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.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, October 3, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)