A cherished belief

I sometimes think, if only briefly, if there is a cherished belief of mine that I wouldn't give up. The reason I think of it so briefly is because there isn't.

If given enough evidence, I will reject every previously held notion, no matter how ingrained, how a much a part of me it is, no matter how much it is a part of me, I will reject the belief without hesitation.

I sometimes think of a past example of such. It's rather hard, to tell you the truth, because I've never really held something to that esteem. My knowledge is never held as absolute not even to myself. I never had such reverence for a piece of knowledge to a point where it can not be questioned. I question everything, even my own conclusion over and over to ensure the best possible and most reasonable answer.

If one day someone came to me and told me my arm will eventually be the cause of my death, though the evidence to convince me is near insurmountable, I will cut off my arm. Not gladly, not without thought, and... depending on the situation, might accept death over the loss of my arm. AND... of course, I wouldn't cut it off immediately if I chose to do so.

But, aside from hypothetical, I suppose the only actual held belief I've ever had that I rather cherished as a child, and oddly enough wished to pass on to my children but sadly will never; is a phrase: "My very eager mother just served us nine pizzas."

To anyone know knows this, I hope you feel my sorrow.

On August 25, 2006, it was announced through some vigorous debate, Pluto is no longer a planet. It is now considered a dwarf planet amongst several other dwarf planets slightly smaller to Eris, a dwarf planet slightly larger than Pluto just on the outskirts of our solar system.

As a child, I grew up being taught there were 9 planets in our solar system. That the furthest yet smallest, was Pluto. Beyond Pluto, there existed only dust and asteroids. None able to sustain an atmosphere, none able to be considered planets. Yet, now we find Pluto can not be a planet, otherwise, we would have to consider other objects within our solar system to be planets as well, and that'll just get messy.

Over night, I disregarded my 12 years of knowledge that I once thought was truth. The "truth" has changed. The "truth" was no longer true.

Perhaps one day I will riddle the phrase to my children.
"My very eager mother just served us nine.... what??"
It pains me not to be able to tell them it was Pizzas.

Bums

So.. in the previous post...
You might wonder...
Why would you give out your coins to some bum?

Because, despite how some people may think, Even if I'm a soulless bastard, I still have a heart. I may not believe in divine morals, I do believe in humanistic morals. Though not every atheist is a humanist, it's a very simple transition from one to the other.

But... usually I'm bit selective. If the bum is truthful... I once gave a man 5 bucks on the street because he held up a sign that said, "Poor, Homeless, Need beer fund"... Man deserves it for being honest.
I give money also to those who have a sense of humor about it. I once saw a guy that said, "Aliens kidnapped my daughter and wife... Need ransom money" Again... Gave him 5 bucks. On further thought of that a little time later... I am curious if he actually believed it...

Oddly I have no sympathy for those who are either genuine in their plea... or if they are attempting to seem genuine in their plea. Sadly because the amount of genuine plea is trumped from the disingenuous ones. And I've seen this first hand on many many occasions.

But... the mother of all charity is one of the mind....
I have once heard someone say, "Well.. at least the bum is reading a book while he's holding up the sign, At least he's trying to enrich his mind."
Sadly... I don't take up this sentiment, I'm bit more critical. Yes, reading a book can enrich your mind, and teach you things... but I highly doubt you can learn the secrets to life from reading a horror book. Yes, you can improve your reading capacity, your comprehension and an array of many skills associated with reading as an act. But, in the end the information contained in those pages are as fiction as a TV show is fiction. It no more enriches your mind than a Saturday night drama.
And sadly... some can... but never ground breaking, I can assure you.
So.. simply because a bum has a hold of a book, unless it's the work of Nietzsche, Einstein, Tyson (Neil deGrasse Tyson), or Hawkings it isn't much enriching your understanding.
And worst off... heaven forbid, if they were reading the worst tripe.... The bible.

But.. every so often, if I see a well-minded individual, I ask them a very specific question.
"Where has god been in your life?"
I await their answer in hopes they will answer, "God has never existed in my life, I do not seek god, do not assume he is there or even real. If he is, he has forsaken me and I him."
With that... I would unload all the money I have on my person.
This has only happened once. To a kind gentleman who wasn't holding up a sign, who was busily scavenging through the trash for cans. His answer was simple.

"There is no god. He can go fuck himself if he existed."
He was a bit defensive, he thought I was some religious nut trying to bring lost souls in.... well.. that's until I gave him.. 28 bucks I believe.... and told him that's the most honest answer and I was fishing for a realist.

Every person I have asked, even the most well-minded persons, either because they've been conditioned to answer it a certain way... or they just wanted the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Responds usually the same.... "Oh god has blessed me each and every day." "I can not get up in the morning without god." "I know god exist and will save us all"... bla bla bla...

One would wonder why god would allow you to suffer so then. To me.. I would have to give a portion of my life to take you out of the situation you're in, something I'm not always willing to do, I am quite selfish sometimes as is with human nature. and I'm willing to at least give you my time to hear you, and even some of my money if you are a well-minded person with a badly dealt hand at life.
But... to an all-powerful and all-able being.. who won't even spare a second's notice... admittedly wouldn't even cost him 1/100000000000000000000000~ of his resources to bring you out of your situation, has chosen to let you suffer.... how ironic that you lay prostrate at his feet and not at mine for sparing more time and more percentage of my resources to aid you.

The plight of kindness

So... today I was walking along. I saw this guy.... fairly old guy. Initially I saw him talking to someone in front of me... getting really close, like they knew each other, I didn't think anything of it.

As I got closer and the two parted ways... I saw he was holding a brown paper bag with a rim of a can poking out of the top. I suddenly smelled a strong stench of cheap beer. This man approached me. He was an older man, mid 50s... black man with a graying beard, his eyes were bloodshot, and he was wearing a beanie.
He stuck out his arms in a hug like fashion looking directly at me and smiling. I knew there wasn't anyone behind me, so I was obviously the focus of his attention. After seeing the pause on my face and stern look, he withdrew a bit and instead offered me a handshake. I gripped his hands in a standard handshake. And... this is where the story gets really odd.

He pulls me in... then says, "it's been a long time man... you remember me don't you? We're family."
Just as a matter of fact... I'm not black. So... I assumed he ment it in the loose term of all humans are family of a sorts.... I went with it.
OK, sure... I said.
He went on to jabber on and on... then said.. yeah.. you remember... in Vietnam.. you were with me all the while still in hand shake that he hasn't let go of, though I tried subtly on several occasions.
Erum... I'm not old enough to have been in the Vietnam war, I was born in California in the 80s....
I said that just in case he had some odd concept that I was somehow born or raised in Vietnam.
Anyways, he jabbered on in a slurred drunken speech. Then asked for a quarter.
Somehow... I felt kind today. Usually I wouldn't think to pay him any mind and just walk away... but today I felt generous.
I can admire a drunk man in the middle of the day enjoying his time. I personally prefer in the dead of night myself over the mid noon sun, but to each his own. A great many times I wish I had a buck or two while drunk to get me something to eat, I can sympathize.

So... I usually keep my "silvers" with me, and toss my pennies in my cup holder in my car, I reached deep into my pocket, and he actually let go of my hand to allow me to, I really just intended to give him one quarter... but again.. I felt generous, I took out the whole lot. umm.. about 85 cents worth. I handed it over to him.
The wide eye expression of gratitude made me happy..... but... I spoke bit too soon.

He instantly tried to reach over to give me a side hug... I stood firm and looked at him in a glare.... he half reached over to my other shoulder... but seeing how I didn't allow it... he backed off. Then again.. he offered his hand to shake, in my mind.. in sign of gratitude and in parting... I really shouldn't have shook it.... again.. he didn't let go again.

Now he looks seriously into my eyes and said... you remember me right?? We were at the CDC the other day... you saw my new wife... let me borrow a buck. I promise once we get to the UCD medical center over there.. I'll give it back....

My first thought was... O.o the Center for Disease Control? Huh?? I know your wife??
Then with bitterness I flatly said.. hey buddy.. I just gave you all my change, almost a bucks worth, and I've got to go.
This is when his grip became firmer and his demeanor bit more aggressive.

Hey... just a quarter then... please??
This is when my anger rose and a plethora of thoughts came flooding into my head. I responded with a tight grip of my own... and I may not look like it, but I used to power lift, so my muscles aren't bulky.. they're strong and tight... and it hasn't been so long so that my strength hasn't diminished.
I firmly said, Hey.. that's all the change I've got. I won't give you a dollar.

What was going through my head was... OMG, this guy is pissing me off. If he's going to try to mug me, he's doing a crappy job at it. Does he think he can try to intimidate me?... I know I look easily intimidated, but I've taken down guys twice his size.... OMG... am I going to have to beat up an old man in broad daylight? If he takes out a knife I'm gonna use it to stab him. If he takes out a blunt object I'm taking out my keys and use it with my knuckles. You crazy drunk bastard, I'll beat you bloody, go on I need to take my anger out on something. Take a swing, I'll break a few of your ribs.
Through the entire rage thought.. I had a prevailing thought that kinda didn't pertain directly to the events occurring and it went back and forth....

I really don't want to break my MP3 player... I really don't want to smash his face with it... I really want to keep my MP3s... I really don't want to buy another one....

Yes... I was concerned I had to use my MP3 as a weapon and that it'd break...
I know some one out there might say, "Well.. that's not very noble of you... Using objects and weapons when someone is fighting you with their fists".
Well.. guess what... I'm not the one stopping you from using weapons either. Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly fine with fist fighting, but I prefer weapons, I feel more comfortable and more at ease, even if I had the advantage bare fisted and they would if we'd both have weapons.... even if it was an MP3 player....

With the apparent shock of my strength, he loosened his grip a bit, at which point I dropped his hands and continued walking.
I quickly said, good day, I'm going to go. I wasn't sure if it was in a calm voice as I intended, or if my anger showed through... probably the latter.
Oh... his attempt to stare me down didn't work, he was quite a bit bigger than me and taller... I'm sure he saw the anger in my eyes.. I was ready to beat him down if he so much as made the wrong move... or if he didn't let go of my hand after a while longer.

After thinking about it... I really am happy, I am able to accept my anger as justified. As my younger self, I wouldn't have the notion of being angry, only afraid.... I don't think I was afraid in this case, just really pissed off this guy is stopping me and trying to abuse my kindness to him.

... Then after things calmed down a bit more... currently I'm writing this 40 min after the fact...
I kept thinking... CDC..... should I wash my hands and sanitize myself? I haven't yet washed my hand.

.................................
There.... hands washed and scrubbed....

That's what I get for feeling kind.
I probably should have gotten bubblegum with that money instead.... or something...

Why atheists offend the faithful

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.

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?

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.

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.