful.
Then, she was suddenly thrown into the hellish interpretive aspect that is Mormonism, and suddenly felt that something was missing in her life.
She explains the passage through the endowment procedure and the events that take place behind the veil and celestial room. The little mock play that made her want to get out of her seat but couldn't because she was somehow glued.
Her life didn't turn out all honky dory, but she continued with a false face and a fake determination to live the word of the church.
Suddenly one day through studying the bible, she came upon a passage that said pretty much that genealogy was a waste of time... she took that, then ran with it to the point where she realized Mormonism isn't teaching Jesus, they were teaching things of man!
Later she confided with her husband about the entire ordeal, and said she was filled with the love of Christ.
As she went through her deconversion from Mormonism, she searched through the book of Mormon with a fine tooth comb, she searched everything that contradicted with the bible. And formed a support group for those who were having trouble with deconversion of Mormonism.
During the deconversion story one particular line jumped out... She wanted to shake every Mormon she saw and unbind their eyes.
.....
.....
.....
I wanted to shake her and unbind her eyes even more.
Ok... First off Mormonism appeals to her because she wants that happy go lucky family idea that Mormons are supposed to show... even if their family really sucks. Secondly, the more you dive into Mormonism, the more and more you have to account for the inconsistency. To account for this.. more and more is weaved in. Unfortunately it doesn't always mesh in well with the base belief of the bible. This is why the bible is only held as a supplemental book, because it can not be fully trusted to be "correct".
For her to say that the the teachings of Christ was wrong in the church means she believed that the bible was true, and the book of Mormon a supplement, and not vice versa as Mormonism is actually held.
Secondly, she was miserable performing the duties assigned to her by her church. There's 2 reasons why they assign work to new people, and to people in general.
1. To give them a sense of propriety, there's less chance that people will leave, not attend, ignore, or dismiss if they have a stake in their stake.... They will not want to skip out on their duty, so they stay.
2. To give them something to do. To give them purpose. To give them an occupation that will keep them busy in a desirable direction. If someone was questioning their belief, what better way to avoid thinking about it than to keep yourself busy. In that process of keeping yourself busy, why don't you do the work that has been assigned to you anyways. And with that, you avoid counter thought and enforce a belief at the same time.
So she sounded pretty bitter about being assigned presidency of the primary within weeks of joining.... well.. yeah.. that's the trap...
Later of course she talks about how they didn't put her on the spotlight in a Christian church... Lol... big surprise... you like to reap the rewards but not work for it... I understand, but the Mormon church is about community and togetherness... it's always been about banding together in spite of all oppositions. AND sadly enough.. if you're no longer in that group, you are cast out.
Now... what really really irritates me, is she doesn't take that same inquisitive nature and apply it to the religion she is endorsing... A form of Protestant church. She speaks of "no bones has ever been excavated from hill Camorah"... No Arc has ever been found... What's your point?
Then they speak of Spiritual Alcohol Anonymous.... WTF?!?! I mean seriously... so all the exMormons can gather together for support.... I wonder if there's any exMormons that walk in, hear their Jesus speak and told them off.
Jump from one shit pile of lies to another doesn't make the 2nd any more valid because you didn't like the smell of the first one.
The Mormon religion is as structured as it is for a very very good reason. It is to ensure that the followers not think. Everything is thought up, and all they have to do is follow the books, the texts, and repeat what has been said. Of course, in their real lives outside of their church, you have to make decisions, but those too are regulated. The idea is you need to be told what you can or can't do. As I said earlier, this is to fill in the details as they come along. Many christian churches are personal interpretive. They are open ended interpretations and carry less structure or standard of interpretation. So... those who want structure would love the Mormon church because it clearly lines it out. Those that want to think about what they are looking into, would hate it. No wonder she hates it. She likes to think... but it's too bad because she hasn't thought enough.
Mormonism is an attempt at an intellectual's religion. It attempts to fill in as many gaps as they can. It attempts to weave a full proof story.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, Mormonism is a sect of Christianity.
The book makes it seem as though the focus was about glorifying Joseph Smith and modern day "prophets". The book also makes it seem as though they are switching the devil and God around... They are not... they are interpreting the bible through he scope of the Book of Mormon. They assume the Bible incomplete or inaccurate. The fundamental teachings of the Mormon church remains... Jesus died for the sins of the world, Jesus is thought of as the son of god and he himself is a god.
Though this is not the same interpretation as other Christians, this is Christianity. They no more "worship" Joseph Smith no more than Muslims worship Mohammad. Glorified, yes... worshiped... no.
And yes.. in the bible... if you read in Genesis, god said.... if they partake of the fruit of knowledge, "they will be one of us" if they eat of the fruit of life also. Please use only the authorized version or New King James version. New international version is interpretive and another translation of a translation. I would suggest Greek version including the apocrypha. But I don't speak Greek.
I digress... Who was god speaking to.. and who are the "us" it speaks of?
Fortunately, god kicked them out of the garden only after they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge and not the fruit of the tree of life. So... even in the Old testament, God speaks to another God... there is 2 gods at least. Mormonism attempts to fill this gap by call him God the father, Elohiem, and God the son, Yahweh.
Stupid bitch... if you actually studied the bible, you'd notice that and wonder... hmm.. what is wrong with this picture?
Mormon's has done just that and attempt to story book it into acceptable terms.
---
I haven't finished reading the book yet, but I will continue to read it... I want to puke sometimes though at the stupidity this book exudes. Ohes wells... /end rant.
-----------
Edit: I've finished reading the book, and it went on to the story of some mysterious benefactor who sent them money to start up their recovery program and teach the true christian faith..... After of course they moved out of Mormon infested towns. They then continued to expand the church and now she's an old hag still fighting a good fight, happy with her life with Jesus, and happy her husband is following her like a lost puppy.
She made amends with her family, friends, and everyone she left behind because her blind faith lead her astray.... funny how her previous faith was never thought of as blind either.
Their tripe of a pamphlet is still being circulated and designed to "help" Mormons realize they are wrong. The entire time spouting out straw-man arguments to the highest degree, getting them kicked from adds of many many papers for defamation. And yes.. they are all straw-man arguments.
I'm not a fan of Mormons like I'm not a fan of spiders... but if I see a spider intentionally being torn limb by limb for the sole purpose of sadistic enjoyment, I'm going to say something about it. If Mormons get the cheap end of the stick, I'm not going to defend they are right, but I am going to defend the fact they are being misrepresented.... besides, they don't need much to be shown for the charlatans they are.... Only problem is, slander and libel is the only way you can effectively argue against Mormons without defaming the Christian religion in the same sweep.
My evaluation... if you want a example of partitioning and bad reasoning... this book is for you.
Then, she was suddenly thrown into the hellish interpretive aspect that is Mormonism, and suddenly felt that something was missing in her life.
She explains the passage through the endowment procedure and the events that take place behind the veil and celestial room. The little mock play that made her want to get out of her seat but couldn't because she was somehow glued.
Her life didn't turn out all honky dory, but she continued with a false face and a fake determination to live the word of the church.
Suddenly one day through studying the bible, she came upon a passage that said pretty much that genealogy was a waste of time... she took that, then ran with it to the point where she realized Mormonism isn't teaching Jesus, they were teaching things of man!
Later she confided with her husband about the entire ordeal, and said she was filled with the love of Christ.
As she went through her deconversion from Mormonism, she searched through the book of Mormon with a fine tooth comb, she searched everything that contradicted with the bible. And formed a support group for those who were having trouble with deconversion of Mormonism.
During the deconversion story one particular line jumped out... She wanted to shake every Mormon she saw and unbind their eyes.
.....
.....
.....
I wanted to shake her and unbind her eyes even more.
Ok... First off Mormonism appeals to her because she wants that happy go lucky family idea that Mormons are supposed to show... even if their family really sucks. Secondly, the more you dive into Mormonism, the more and more you have to account for the inconsistency. To account for this.. more and more is weaved in. Unfortunately it doesn't always mesh in well with the base belief of the bible. This is why the bible is only held as a supplemental book, because it can not be fully trusted to be "correct".
For her to say that the the teachings of Christ was wrong in the church means she believed that the bible was true, and the book of Mormon a supplement, and not vice versa as Mormonism is actually held.
Secondly, she was miserable performing the duties assigned to her by her church. There's 2 reasons why they assign work to new people, and to people in general.
1. To give them a sense of propriety, there's less chance that people will leave, not attend, ignore, or dismiss if they have a stake in their stake.... They will not want to skip out on their duty, so they stay.
2. To give them something to do. To give them purpose. To give them an occupation that will keep them busy in a desirable direction. If someone was questioning their belief, what better way to avoid thinking about it than to keep yourself busy. In that process of keeping yourself busy, why don't you do the work that has been assigned to you anyways. And with that, you avoid counter thought and enforce a belief at the same time.
So she sounded pretty bitter about being assigned presidency of the primary within weeks of joining.... well.. yeah.. that's the trap...
Later of course she talks about how they didn't put her on the spotlight in a Christian church... Lol... big surprise... you like to reap the rewards but not work for it... I understand, but the Mormon church is about community and togetherness... it's always been about banding together in spite of all oppositions. AND sadly enough.. if you're no longer in that group, you are cast out.
Now... what really really irritates me, is she doesn't take that same inquisitive nature and apply it to the religion she is endorsing... A form of Protestant church. She speaks of "no bones has ever been excavated from hill Camorah"... No Arc has ever been found... What's your point?
Then they speak of Spiritual Alcohol Anonymous.... WTF?!?! I mean seriously... so all the exMormons can gather together for support.... I wonder if there's any exMormons that walk in, hear their Jesus speak and told them off.
Jump from one shit pile of lies to another doesn't make the 2nd any more valid because you didn't like the smell of the first one.
The Mormon religion is as structured as it is for a very very good reason. It is to ensure that the followers not think. Everything is thought up, and all they have to do is follow the books, the texts, and repeat what has been said. Of course, in their real lives outside of their church, you have to make decisions, but those too are regulated. The idea is you need to be told what you can or can't do. As I said earlier, this is to fill in the details as they come along. Many christian churches are personal interpretive. They are open ended interpretations and carry less structure or standard of interpretation. So... those who want structure would love the Mormon church because it clearly lines it out. Those that want to think about what they are looking into, would hate it. No wonder she hates it. She likes to think... but it's too bad because she hasn't thought enough.
Mormonism is an attempt at an intellectual's religion. It attempts to fill in as many gaps as they can. It attempts to weave a full proof story.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, Mormonism is a sect of Christianity.
The book makes it seem as though the focus was about glorifying Joseph Smith and modern day "prophets". The book also makes it seem as though they are switching the devil and God around... They are not... they are interpreting the bible through he scope of the Book of Mormon. They assume the Bible incomplete or inaccurate. The fundamental teachings of the Mormon church remains... Jesus died for the sins of the world, Jesus is thought of as the son of god and he himself is a god.
Though this is not the same interpretation as other Christians, this is Christianity. They no more "worship" Joseph Smith no more than Muslims worship Mohammad. Glorified, yes... worshiped... no.
And yes.. in the bible... if you read in Genesis, god said.... if they partake of the fruit of knowledge, "they will be one of us" if they eat of the fruit of life also. Please use only the authorized version or New King James version. New international version is interpretive and another translation of a translation. I would suggest Greek version including the apocrypha. But I don't speak Greek.
I digress... Who was god speaking to.. and who are the "us" it speaks of?
Fortunately, god kicked them out of the garden only after they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge and not the fruit of the tree of life. So... even in the Old testament, God speaks to another God... there is 2 gods at least. Mormonism attempts to fill this gap by call him God the father, Elohiem, and God the son, Yahweh.
Stupid bitch... if you actually studied the bible, you'd notice that and wonder... hmm.. what is wrong with this picture?
Mormon's has done just that and attempt to story book it into acceptable terms.
---
I haven't finished reading the book yet, but I will continue to read it... I want to puke sometimes though at the stupidity this book exudes. Ohes wells... /end rant.
-----------
Edit: I've finished reading the book, and it went on to the story of some mysterious benefactor who sent them money to start up their recovery program and teach the true christian faith..... After of course they moved out of Mormon infested towns. They then continued to expand the church and now she's an old hag still fighting a good fight, happy with her life with Jesus, and happy her husband is following her like a lost puppy.
She made amends with her family, friends, and everyone she left behind because her blind faith lead her astray.... funny how her previous faith was never thought of as blind either.
Their tripe of a pamphlet is still being circulated and designed to "help" Mormons realize they are wrong. The entire time spouting out straw-man arguments to the highest degree, getting them kicked from adds of many many papers for defamation. And yes.. they are all straw-man arguments.
I'm not a fan of Mormons like I'm not a fan of spiders... but if I see a spider intentionally being torn limb by limb for the sole purpose of sadistic enjoyment, I'm going to say something about it. If Mormons get the cheap end of the stick, I'm not going to defend they are right, but I am going to defend the fact they are being misrepresented.... besides, they don't need much to be shown for the charlatans they are.... Only problem is, slander and libel is the only way you can effectively argue against Mormons without defaming the Christian religion in the same sweep.
My evaluation... if you want a example of partitioning and bad reasoning... this book is for you.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Case for Christ
I was going to write a chapter by chapter rebuttal for every point made in the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel....
After reading 2 chapters... I've realized if I did that, I'd be writing a book on it's own.
I am simply appalled at the amount of intellectual dishonesty that's being spewed from the book. Part 1 was tormenting as every point was literally rubbish in the actual realm of academia. First by establishing the authenticity of the iconic gospels, in standard academia, anonymous authorship means just that.... anonymous. NO one knows who actually wrote the books in question. No solid evidence can truly point them that the people who actually wrote them are tied to the people they've been attributed to. To argue that it's a historically a first hand account when the authorship has not been established is absurd. In fact, it is even mentioned in the book, the authorship is not confirmed.
Then... it goes to say... well... here's some historic evidence outside the bible. Sadly, he mentions Josephus.... And of course the passage he mentions that is most beneficial to the case, is an "interpolation"... Ie... it has interpretive translation inserts, or additional inserts from other copiers that are not part of the original.... But duly asserts "the passage as a whole is authentic"....
HOW THE FUCK is it authentic when he blatantly says that they're interpolations in every other line?
The passage as a whole paints the picture of Jesus as a the messiah. The passage without interpolation paints him as an adored Jewish preacher. How intellectually dishonest do you have to be?
If this was evidence used in a modern court case, it'd be tossed out so fast, it wouldn't even be given a evidence number.
Scientific evidence: I found a single line that shuts down the entire chapter.... And it comes up in the first 2 pages of the chapter.
"Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries"
I agree and enough said... yet the book tries to prove it anyways.
Bethlehem and the Census with the infanticide. He states that who would notice a few infant deaths around a small town of Bethlehem... such a small town wouldn't have that big of infant population... let alone male infant population of 2 years or younger.
See.. this is where they conveniently forgot the previous first 2 pages. In all of the land, EVERY person was supposed to be in the land of their house... So... As with Joseph and Mary, those who were of the House of David, HAD to be in Bethlehem. And according to Jewish traditions, all seeds of David, well.. that's the house of Judah.... That's a lot of people that migrated there for the Census. That's not just a small town anymore.
And then... no census ever occurred in that magnitude. But the historical quote claiming anyone of a different province must go to their house to take a census, well.. that's just saying, if there's a census, go to your home if you're from a different province. NOT your linage house.
I finished part one today... such intellectual dishonesty, I can't stomach too much more... I hated the faux skeptic from the start... but this just adds too it. I suppose he's not a faux skeptic, but a skeptic with really low standard for evidence. Hell... with the level of skepticism he's got, he might as well believe aliens really do abduct people. Unlike the case from antiquity, there's first hand accounts from independent sources and well documented events and descriptions unrivaled by anything from antiquity.
I've finished "Under the Banner of Heaven" today, interesting book about fundi Mormonism. Got me thinking about the social construct of marriage and plural marriage and why it's being frowned upon. To be honest, I don't think it's a bad thing, it wouldn't hurt if all parties were in agreement, though I would have to say it's less plausible in application than in theory. Crazy people will be crazy.
I've started to read, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" By Thomas S Kuhn... First portion he sounds like a kid who has been rejected by the cool kid's club and is whining that they're just a bunch of elitist pricks. NEWS FLASH... crap ideas are crap. I want my elitists to be pricks, I want my best of the best to be the best. I will not settle for a pool of knowledge to be tainted by ideas that can not stand the scrutiny of intellectual gauntlet known as the peer review process. If someone can find a mistake in the ideas and theory I present, I want to know about it, both so I can correct it, and so I can improve upon it. Unlike the soft touch of society, knowledge has no qualms about how someone would feel if they have their ideas shat on because it's not fully justified.
Kuhn at one point states that every paradigm shift is completely opposite of existing paradigm and then continues to replaces it once it meets the approval of the majority.... then later in the essay states the Newtonian paradigm is the basis and essentially improved upon by the Einsteinian paradigm.... wait... Wat?
I don't know exactly where to place Kuhn... I wouldn't say he's an idiot, I think he's just speaking out of place... Though I do not claim to be an expert, I can call bullshit when I see it.
Lee Strobel is still an idiot.
After reading 2 chapters... I've realized if I did that, I'd be writing a book on it's own.
I am simply appalled at the amount of intellectual dishonesty that's being spewed from the book. Part 1 was tormenting as every point was literally rubbish in the actual realm of academia. First by establishing the authenticity of the iconic gospels, in standard academia, anonymous authorship means just that.... anonymous. NO one knows who actually wrote the books in question. No solid evidence can truly point them that the people who actually wrote them are tied to the people they've been attributed to. To argue that it's a historically a first hand account when the authorship has not been established is absurd. In fact, it is even mentioned in the book, the authorship is not confirmed.
Then... it goes to say... well... here's some historic evidence outside the bible. Sadly, he mentions Josephus.... And of course the passage he mentions that is most beneficial to the case, is an "interpolation"... Ie... it has interpretive translation inserts, or additional inserts from other copiers that are not part of the original.... But duly asserts "the passage as a whole is authentic"....
HOW THE FUCK is it authentic when he blatantly says that they're interpolations in every other line?
The passage as a whole paints the picture of Jesus as a the messiah. The passage without interpolation paints him as an adored Jewish preacher. How intellectually dishonest do you have to be?
If this was evidence used in a modern court case, it'd be tossed out so fast, it wouldn't even be given a evidence number.
Scientific evidence: I found a single line that shuts down the entire chapter.... And it comes up in the first 2 pages of the chapter.
"Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries"
I agree and enough said... yet the book tries to prove it anyways.
Bethlehem and the Census with the infanticide. He states that who would notice a few infant deaths around a small town of Bethlehem... such a small town wouldn't have that big of infant population... let alone male infant population of 2 years or younger.
See.. this is where they conveniently forgot the previous first 2 pages. In all of the land, EVERY person was supposed to be in the land of their house... So... As with Joseph and Mary, those who were of the House of David, HAD to be in Bethlehem. And according to Jewish traditions, all seeds of David, well.. that's the house of Judah.... That's a lot of people that migrated there for the Census. That's not just a small town anymore.
And then... no census ever occurred in that magnitude. But the historical quote claiming anyone of a different province must go to their house to take a census, well.. that's just saying, if there's a census, go to your home if you're from a different province. NOT your linage house.
I finished part one today... such intellectual dishonesty, I can't stomach too much more... I hated the faux skeptic from the start... but this just adds too it. I suppose he's not a faux skeptic, but a skeptic with really low standard for evidence. Hell... with the level of skepticism he's got, he might as well believe aliens really do abduct people. Unlike the case from antiquity, there's first hand accounts from independent sources and well documented events and descriptions unrivaled by anything from antiquity.
I've finished "Under the Banner of Heaven" today, interesting book about fundi Mormonism. Got me thinking about the social construct of marriage and plural marriage and why it's being frowned upon. To be honest, I don't think it's a bad thing, it wouldn't hurt if all parties were in agreement, though I would have to say it's less plausible in application than in theory. Crazy people will be crazy.
I've started to read, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" By Thomas S Kuhn... First portion he sounds like a kid who has been rejected by the cool kid's club and is whining that they're just a bunch of elitist pricks. NEWS FLASH... crap ideas are crap. I want my elitists to be pricks, I want my best of the best to be the best. I will not settle for a pool of knowledge to be tainted by ideas that can not stand the scrutiny of intellectual gauntlet known as the peer review process. If someone can find a mistake in the ideas and theory I present, I want to know about it, both so I can correct it, and so I can improve upon it. Unlike the soft touch of society, knowledge has no qualms about how someone would feel if they have their ideas shat on because it's not fully justified.
Kuhn at one point states that every paradigm shift is completely opposite of existing paradigm and then continues to replaces it once it meets the approval of the majority.... then later in the essay states the Newtonian paradigm is the basis and essentially improved upon by the Einsteinian paradigm.... wait... Wat?
I don't know exactly where to place Kuhn... I wouldn't say he's an idiot, I think he's just speaking out of place... Though I do not claim to be an expert, I can call bullshit when I see it.
Lee Strobel is still an idiot.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Doubting my Atheism
All my life I've been a skeptic, but it wasn't until closer to my adult life that I take up the title of Atheist.
I hear Christians give talks,sermons, and/or speeches about doubting their faith. And of course, they teach not to doubt it. Normally, I don't care if you believe this, I don't care you believe in unicorns and one day doubt that. What I do care is that you preach ignorance. By preaching, your "recovery" from doubt, and encourage others to recover as well is absolute intellectual treason.
I digress.
Never once have I doubted my skepticism. Never have I wondered if I was wrong about doubting... That I should simply believe.
My Sunday school teachers always hated my questions. They never expect a 6 year old to ask, why. Or for a 7 year old to show the logical incoherence in a statement.
I suppose you really can't doubt your need to understand more than what has been presented to you.
Since I've officiated the title of atheist upon myself, I never once questioned if I was wrong in doing so. Though skepticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Most Atheists are skeptics, and skeptics are definitely atheists... "Agnostics" are actually atheist but don't understand the term correctly... They're just agnostic-atheists.
Perhaps my skepticism is preventing my questioning of my atheism, because any evidence that attempts to turn my atheism, must pass my skeptic test, or meet the burden of proof (my level of skepticism).
One thing is for sure, my atheism is not hindering my skepticism, in fact, it encourages it.
My atheism standards are; "Only believe in a god that can proven".
My skepticism standards are; "You must believe in claim that has met the burden of proof, all others must be held as unproven."
They go hand in hand. So no, I have never doubted either.
Which brings me to my point. Why is it that someone can even doubt atheism? Especially when it is a null stance. Especially it is the ONLY stance until the burden of proof ha been met.
Every time I hear someone who "de-converted" from atheism, I question if they were skeptics at all. I question religious people who claim to be skeptics.
I question why Theists doubt their faith, then shy away from pursuing the doubt to find out exactly why. Or to find the exact answer to why they began to doubt it in the first place. Or better yet, to actually try to find the answer to the doubt in question.
I've doubted a lot of things in the past. Sometimes, I don't find the answers of my doubts, That's OK... Really.. that's OK, you don't have to have the answer to everything. BUT, I don't continue as though the answer was correct in the first place. Sometimes I do find the answer, and it's not what I expected or even want to believe, but I HAVE to believe it; of course until there's contradictory evidence.
I've been approached at atheist who doubts their atheism... Do you know what I do?
I laugh at them. I make fun of them. I poke at their intellect. I poke at their reason to doubt. I ridicule them.
You might be thinking to yourself, "well.. that's not a way to encourage atheism".
And you would be right. I don't care to "convert" people to atheism.
If they haven't already decided to be a skeptic, there isn't a point to keeping them as an atheist.
If you've rejected your god because of a stupid personal reason, no reason at all, desire to break away or rebel, bla bla bla...
You deserve to be in the religion and I will laugh at you the same, even if you've "broken away", the stigma of it's ignorance still resides in your mind.
Chances are, once you've reconciled the issues, forgotten about the issue, or simply looked past it, you are likely to return to believing in a invisible sky father.
For myself, I demand the proof of burden is met. My guidelines of my belief are stringent and is a heavy demand. If someone chooses to believe something for their own reasons, I don't care. What I do care about is if it's justified. If it's rational. Their standards may not be a strict as mine, and that's their business. But, if they're irrational, it tends to rub off on others. It tends to be passed on to children. It tends to influence others who follow them. To me, that is the death of the future of human intellect. I want to stamp out ignorance.
So, you may accept that little green space men planted the DNA seed upon the earth, and use it to farm free roaming livestock for their consumption at a later time; However, I don't.
Oddly enough, this passes for a rational reason to believe the inception of life on earth, however, does not pass my personal reason to believe.
Of course this doesn't address the regression of actual abiogenisis, just life on earth.
The belief of a sky god who created everything and watches everything you do of every day of every moment of your life, who can do anything, and knows everything, and can not possibly be wrong; is absolutely irrational. I encourage the doubt, and instead of finding the "answers" in a circular reasoning holy book, find actual answers. Or keep the belief as unproven until you find sufficient evidence.
I hear Christians give talks,sermons, and/or speeches about doubting their faith. And of course, they teach not to doubt it. Normally, I don't care if you believe this, I don't care you believe in unicorns and one day doubt that. What I do care is that you preach ignorance. By preaching, your "recovery" from doubt, and encourage others to recover as well is absolute intellectual treason.
I digress.
Never once have I doubted my skepticism. Never have I wondered if I was wrong about doubting... That I should simply believe.
My Sunday school teachers always hated my questions. They never expect a 6 year old to ask, why. Or for a 7 year old to show the logical incoherence in a statement.
I suppose you really can't doubt your need to understand more than what has been presented to you.
Since I've officiated the title of atheist upon myself, I never once questioned if I was wrong in doing so. Though skepticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Most Atheists are skeptics, and skeptics are definitely atheists... "Agnostics" are actually atheist but don't understand the term correctly... They're just agnostic-atheists.
Perhaps my skepticism is preventing my questioning of my atheism, because any evidence that attempts to turn my atheism, must pass my skeptic test, or meet the burden of proof (my level of skepticism).
One thing is for sure, my atheism is not hindering my skepticism, in fact, it encourages it.
My atheism standards are; "Only believe in a god that can proven".
My skepticism standards are; "You must believe in claim that has met the burden of proof, all others must be held as unproven."
They go hand in hand. So no, I have never doubted either.
Which brings me to my point. Why is it that someone can even doubt atheism? Especially when it is a null stance. Especially it is the ONLY stance until the burden of proof ha been met.
Every time I hear someone who "de-converted" from atheism, I question if they were skeptics at all. I question religious people who claim to be skeptics.
I question why Theists doubt their faith, then shy away from pursuing the doubt to find out exactly why. Or to find the exact answer to why they began to doubt it in the first place. Or better yet, to actually try to find the answer to the doubt in question.
I've doubted a lot of things in the past. Sometimes, I don't find the answers of my doubts, That's OK... Really.. that's OK, you don't have to have the answer to everything. BUT, I don't continue as though the answer was correct in the first place. Sometimes I do find the answer, and it's not what I expected or even want to believe, but I HAVE to believe it; of course until there's contradictory evidence.
I've been approached at atheist who doubts their atheism... Do you know what I do?
I laugh at them. I make fun of them. I poke at their intellect. I poke at their reason to doubt. I ridicule them.
You might be thinking to yourself, "well.. that's not a way to encourage atheism".
And you would be right. I don't care to "convert" people to atheism.
If they haven't already decided to be a skeptic, there isn't a point to keeping them as an atheist.
If you've rejected your god because of a stupid personal reason, no reason at all, desire to break away or rebel, bla bla bla...
You deserve to be in the religion and I will laugh at you the same, even if you've "broken away", the stigma of it's ignorance still resides in your mind.
Chances are, once you've reconciled the issues, forgotten about the issue, or simply looked past it, you are likely to return to believing in a invisible sky father.
For myself, I demand the proof of burden is met. My guidelines of my belief are stringent and is a heavy demand. If someone chooses to believe something for their own reasons, I don't care. What I do care about is if it's justified. If it's rational. Their standards may not be a strict as mine, and that's their business. But, if they're irrational, it tends to rub off on others. It tends to be passed on to children. It tends to influence others who follow them. To me, that is the death of the future of human intellect. I want to stamp out ignorance.
So, you may accept that little green space men planted the DNA seed upon the earth, and use it to farm free roaming livestock for their consumption at a later time; However, I don't.
Oddly enough, this passes for a rational reason to believe the inception of life on earth, however, does not pass my personal reason to believe.
Of course this doesn't address the regression of actual abiogenisis, just life on earth.
The belief of a sky god who created everything and watches everything you do of every day of every moment of your life, who can do anything, and knows everything, and can not possibly be wrong; is absolutely irrational. I encourage the doubt, and instead of finding the "answers" in a circular reasoning holy book, find actual answers. Or keep the belief as unproven until you find sufficient evidence.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Odd thoughts that cross my mind
I was contemplating something that happened a while back. Perhaps it isn't anything in particular, but just something rather odd.
I was hanging out with some people I knew, I guess you can call them friends, though not really close friends. And, as guys would have it, we started to boast about our past dealings with women, love, and the topic of virginity.
The time came around to share my story. My first time was with a gorgeous and beautiful girl. I started to explain how gorgeous she was, how beautiful she was. I started to say how I'm glad it wasn't with someone fat, ugly, and whom I'd regret. As with guys, and especially with guys you're not too close with, it's a topic where you don't necessarily share your deeper feelings. It as strictly a platonic bolster.
From the left rear seat, we'll call him G for the time being. He spoke up. He is a rather intellectual person, and highly opinionated.
"That's not how I'd like to remember my first time, I'd expect it to be deeper than that."
Something inside of me snapped.... How dare this pompous idiot tell me I'm shallow without even really knowing the full story.
I instantly responded with.
"Hey G, maybe you're right... Maybe I should remember her the way she really was. I should remember how I threw my heart and everything I had into our relationship, how much love I devoted to her and only her only to have my heart ripped into a thousand pieces by her cheating, lying, and cruel desires."
By this time, my car was quiet. I added, "but hey, at least she was cute."
Even to this day, that moment irritated me. Of course when G is around, I'll put in a smile and act friendly. But still it irritates me.
His overly opinionated position probably stems from his relative intellect with those around him. And perhaps that's what irritates me. Because I can identify with it, and luckily I have grown out of it because of the environment I've been fortunate to have.
G isn't used to being challenged by someone of equal or greater intellect than himself, he's used to people relying on what he says to be truth, or at least logically inductive truth. Well tough, I'm smarter than you G. I don't say this out of empty bolster, I simply am. I don't take the crap that comes out of your mouth as gold. And... I have actively sought out people who are of equal intellect if not above that of my own. I value their input, I value their views, I value their constructive criticism on what I think is right or wrong. And I have grown, since I was a kid, to accept when I am wrong.
In fact, I have been told that I'm wrong about everything since I was a kid. Never did I doubt my parents on this issue until the evidence that I was correct was so undeniably blatant, did I admit to myself, that I was actually right for once.
Unfortunately, that has left a scar on my confidence, and I usually try to seek justification from someone else to validate my actions. Though, I've gotten better, there's still a hint of it every so often.
From all the time I've known G, he hasn't once admitted about being wrong about anything. And, even when I've called him on a bunch of crap he's spewed out, he still won't admit it.
Sorry G, Just because you've never been around anyone as smart as you or smarter, doesn't give you the license to assume anything of anyone, or how they should think, act, or even choose to remember. And because I am smarter than you, I will shut you down for every bullshit that comes out of your mouth. I don't care if you've never encountered that in the past, your word is not gold. I don't care if you've surrounded yourself with people who do take your word as gold. I find real friends are those who don't take your word for gold, nor do they think your words are nothing but bullshit.
End of rant.
I was hanging out with some people I knew, I guess you can call them friends, though not really close friends. And, as guys would have it, we started to boast about our past dealings with women, love, and the topic of virginity.
The time came around to share my story. My first time was with a gorgeous and beautiful girl. I started to explain how gorgeous she was, how beautiful she was. I started to say how I'm glad it wasn't with someone fat, ugly, and whom I'd regret. As with guys, and especially with guys you're not too close with, it's a topic where you don't necessarily share your deeper feelings. It as strictly a platonic bolster.
From the left rear seat, we'll call him G for the time being. He spoke up. He is a rather intellectual person, and highly opinionated.
"That's not how I'd like to remember my first time, I'd expect it to be deeper than that."
Something inside of me snapped.... How dare this pompous idiot tell me I'm shallow without even really knowing the full story.
I instantly responded with.
"Hey G, maybe you're right... Maybe I should remember her the way she really was. I should remember how I threw my heart and everything I had into our relationship, how much love I devoted to her and only her only to have my heart ripped into a thousand pieces by her cheating, lying, and cruel desires."
By this time, my car was quiet. I added, "but hey, at least she was cute."
Even to this day, that moment irritated me. Of course when G is around, I'll put in a smile and act friendly. But still it irritates me.
His overly opinionated position probably stems from his relative intellect with those around him. And perhaps that's what irritates me. Because I can identify with it, and luckily I have grown out of it because of the environment I've been fortunate to have.
G isn't used to being challenged by someone of equal or greater intellect than himself, he's used to people relying on what he says to be truth, or at least logically inductive truth. Well tough, I'm smarter than you G. I don't say this out of empty bolster, I simply am. I don't take the crap that comes out of your mouth as gold. And... I have actively sought out people who are of equal intellect if not above that of my own. I value their input, I value their views, I value their constructive criticism on what I think is right or wrong. And I have grown, since I was a kid, to accept when I am wrong.
In fact, I have been told that I'm wrong about everything since I was a kid. Never did I doubt my parents on this issue until the evidence that I was correct was so undeniably blatant, did I admit to myself, that I was actually right for once.
Unfortunately, that has left a scar on my confidence, and I usually try to seek justification from someone else to validate my actions. Though, I've gotten better, there's still a hint of it every so often.
From all the time I've known G, he hasn't once admitted about being wrong about anything. And, even when I've called him on a bunch of crap he's spewed out, he still won't admit it.
Sorry G, Just because you've never been around anyone as smart as you or smarter, doesn't give you the license to assume anything of anyone, or how they should think, act, or even choose to remember. And because I am smarter than you, I will shut you down for every bullshit that comes out of your mouth. I don't care if you've never encountered that in the past, your word is not gold. I don't care if you've surrounded yourself with people who do take your word as gold. I find real friends are those who don't take your word for gold, nor do they think your words are nothing but bullshit.
End of rant.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Understandings, Missunderstandings, and Plain old you just don't know what you're talking about.
I've been debating somebody over the concept of "Super-rational". At first I waved it offhandedly as trivially easy to understand and deal with. However, this person continually insist it was "beyond" our reason to rationalize. IE... we simply can't reason out something so it must be super-rational. He then states to acting on these unreasoned actions as perfectly logical, to believe in super-rational ideas, according to his belief, beyond reasoned understanding, is perfectly rational.
For those who don't know Super-rationality. From what I've understood it, it's a perspective that transcends the local perspective in terms of reasoning. An example I've used to demonstrate this is:
Imagine you're in a room. You are given the option to raise your hand or not to raise your hand. In the adjacent room is an exact duplicate of yourself. He/She too has the option to raise their hand or not raise their hand.
In 10 seconds, you both will be killed unless one and only one of you raises your hands. You can not communicate with each other, you can't see each other, you simply can infer that what the other you is going to do, you will do as well.
To this end, you can not rationally make a decision whether or not to raise your hand. You are stuck at a dead end.
Now, if you take into perspective outside of that room, you have an option. A super-rational option. Flip a coin.
Probabilistically, you have a 50/50 chance of a coin ending up heads. If you flip it again, there's a good chance it'll end up tails. You can use this as a rational anchor to make a decision of any kind. You can safely assume the other you will be making the same logical conclusion. Out of 2 flips, the chances are good one will be head, the other tail.
Now, what if the scenario was with a random person and not with a duplicate of yourself? The decision for a flip of a coin will then revert to a chaotic irrational decision making tool. You can not be sure the other person will follow your line of thought. Again, we're limited by the local perspective.
I gave the person the 2nd scenario and not the first. His response looked nothing like rationality. His solution was actually, "the super-rational thing to do would be to assume that this room is an unsafe place and attempt to find a way out"
Way to confuse the concept with the details.
After I kept telling him super-rationality is not the same as beyond rational, that it is actually a philosophical abstract perspective, he finally got it. However, still didn't admit he was wrong. Simply walked away telling me that I've finally started to skip the BS and get to the real point. *sigh*
I carried about my daily thoughts and didn't ponder on this too much. Few days later I was watching The Atheist Experience, and last Sunday, a caller in the last 10 min of the show called in and started to blab about first cause.
He shifts the burden of proof to disprove his statement, and also to find alternative to the creation of the universe.
He structures it much like many creationists do, "We know nothing can come from nothing, so something must come from something and that something we call god."
Argument from ignorance, proof of ignorance.
So the hosts of the show continue to tell him where the fallacies are. What can be argued correctly and what can't...
Even an alternative creation story was proposed, however, was completely dismissed even without second thought. How ironic, he dismisses other creation theory without evidence, however, requires proof against his.
But the bottom line came to... "If you can't disprove that my god created the universe, it has to be true" And completely ignored the fact that they've said it a million times, it's a fallacy.
At first, I want to subscribe to his forums and rip him a new one. After a while of thinking, I know these types. They're fundamentalists who won't listen to logic, reason, and even when it's so blatant they will find ways to work it around their beliefs. They will never admit they were wrong. This reminds me of "Shockofgod", and his anti-atheist radio show. He invites atheists to call into his show to answer a "simple question".
"What proof and evidence can you provide that proves atheism is accurate and correct?"
It's frustrating that idiots would ask such a blatantly invalid question. And... worst of all, when atheist do call in to tell him it's not a valid question, he ignores it and continues to state the question absurdly. Accusing the atheists of "playing word games", or ignoring the issue. Or not answering the question.
Which brings me to my point. Why are people so ignorant and love it? Why do they choose to live their life so brain dead and not see the false things for what they are and the true things for what they are? Why do people insist on pushing the ignorance on others? And when someone tries to legitimately educate them because of their desire to see the human race as a whole advance, they are hindered by the desire to hold on to ignorance and superstition?
Plug your ears and ignore logic if you want, but please... please don't bring your idiocy out to other people. Unlike you, some people like as few false beliefs as possible. And for the love of your god you worship, don't teach your children about your god as though it was truth.
------------------------ Additional Discussion---------------------
I started to point this out on a video on youtube about the stupidity of shock of god. And lo and behold, a defender came around.
He first starts by telling me, The question is a rhetorical question designed to show the stupidity of the fact of believing something without proof.
Ironicly, I pointed out that religion does not have proof, and... Atheism isn't a belief in anything, it's a rejection because the burden of proof has not been met.
With a witless response, I am accused of either being an agnostic, or not knowing what all this religion speak is all about.
By this time of course, I'm growing tired of stupidity.
I calmly explained the difference between Atheism, theism, gnostics, and agnostics. I think he might finally have understood.... Then again.. I shouldn't assume. He no longer asserts I'm agnostic, he goes back to the play on words of the question.
Claiming it's "Rehtorical".
My response was:
"It's not a rhetorical question. It's an invalid question.
I've wasted enough time on you. You throw your lot with idiocy.
1. You don't even know what atheism is
2. You don't even know what agnostic/gnostic is
3. You believe need of proof of a null stance is valid
4. You turn around and tell me atheism "belief" is based on no evidence, yet no evidence has ever proven any deity, let alone the biblical one
5. You believe atheism has "beliefs" that constitutes it as religion-like
Idiot"
With that he responded with:
"ha what are you an idiot? Look in a dictionary and learn what the hell you are talking about."
I've had enough... really I have... I ended with:
"I'm sorry... you're right...
6. How can I expect you to understand what rhetorical even means if you can't understand the rest?
.....
You see what I did there... that was a rhetorical question."
I swear... some people just are idiots...
For those who don't know Super-rationality. From what I've understood it, it's a perspective that transcends the local perspective in terms of reasoning. An example I've used to demonstrate this is:
Imagine you're in a room. You are given the option to raise your hand or not to raise your hand. In the adjacent room is an exact duplicate of yourself. He/She too has the option to raise their hand or not raise their hand.
In 10 seconds, you both will be killed unless one and only one of you raises your hands. You can not communicate with each other, you can't see each other, you simply can infer that what the other you is going to do, you will do as well.
To this end, you can not rationally make a decision whether or not to raise your hand. You are stuck at a dead end.
Now, if you take into perspective outside of that room, you have an option. A super-rational option. Flip a coin.
Probabilistically, you have a 50/50 chance of a coin ending up heads. If you flip it again, there's a good chance it'll end up tails. You can use this as a rational anchor to make a decision of any kind. You can safely assume the other you will be making the same logical conclusion. Out of 2 flips, the chances are good one will be head, the other tail.
Now, what if the scenario was with a random person and not with a duplicate of yourself? The decision for a flip of a coin will then revert to a chaotic irrational decision making tool. You can not be sure the other person will follow your line of thought. Again, we're limited by the local perspective.
I gave the person the 2nd scenario and not the first. His response looked nothing like rationality. His solution was actually, "the super-rational thing to do would be to assume that this room is an unsafe place and attempt to find a way out"
Way to confuse the concept with the details.
After I kept telling him super-rationality is not the same as beyond rational, that it is actually a philosophical abstract perspective, he finally got it. However, still didn't admit he was wrong. Simply walked away telling me that I've finally started to skip the BS and get to the real point. *sigh*
I carried about my daily thoughts and didn't ponder on this too much. Few days later I was watching The Atheist Experience, and last Sunday, a caller in the last 10 min of the show called in and started to blab about first cause.
He shifts the burden of proof to disprove his statement, and also to find alternative to the creation of the universe.
He structures it much like many creationists do, "We know nothing can come from nothing, so something must come from something and that something we call god."
Argument from ignorance, proof of ignorance.
So the hosts of the show continue to tell him where the fallacies are. What can be argued correctly and what can't...
Even an alternative creation story was proposed, however, was completely dismissed even without second thought. How ironic, he dismisses other creation theory without evidence, however, requires proof against his.
But the bottom line came to... "If you can't disprove that my god created the universe, it has to be true" And completely ignored the fact that they've said it a million times, it's a fallacy.
At first, I want to subscribe to his forums and rip him a new one. After a while of thinking, I know these types. They're fundamentalists who won't listen to logic, reason, and even when it's so blatant they will find ways to work it around their beliefs. They will never admit they were wrong. This reminds me of "Shockofgod", and his anti-atheist radio show. He invites atheists to call into his show to answer a "simple question".
"What proof and evidence can you provide that proves atheism is accurate and correct?"
It's frustrating that idiots would ask such a blatantly invalid question. And... worst of all, when atheist do call in to tell him it's not a valid question, he ignores it and continues to state the question absurdly. Accusing the atheists of "playing word games", or ignoring the issue. Or not answering the question.
Which brings me to my point. Why are people so ignorant and love it? Why do they choose to live their life so brain dead and not see the false things for what they are and the true things for what they are? Why do people insist on pushing the ignorance on others? And when someone tries to legitimately educate them because of their desire to see the human race as a whole advance, they are hindered by the desire to hold on to ignorance and superstition?
Plug your ears and ignore logic if you want, but please... please don't bring your idiocy out to other people. Unlike you, some people like as few false beliefs as possible. And for the love of your god you worship, don't teach your children about your god as though it was truth.
------------------------ Additional Discussion---------------------
I started to point this out on a video on youtube about the stupidity of shock of god. And lo and behold, a defender came around.
He first starts by telling me, The question is a rhetorical question designed to show the stupidity of the fact of believing something without proof.
Ironicly, I pointed out that religion does not have proof, and... Atheism isn't a belief in anything, it's a rejection because the burden of proof has not been met.
With a witless response, I am accused of either being an agnostic, or not knowing what all this religion speak is all about.
By this time of course, I'm growing tired of stupidity.
I calmly explained the difference between Atheism, theism, gnostics, and agnostics. I think he might finally have understood.... Then again.. I shouldn't assume. He no longer asserts I'm agnostic, he goes back to the play on words of the question.
Claiming it's "Rehtorical".
My response was:
"It's not a rhetorical question. It's an invalid question.
I've wasted enough time on you. You throw your lot with idiocy.
1. You don't even know what atheism is
2. You don't even know what agnostic/gnostic is
3. You believe need of proof of a null stance is valid
4. You turn around and tell me atheism "belief" is based on no evidence, yet no evidence has ever proven any deity, let alone the biblical one
5. You believe atheism has "beliefs" that constitutes it as religion-like
Idiot"
With that he responded with:
"ha what are you an idiot? Look in a dictionary and learn what the hell you are talking about."
I've had enough... really I have... I ended with:
"I'm sorry... you're right...
6. How can I expect you to understand what rhetorical even means if you can't understand the rest?
.....
You see what I did there... that was a rhetorical question."
I swear... some people just are idiots...
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Love in the family
As I was sitting around contemplating life and love and what not. I came to think about my Sister's husband. He is a very pious individual. He annoys the crap out of me...
Anyways, we seem to have a lot in common although he is 4 years older than me. We have a lot of similar interests, quirks, mannerism, writing styles, fashion tastes... etc... With one exception. I broke out of religion and rejected any form of deity. He stands behind his religion unwaveringly. Much like me, he has a very strong logical flow of thought, however, it doesn't seem to apply to his religion. Somehow it's out of bounds for him. We've gotten into many heated debates about it, and in the end, for the sake of my sister, I don't push it any further; she too is very religious, unfortunately.
Which leads me to my question. If two consenting adult individuals wish to be together, would it matter if they were blood related?
The reason such an odd build up, is because, I questioned if my sister was actually looking for a guy much like me because of me... I however do not like my sister in such a way. In fact I particularly don't like Asians in general... I am Asian by the way.
Entertaining the thought, if it were the case; granted it was insured the two individuals don't procreate, I personally do not have a problem with that.
What if they did want a child?
I believe as long as it is within normal bounds of inheritable disease rates, it would be no different than having a normal child.
Many people have argued that it usually increases the chances to a greater chance than normal, and over a course of time it will compound the problem.
Of course, one could argue that people with higher chances of heart diseases shouldn't have children by that same criteria.
I don't believe we can set a criterion that will exclude incestuous relations without exclusions of others.
In the end, I would have no issues with two adults who understand the risks whom still want to be together and conceive a child.
Anyways, we seem to have a lot in common although he is 4 years older than me. We have a lot of similar interests, quirks, mannerism, writing styles, fashion tastes... etc... With one exception. I broke out of religion and rejected any form of deity. He stands behind his religion unwaveringly. Much like me, he has a very strong logical flow of thought, however, it doesn't seem to apply to his religion. Somehow it's out of bounds for him. We've gotten into many heated debates about it, and in the end, for the sake of my sister, I don't push it any further; she too is very religious, unfortunately.
Which leads me to my question. If two consenting adult individuals wish to be together, would it matter if they were blood related?
The reason such an odd build up, is because, I questioned if my sister was actually looking for a guy much like me because of me... I however do not like my sister in such a way. In fact I particularly don't like Asians in general... I am Asian by the way.
Entertaining the thought, if it were the case; granted it was insured the two individuals don't procreate, I personally do not have a problem with that.
What if they did want a child?
I believe as long as it is within normal bounds of inheritable disease rates, it would be no different than having a normal child.
Many people have argued that it usually increases the chances to a greater chance than normal, and over a course of time it will compound the problem.
Of course, one could argue that people with higher chances of heart diseases shouldn't have children by that same criteria.
I don't believe we can set a criterion that will exclude incestuous relations without exclusions of others.
In the end, I would have no issues with two adults who understand the risks whom still want to be together and conceive a child.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
A little story.
Someone once told me a story. It went something like this:
One day this man found himself floating in the middle of the ocean. He prayed to god to help him.
A few moments later, a piece of wood floated by. He disregarded it, He's waiting for god to save him.
Another few min went by, he sees an abandoned boat, it too floats by and he floats awaiting god's help.
A few more min went by, the coast guard comes in their helicopter and offers him help. He replies, "No thank you, God is going to save me."
He never was saved, he died.
When he got to heaven, he was furious. He approached god and demanded why god didn't save him.
God replied, I sent you drift wood, a boat, I even sent you people to save you. You are the one that rejected my help.
This was in response to my comment, "God has never revealed himself to me personally".
I would have to say, driftwood is simply driftwood, it floats by all the time.
Boats get pulled out into the ocean all the time.
Coast guards are out there to save people.
How is any of these things tied to a god?
The moral of the story of course is, that we shouldn't look for god in expected ways, we should simply let god reveal things in his own way.
But I have an issue with this. First off, I am not "looking for god". In fact, I assume he doesn't exist. I assume I'm stuck in the middle of the ocean with no one to save me.
I am going to swim as hard as I can. If I happen to find driftwood, a boat, or the coast guard. I will take up on the offer to assist me to getting to shore. I will NOT attribute it to a god.
If I die, at least I know I tried my best to preserve my life.
Which brings me to my final questions. Why would you look for signs of a god? Isn't it a presumption to assume there is a god? Wouldn't "looking at evidence to dictate where the answers are" be a better approach?
One day this man found himself floating in the middle of the ocean. He prayed to god to help him.
A few moments later, a piece of wood floated by. He disregarded it, He's waiting for god to save him.
Another few min went by, he sees an abandoned boat, it too floats by and he floats awaiting god's help.
A few more min went by, the coast guard comes in their helicopter and offers him help. He replies, "No thank you, God is going to save me."
He never was saved, he died.
When he got to heaven, he was furious. He approached god and demanded why god didn't save him.
God replied, I sent you drift wood, a boat, I even sent you people to save you. You are the one that rejected my help.
This was in response to my comment, "God has never revealed himself to me personally".
I would have to say, driftwood is simply driftwood, it floats by all the time.
Boats get pulled out into the ocean all the time.
Coast guards are out there to save people.
How is any of these things tied to a god?
The moral of the story of course is, that we shouldn't look for god in expected ways, we should simply let god reveal things in his own way.
But I have an issue with this. First off, I am not "looking for god". In fact, I assume he doesn't exist. I assume I'm stuck in the middle of the ocean with no one to save me.
I am going to swim as hard as I can. If I happen to find driftwood, a boat, or the coast guard. I will take up on the offer to assist me to getting to shore. I will NOT attribute it to a god.
If I die, at least I know I tried my best to preserve my life.
Which brings me to my final questions. Why would you look for signs of a god? Isn't it a presumption to assume there is a god? Wouldn't "looking at evidence to dictate where the answers are" be a better approach?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The contemplation of a contemplation of a set of facts
Before I get to where this all started, I want to address how I think.
During a discussion, information absorption, fast fact show, or just a set of random occurrences. Something might give me pause, I call it "flagging". It's a stutter of thought or moment of WTF. I don't really let it affect me especially if I'm doing something of importance, like following the flow of information, otherwise I'd lose out on information that might resolve the flag.
After the set of information is given in full, I really don't dwell upon it. I know it's there, like an itch on the back of my neck. But I usually leave that to the back burner of thought... Sometimes it resolves itself. A Eureka moment if you will. Sometimes that comes about even without conscious thought, it sort of just pops out as a random thought that is the solution.
In some scenarios, there simply isn't enough information by the information set to resolve the issue. I can leave those thoughts for years, and come back to it when I am bored with life and feel like contemplating something. Or if it's a pressing flag, like my girlfriend is cheating on me flag.... Yes, that has happened. I jump on the ball and find out as much information as I can. And no, I don't do it under the bias assumption one way or another. The flag is a discrepancy in given information, logic, or previous knowledge in comparison with current observation.
As I forcefully attempt to resolve the issue in the discrepancy, other flags may come up, and again, i put them to the side if they are not directly pertinent. And yet again, some situations arise where I can't forcefully resolve the discrepancy. If it is just a major interest but nothing more, I will place it aside but ponder it frequently. If it is a pressing matter, I will confront the issue out in the open. In terms of religion, this was the resolution.
At a young age, I grew up in a household that held spiritual beliefs above structured religious belief. However, as the trend was, the household was mainly christian in general appearance due to pressures from family influences and friends. As I grew older, the christian view became more prevailing, and eventually took over my siblings and I. My parents weren't against it, they simply did not hold the belief that strongly. However, the children, including myself, believed more and more. The initial introduction raised several flags, I let it pass, my thought process as a kid wasn't as refined. As I grew older, yet again more flags.
As I grew closer to my adulthood, the flags were so overwhelming and the pressure from religion to pursue the life of preaching and the life of a clergy was expected of me; since I am quite analytical and given a few good sermons based on the flagged false pretense that the bible was true; I confronted the information given then researched information, then ultimately, since no clear resolution was at hand, I confronted every religion I can get a hold on and try to find the ultimate meaning behind it all....
I found they are all convinced of the validity of their beliefs. Normally that would make sense, except, they are mutually exclusive beliefs. The solution wasn't within the sphere of belief, but what lay outside. And from there, I found my own solution. Structured religion is a lie.
So as I go through the day, why I think the way I do? I am uncertain. However, it has saved me a lot of trouble, and gotten me into some other trouble. But it has never truly been wrong. It has always put my thought for a pause. Sometimes for good reasons, like the decision that would drastically change my life.... Or simply stupid reasons, like the chemical compound that couples with "sweet" receptors to release that information to the brain. Or, the original thought that created this thought of the process of thought:
As I was driving home from work, I remembered a few conversations I've held over the years. Somehow some of them started to come together in an odd way.
The first was when I was a senior in high school. My sister graduated the year before, and was off to College. When I went to visit her, I managed to meet some of her friends. There was a particular guy I remember not so fondly. He liked to use words like facsimile instead of copy,
epitome instead of summary, or conurbation instead of metro area.
Later I approached my sister, I wasn't quite as confrontational back then as I am now. I asked her why he had to flaunt needless vocabulary, was he expecting to try to impress me or something?
She simply answered that some people just use sophisticated words because common words just don't express what they want to say.... I retorted with, "Right... because 'My paper was a epitome of a book' totally explains more than 'My paper was a summary of a book.'". To which, she had no response.
Fast forward 6 years. I'm talking with two of my friends at a bar. We're talking about the usual. Entangled photons and the uncertainty principle and the like. The thought shifted to the uncertainty principle effecting the results of the observation in the direction of the desire of the experimenter and the eventual influence that will lead to outside quantum mechanics and into the manifestation of desires in the non-subatomic world, mind over matter so to speak.
I was starting to explain something.... "Well from a interpersonal perspective, and human subjectivity, it causes us..... "
At this time, one of my friends stopped me, his exact words were, "Whoa, whoa... Dark, you don't need to impress any of us with fancy words, we're all intelligent here, and we know how intelligent each other are." (And yes this is verbatim, he didn't call me by my real name, he called me Dark)
Of course, that gave me pause... But I let it pass. My friend who knows me better, stepped in and responded with, "He's not trying to impress anyone, he always talks like that."
I continued harshly, "AND HUMAN SUBJECTIVITY...."
But the two thought swirled in my head, and the thought about thought somehow got mixed in there... (see above section)
But the resulting thought was, Am I just like the distasteful friend of my sister? The resulting answer was NO.
The reason was simple. I really wasn't using that complex of words, in my opinion. And the words I was using were indeed not exactly replaceable when his were with more common use terms. Also, I was mindful of the audience. I assumed that my friends were of high enough intellect to understand what I was saying before I said it. Otherwise I probably would have strung out the sentence a little more, but used common use words. Of course I doubt quantum physics jargon would have been simplified any further.
My sister's friend was indeed not mindful at all. If I had not studied as much as I had, I would have been completely lost in the conversation. Heck, my sister was lost half the time. But I kept to myself, he was flaunting his feathers, I wasn't as confrontational at the time and wasn't going to ruffle them anyways even if I was.
Apparently he "normally speaks like that". I think it was more of, he "normally speaks that way......around her".
There are people who use complicated words within the right context and audience, knowing they understand the condensed meaning because they feel more at home communicating a lot of information at a different level.
Then there are people who simply substitute simple words with complex words in an attempt to sound more intelligent than they really are and are completely oblivious to the audience and how stupid they actually sound to someone who is intelligent enough to grasp a greater extent of the language than them.
Note: To my audience,
If at any point you did not understand a word I've written, other than those obvious "common word replacement", look them up and a few other thousand words while you are at it; YOU are not my targeted audience until you can read without stopping. I tend to rant as it is.
I would rather say "human subjectivity" as opposed to:
"human viewpoint that may contain unsupported judgments and/or beliefs"
..... : >> End rant.
During a discussion, information absorption, fast fact show, or just a set of random occurrences. Something might give me pause, I call it "flagging". It's a stutter of thought or moment of WTF. I don't really let it affect me especially if I'm doing something of importance, like following the flow of information, otherwise I'd lose out on information that might resolve the flag.
After the set of information is given in full, I really don't dwell upon it. I know it's there, like an itch on the back of my neck. But I usually leave that to the back burner of thought... Sometimes it resolves itself. A Eureka moment if you will. Sometimes that comes about even without conscious thought, it sort of just pops out as a random thought that is the solution.
In some scenarios, there simply isn't enough information by the information set to resolve the issue. I can leave those thoughts for years, and come back to it when I am bored with life and feel like contemplating something. Or if it's a pressing flag, like my girlfriend is cheating on me flag.... Yes, that has happened. I jump on the ball and find out as much information as I can. And no, I don't do it under the bias assumption one way or another. The flag is a discrepancy in given information, logic, or previous knowledge in comparison with current observation.
As I forcefully attempt to resolve the issue in the discrepancy, other flags may come up, and again, i put them to the side if they are not directly pertinent. And yet again, some situations arise where I can't forcefully resolve the discrepancy. If it is just a major interest but nothing more, I will place it aside but ponder it frequently. If it is a pressing matter, I will confront the issue out in the open. In terms of religion, this was the resolution.
At a young age, I grew up in a household that held spiritual beliefs above structured religious belief. However, as the trend was, the household was mainly christian in general appearance due to pressures from family influences and friends. As I grew older, the christian view became more prevailing, and eventually took over my siblings and I. My parents weren't against it, they simply did not hold the belief that strongly. However, the children, including myself, believed more and more. The initial introduction raised several flags, I let it pass, my thought process as a kid wasn't as refined. As I grew older, yet again more flags.
As I grew closer to my adulthood, the flags were so overwhelming and the pressure from religion to pursue the life of preaching and the life of a clergy was expected of me; since I am quite analytical and given a few good sermons based on the flagged false pretense that the bible was true; I confronted the information given then researched information, then ultimately, since no clear resolution was at hand, I confronted every religion I can get a hold on and try to find the ultimate meaning behind it all....
I found they are all convinced of the validity of their beliefs. Normally that would make sense, except, they are mutually exclusive beliefs. The solution wasn't within the sphere of belief, but what lay outside. And from there, I found my own solution. Structured religion is a lie.
So as I go through the day, why I think the way I do? I am uncertain. However, it has saved me a lot of trouble, and gotten me into some other trouble. But it has never truly been wrong. It has always put my thought for a pause. Sometimes for good reasons, like the decision that would drastically change my life.... Or simply stupid reasons, like the chemical compound that couples with "sweet" receptors to release that information to the brain. Or, the original thought that created this thought of the process of thought:
As I was driving home from work, I remembered a few conversations I've held over the years. Somehow some of them started to come together in an odd way.
The first was when I was a senior in high school. My sister graduated the year before, and was off to College. When I went to visit her, I managed to meet some of her friends. There was a particular guy I remember not so fondly. He liked to use words like facsimile instead of copy,
epitome instead of summary, or conurbation instead of metro area.
Later I approached my sister, I wasn't quite as confrontational back then as I am now. I asked her why he had to flaunt needless vocabulary, was he expecting to try to impress me or something?
She simply answered that some people just use sophisticated words because common words just don't express what they want to say.... I retorted with, "Right... because 'My paper was a epitome of a book' totally explains more than 'My paper was a summary of a book.'". To which, she had no response.
Fast forward 6 years. I'm talking with two of my friends at a bar. We're talking about the usual. Entangled photons and the uncertainty principle and the like. The thought shifted to the uncertainty principle effecting the results of the observation in the direction of the desire of the experimenter and the eventual influence that will lead to outside quantum mechanics and into the manifestation of desires in the non-subatomic world, mind over matter so to speak.
I was starting to explain something.... "Well from a interpersonal perspective, and human subjectivity, it causes us..... "
At this time, one of my friends stopped me, his exact words were, "Whoa, whoa... Dark, you don't need to impress any of us with fancy words, we're all intelligent here, and we know how intelligent each other are." (And yes this is verbatim, he didn't call me by my real name, he called me Dark)
Of course, that gave me pause... But I let it pass. My friend who knows me better, stepped in and responded with, "He's not trying to impress anyone, he always talks like that."
I continued harshly, "AND HUMAN SUBJECTIVITY...."
But the two thought swirled in my head, and the thought about thought somehow got mixed in there... (see above section)
But the resulting thought was, Am I just like the distasteful friend of my sister? The resulting answer was NO.
The reason was simple. I really wasn't using that complex of words, in my opinion. And the words I was using were indeed not exactly replaceable when his were with more common use terms. Also, I was mindful of the audience. I assumed that my friends were of high enough intellect to understand what I was saying before I said it. Otherwise I probably would have strung out the sentence a little more, but used common use words. Of course I doubt quantum physics jargon would have been simplified any further.
My sister's friend was indeed not mindful at all. If I had not studied as much as I had, I would have been completely lost in the conversation. Heck, my sister was lost half the time. But I kept to myself, he was flaunting his feathers, I wasn't as confrontational at the time and wasn't going to ruffle them anyways even if I was.
Apparently he "normally speaks like that". I think it was more of, he "normally speaks that way......around her".
There are people who use complicated words within the right context and audience, knowing they understand the condensed meaning because they feel more at home communicating a lot of information at a different level.
Then there are people who simply substitute simple words with complex words in an attempt to sound more intelligent than they really are and are completely oblivious to the audience and how stupid they actually sound to someone who is intelligent enough to grasp a greater extent of the language than them.
Note: To my audience,
If at any point you did not understand a word I've written, other than those obvious "common word replacement", look them up and a few other thousand words while you are at it; YOU are not my targeted audience until you can read without stopping. I tend to rant as it is.
I would rather say "human subjectivity" as opposed to:
"human viewpoint that may contain unsupported judgments and/or beliefs"
..... : >> End rant.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Why do I answer in the form of a question?
When I state that I'm an atheist, I get asked a lot of questions. Some quite vindictive and usually ad hominem.
Quite a few times, my usual retort consists of asking them a question in response analogous to a question they pitched at me. Often they would be offended or get frustrated and ask me why I pose a question instead of an answer. I haven’t given this much actual thought, it’s always seem to have been a reactionary response to a question.
Someone once responded to that with “The Socratic method?” I thought that was funny and used it quite often as the witty response.
An acquaintance of mine asked me to participate in her “company” selling herbal extracts. She asked, “Wouldn’t you want to invest in something that would make you and others healthier?” I responded with, “If you found out cyanide was good for you would you drink it or give to someone else?” She of course asked the question, “Why do you respond to my question with a question?”
The night ended with me poking a lot of holes in her sales pitch, and truthfully answering her original question with an actual answer this time; however it still had me thinking, why do I personally do this? As I observe my discussions with my friends I never see this “response in a form of a question”
Except when my friend asked me if I would like to grab a bite to eat with him after a long day of work and no breaks. I asked, “Do blue space monkeys like purple pineapples?!”
That gave me a pause… Coincidentally the answer is a YES by the way. The reason I never do this with my friends while we are having a discussion is they ask questions that I personally don’t feel is that obvious. But, when someone poses a no brainer, I automatically react with re-posing the question in a different perspective, without all the sugar coating. To me, in a serious debate, if an answer is so painstakingly obvious yet they ask the question, I automatically lose a little respect towards that person. I do however make room for ignorance, not much mind you, but when it’s an irrational question, or logical fallacy, I just can’t help but take a jab.
Sadly, I encounter this way too much, whether it’s a devout young earth creationist, or someone trying to sell me to a pyramid scheme.
Quite a few times, my usual retort consists of asking them a question in response analogous to a question they pitched at me. Often they would be offended or get frustrated and ask me why I pose a question instead of an answer. I haven’t given this much actual thought, it’s always seem to have been a reactionary response to a question.
Someone once responded to that with “The Socratic method?” I thought that was funny and used it quite often as the witty response.
An acquaintance of mine asked me to participate in her “company” selling herbal extracts. She asked, “Wouldn’t you want to invest in something that would make you and others healthier?” I responded with, “If you found out cyanide was good for you would you drink it or give to someone else?” She of course asked the question, “Why do you respond to my question with a question?”
The night ended with me poking a lot of holes in her sales pitch, and truthfully answering her original question with an actual answer this time; however it still had me thinking, why do I personally do this? As I observe my discussions with my friends I never see this “response in a form of a question”
Except when my friend asked me if I would like to grab a bite to eat with him after a long day of work and no breaks. I asked, “Do blue space monkeys like purple pineapples?!”
That gave me a pause… Coincidentally the answer is a YES by the way. The reason I never do this with my friends while we are having a discussion is they ask questions that I personally don’t feel is that obvious. But, when someone poses a no brainer, I automatically react with re-posing the question in a different perspective, without all the sugar coating. To me, in a serious debate, if an answer is so painstakingly obvious yet they ask the question, I automatically lose a little respect towards that person. I do however make room for ignorance, not much mind you, but when it’s an irrational question, or logical fallacy, I just can’t help but take a jab.
Sadly, I encounter this way too much, whether it’s a devout young earth creationist, or someone trying to sell me to a pyramid scheme.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Evolution does NOT explain the origins of life.
I hear the argument: "The theory of Evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origins of life".
I respond with: "Because you know how to drive a car, can you build one?"
I can't help but respond to a question such as this in such a crude manner. Any argument from pure ignorance who's answer is so blatantly obvious shouldn't be asked in such a serious tone.
The theory of evolution is a model that attempts to explain the divergence of species from a common ancestor. More details of evolution include survival of the fittest, simple life to complex life, inherited traits and behaviors, and so on...
Perhaps the argument shouldn't be addressed to evolution, since it is a phenomenon after the inception of life, but the point of inception itself, Abiogenisis.
Abiogenisis is the study of the inception of life from the inorganic to the organic.
Evolution is NOT Abiogenisis.
To my knowledge, unlike The theory of evolution, there is no generally accepted Theory of abiogenisis, though I personally do favor one over others.
Like the theory of evolution, abiogenisis is secular and does not directly affirm any particular belief of or rejection of any beliefs.
The conclusions being drawn is that the divine is not needed to produce organic materials from inorganic substance.
I respond with: "Because you know how to drive a car, can you build one?"
I can't help but respond to a question such as this in such a crude manner. Any argument from pure ignorance who's answer is so blatantly obvious shouldn't be asked in such a serious tone.
The theory of evolution is a model that attempts to explain the divergence of species from a common ancestor. More details of evolution include survival of the fittest, simple life to complex life, inherited traits and behaviors, and so on...
Perhaps the argument shouldn't be addressed to evolution, since it is a phenomenon after the inception of life, but the point of inception itself, Abiogenisis.
Abiogenisis is the study of the inception of life from the inorganic to the organic.
Evolution is NOT Abiogenisis.
To my knowledge, unlike The theory of evolution, there is no generally accepted Theory of abiogenisis, though I personally do favor one over others.
Like the theory of evolution, abiogenisis is secular and does not directly affirm any particular belief of or rejection of any beliefs.
The conclusions being drawn is that the divine is not needed to produce organic materials from inorganic substance.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
If I were Omnipotent, I'd kill myself.
A god who is both omnipotent and omnipresence is contradictory.
Sometimes this contradiction is hard to see, so let me show you a different way to understand it.
Think of "seeing the future" as if you were watching a VHS tape. Except, you're watching it in reverse.
Let's say it's a tape of a railroad trip.
You see yourself arrive at your San Francisco destination.
As the tape reverses, you see yourself get on the train.
After a few min, you board at San Jose.
As you approach the ticket stand, What do you think you said to the ticket vendor?
Would it matter if you said you wanted a ticket to Oakland?
No, it wouldn't matter, you know you will end up at San Francisco for one reason or another. You already know the destination despite the decision.
To "change the future" we'll have to look at a situation where we can see and change the actions dynamically, this is done by a domino rally pattern that forks into two.
However, there is a switch that only allows one of those forks to go on, the other goes in another direction. If you place a red piece at the end of the right fork, knowing it will be knocked down; you are basically seeing the future.
However, because you want to change the future, you switch it to the left position, when you set it off, the red one will NOT be knocked down, invalidating your red domino prediction. Therefore you did not see the actual future.
Some would argue, What if you switch the red domino to the left branch, it'd work. It's a short sighted argument. You really haven't changed the future, you've just stepped back to square one.
Some would argue, maybe omnipotence is knowing all possibilities of the future. Therefore it wouldn't be contradictory to choose one of those as it's actual event. Again, it is a short sighted argument. Once one of these possibilities is chosen, all other possibilities are false futures, and again you're back to square one.
There still is only one red domino.
If you can see the future, you can not change it.
If you can change the future, you haven't really seen the future.
Maybe your definition of omnipresence is that of the now, not of the future. Unfortunately, that's not very all-knowing.
Sometimes this contradiction is hard to see, so let me show you a different way to understand it.
Think of "seeing the future" as if you were watching a VHS tape. Except, you're watching it in reverse.
Let's say it's a tape of a railroad trip.
You see yourself arrive at your San Francisco destination.
As the tape reverses, you see yourself get on the train.
After a few min, you board at San Jose.
As you approach the ticket stand, What do you think you said to the ticket vendor?
Would it matter if you said you wanted a ticket to Oakland?
No, it wouldn't matter, you know you will end up at San Francisco for one reason or another. You already know the destination despite the decision.
To "change the future" we'll have to look at a situation where we can see and change the actions dynamically, this is done by a domino rally pattern that forks into two.
However, there is a switch that only allows one of those forks to go on, the other goes in another direction. If you place a red piece at the end of the right fork, knowing it will be knocked down; you are basically seeing the future.
However, because you want to change the future, you switch it to the left position, when you set it off, the red one will NOT be knocked down, invalidating your red domino prediction. Therefore you did not see the actual future.
Some would argue, What if you switch the red domino to the left branch, it'd work. It's a short sighted argument. You really haven't changed the future, you've just stepped back to square one.
Some would argue, maybe omnipotence is knowing all possibilities of the future. Therefore it wouldn't be contradictory to choose one of those as it's actual event. Again, it is a short sighted argument. Once one of these possibilities is chosen, all other possibilities are false futures, and again you're back to square one.
There still is only one red domino.
If you can see the future, you can not change it.
If you can change the future, you haven't really seen the future.
Maybe your definition of omnipresence is that of the now, not of the future. Unfortunately, that's not very all-knowing.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Sometimes you have to do a double take
Yes, I want to hire him for sure!
I don't know anything about ploming, but if I ever need it, I know who to call.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Our Loving biblical father...
Modern Christians believe that our father in heaven, the creator of all things, created us in his likeness. He gave us a mortal body, and a soul.
And eventually one day, through our decisions, and free-will, we will eventually join with him in the graceful paradise of his home, heaven.
But, he has not left us without help. He has inspired and influenced many to write a book that contains everything we need to know and to direct us in the right path to be able to be with him. And because god is loving, Jesus was sent to carry the burden of sin we could not carry on our own.
And he as also given us prayer. In our time of need, we can pray to him or Jesus and ask him for help, even through the toughest of time. And if god willing, our prayers would be answered.
If we live a pious life, and accept him as our father and Jesus as our savior, and follow his commandments, we will be welcomed to join him in heaven. If we do not, we would be sent away from him forever, or worst, hell, depending on your specific belief.
Let's look at this from a more personal and realistic perspective.
Let's say my father threw me out on the streets when I was a newborn. "For my own good" so that I would learn to fend for myself and survive the elements.
And eventually one day when I am old enough, through my endeavors, I will be welcomed to join him in his mansion and we can live as a happy family.
But, he has not sent me away without help. He's personally typed up a book, through mixed quotes and inspirations from people. The book is called "How to survive in the streets of Los Angeles." The book seems to be direct copy of a few other books, and a summary of others. And my older brother was sent to inspire me, and give me direction for the life to be.
I have the address of my older brother and father, I can send my mail to if I ever need help, and he promises they'll respond if they're not busy.
Some of the kids in the same plight I am in, manage to find scraps of paper claiming it was their father's or older brother's letters, or bills blown to their doorsteps, claiming their family sent it to them. I would not be deluded enough to believe in such things. My father has never sent me any letters, and my brother who would save me is twiddling his thumbs somewhere else.
I can't truly remember if my father wrote the book or if I even have an older brother.
And when I've grown up into an adult, I go visit him. How dare he say that I am not worthy to enter his house because I have dirty shoes. How dare he say I am not worthy to be his son because I stopped writing to him after 10 years and never got a letter back. How dare he disown me because I have the audacity to call my foster father, "Dad".
And now, he has the nerve to drag me to prison and slap a restraining order for wanting to see him?
And my loving brother, oh my loving brother, who is supposed to save me and comfort me, all he says is "Told you so." and does not vouch for my great deeds in life, doesn't vouch for my passion for life, or love for my fellow human. He sticks to our father's decision like the puppet he is.
Forgive me for being a little bitter about the fact I was abandoned by a father who was not only capable of taking care of me but did it "for my own good". Forgive me for being a little bitter about the fact no contact was ever made, despite having full knowledge where I was.
Forgive me for being a little bitter towards my father for letting the world around me crumble, when all he had to do was give the word and it'd stop. Forgive me for not believing in a brother who was supposed to save me but never received a hug from him or even actually saw his face.
And when I'm on my deathbed, my father has the nerve to come to me after a full lifetime without him, to tell me He'd FORGIVE me, if only I'd call him "Dad".
I'd tell him to go fuck the burnt goat I sent to him when I was 12.
So, I don't have a god issue. I have a divine father issue. My biological father is loving, real, and will never desert me in my time of need, even if we hate each other at the moment. If I would worship anyone, it would be my parents. Even if my father never wanted me, he would have the human decency to respect his son. God does not.
If my younger brother murdered someone in cold blood, I would defend him ferociously, pay his fines, post his bail, hire the best lawyer I can find, but would be the first to turn him in, as much as it pains me to do so; and would never go to prison for his actions, or justify it's righteousness simply because he is my brother. Jesus does the very same, however, not because of murder, not because of actual evil, but the act of a thought crime. But in the victimless act of not believing, we are held in absolute accountability and unjustified punishment. Jesus, however, would gladly go to death row for someone who actually murdered someone, simply by invoking his name. How loving.
And eventually one day, through our decisions, and free-will, we will eventually join with him in the graceful paradise of his home, heaven.
But, he has not left us without help. He has inspired and influenced many to write a book that contains everything we need to know and to direct us in the right path to be able to be with him. And because god is loving, Jesus was sent to carry the burden of sin we could not carry on our own.
And he as also given us prayer. In our time of need, we can pray to him or Jesus and ask him for help, even through the toughest of time. And if god willing, our prayers would be answered.
If we live a pious life, and accept him as our father and Jesus as our savior, and follow his commandments, we will be welcomed to join him in heaven. If we do not, we would be sent away from him forever, or worst, hell, depending on your specific belief.
Let's look at this from a more personal and realistic perspective.
Let's say my father threw me out on the streets when I was a newborn. "For my own good" so that I would learn to fend for myself and survive the elements.
And eventually one day when I am old enough, through my endeavors, I will be welcomed to join him in his mansion and we can live as a happy family.
But, he has not sent me away without help. He's personally typed up a book, through mixed quotes and inspirations from people. The book is called "How to survive in the streets of Los Angeles." The book seems to be direct copy of a few other books, and a summary of others. And my older brother was sent to inspire me, and give me direction for the life to be.
I have the address of my older brother and father, I can send my mail to if I ever need help, and he promises they'll respond if they're not busy.
Some of the kids in the same plight I am in, manage to find scraps of paper claiming it was their father's or older brother's letters, or bills blown to their doorsteps, claiming their family sent it to them. I would not be deluded enough to believe in such things. My father has never sent me any letters, and my brother who would save me is twiddling his thumbs somewhere else.
I can't truly remember if my father wrote the book or if I even have an older brother.
And when I've grown up into an adult, I go visit him. How dare he say that I am not worthy to enter his house because I have dirty shoes. How dare he say I am not worthy to be his son because I stopped writing to him after 10 years and never got a letter back. How dare he disown me because I have the audacity to call my foster father, "Dad".
And now, he has the nerve to drag me to prison and slap a restraining order for wanting to see him?
And my loving brother, oh my loving brother, who is supposed to save me and comfort me, all he says is "Told you so." and does not vouch for my great deeds in life, doesn't vouch for my passion for life, or love for my fellow human. He sticks to our father's decision like the puppet he is.
Forgive me for being a little bitter about the fact I was abandoned by a father who was not only capable of taking care of me but did it "for my own good". Forgive me for being a little bitter about the fact no contact was ever made, despite having full knowledge where I was.
Forgive me for being a little bitter towards my father for letting the world around me crumble, when all he had to do was give the word and it'd stop. Forgive me for not believing in a brother who was supposed to save me but never received a hug from him or even actually saw his face.
And when I'm on my deathbed, my father has the nerve to come to me after a full lifetime without him, to tell me He'd FORGIVE me, if only I'd call him "Dad".
I'd tell him to go fuck the burnt goat I sent to him when I was 12.
So, I don't have a god issue. I have a divine father issue. My biological father is loving, real, and will never desert me in my time of need, even if we hate each other at the moment. If I would worship anyone, it would be my parents. Even if my father never wanted me, he would have the human decency to respect his son. God does not.
If my younger brother murdered someone in cold blood, I would defend him ferociously, pay his fines, post his bail, hire the best lawyer I can find, but would be the first to turn him in, as much as it pains me to do so; and would never go to prison for his actions, or justify it's righteousness simply because he is my brother. Jesus does the very same, however, not because of murder, not because of actual evil, but the act of a thought crime. But in the victimless act of not believing, we are held in absolute accountability and unjustified punishment. Jesus, however, would gladly go to death row for someone who actually murdered someone, simply by invoking his name. How loving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)