The Human Filter

No information that gets filtered through a human should be taken as authoritative.

Study after study confirms that we suck as getting facts straight. We can try as hard as possible to be completely truthful and we'll still mess it up. Some of that is just the faulty nature of our senses getting things wrong. Some of it is just an inability to accurately convey information to one another due to the individual baggage we carry filtering the communication, no matter the medium.

Individuals do not carrying around the same meanings for the same words and phrases. Sadly, nothing is synonymous between any two people, even the exact words and phrases. (To me, this is why we so value someone we think "gets" us--it's extremely rare. Even then, there are more areas where we don't "get" the other person than we like to admit.)

Yet, there are people who will insist that someone's words constitute some sort of proof of anything. Whether it is blatant quote mining or a genuine trust in the declarations of someone generally seen as intelligent, we mistakenly give weight to someone's words without any other consideration.

In a practical sense, we can't go around questioning everything declared. But, we should be on the lookout for people who use quotes to try and prove something. Whether it's the Bible, Albert Einstein, a reliable news source, or your favor philosopher (or anyone else), always remember it was filtered through at least one human, not counting you. 

"Christian Nation" Advocates Require Founders To Be Irrational

For those who claim the U.S. is a "Christian nation," they usually use as their best evidence private statements and letters from the nation's founders (as well as others that lived much later). Leaving aside the fact that many of these statements are either misquotes, lies or contextually inaccurate, the logic behind these claims is faulty at a more basic level. Without noticing, these claimants are actually on the losing side of the intent v. action philosophical question.

This question centers on the battle between will and actually exercising it. Stated intentions can never be taken as evidence of an eventual action. We can mistake a person's intention, intentions can change without notice, simple mistakes can be made in communication, etc. What is the much more accurate measure is action(s) taken. A person can state an intention to exercise, learn a new language, or vacuum their car. But, unless there is a corresponding action, the stated intent carries no weight when deciphering motives and designs.

When looking at the "action" actually taken by the founders (i.e., Articles of Confederation, U.S. Constitution, Treaty of Tripoli), there is clearly nothing to indicate that a conclusion had been reached to form a "Christian nation." Quite the opposite was actually the result of the actions eventually taken. The documents agreed to and put into force for the country are clearly non-religious in their nature and intent. Even the individual state constitutions that contained religious notions saw them removed fairly soon after the country began to stabilize.

Unless the supporters of the "Christian nation" idea want to label the founders as being weak-willed, unwilling to follow through with the claim they wanted a nation based on a religious doctrine, they must concede that the actions they actually took is where true objectives reside.

The only remaining choice is to claim the founders to be irrational, having an intent in opposition to their actions.

Supernaturalism And Free Will

It seems to me that one of the best ways to deal with the issue of free will is to start with its opposite: dualism.

The idea of a mind-body separateness has been described in many ways. But, in essence, it's the idea that our physical self is distinctly different from some other controlling force which can operate the body independently of its natural functions. For example, if a person's body wants to scratch its ass or drink a pint of whiskey, the controlling homunculus can say no and order the body to do otherwise. Because the body can only operate within the natural laws governing the material universe and act accordingly, if there is a force that can alter those otherwise automatic reactions, it must be--by it's mere presence--supernatural. Any force that can change what would otherwise happen naturally is supernatural, meaning it doesn't have to live by the universe's governing forces and restrictions.

However, if we assume that there is a separate entity of some sort that can have the body operate outside the natural laws of the universe, then we can also assume that there really are no rules in play, at least when it comes to a person's body. The rules that govern the physical body would not actually be rules; they only become suggestions able to be tossed aside. This means that no rules for humans can ever truly be discovered because anything we observe could be the homunculus altering what would have otherwise happened--and we would never know when this was happening. Anything information we gather about ourselves would always have to have a asterisk pointing to a footnote that says when it comes to humans, nothing can ever truly be discovered.

Given what we continue to discover, can this be deemed a reasonable condition? Not really. We continue to discover new things about why we do what we do all the time. As we continue to gather more and better information, it'll not be the case that we will reverse course and move toward the idea that there are no rules in play.

The scary part about this idea is that it destroys free will, something we mistakenly think we, the disconnected homunculus, have. The sense of control free from the laws of nature we all innately feel is a deception, simply a byproduct of the nature of our existence. It's okay, though, because this misleading state of mind would have to be created if it wasn't already there. Otherwise, we would be a very sad species indeed. The point is that we shouldn't shy away from the situation and pretend our free will is real because if we do what we "discover" will be flawed if we start with this major falsehood. 

Ironically, if this is true, then there is no choice for those who accept this falsehood--and for those who don't. The rules will always be in play and the results will always be based on whatever the universe dictates.

Godly Dualism

What is the relationship between the typical perception of a separate entity of some kind running our bodies and the perception there is some kind of entity separte from the universe running it? Maybe our false perception of a soul leads to the false perception there is a god.

Obedience To The Status Quo

This article associates obedience with Stanley Milgram's famous experiments 50 years ago. But I have another take to share...

If you look at Milgram's experiments in conjunction with some recent news events--the toddler in China getting run over with no one helping and the Penn State case where a witness did not stop a child rape--I think we have something different at play here. It's not so much obedience than wanting to maintain the status quo pushed by the inherit inertia that powers it.

In all of these cases, and many more that happen every day, people decide to keep doing what they have been doing, or planning to do, despite an obvious good reason to do something different. It is our default action (or non-action) to keep on keepin' on.

Our minds may jump around all over the place, but our actions don't. We will almost always do what's expected or planned. It's the same reason abused spouses stay in their relationships and why almost all slaves never revolt. The unknown that comes with changing course is, for some reason, avoided by most of us even when it's clear we should do otherwise.

We need to be harder on ourselves to make sure we're aware of this flaw and do more to conquer it.

Communication Method Disproves God

I've read/seen a few things over the years claiming that a historical Jesus never really existed. Overall, I think the evidence presented is reasonable to make the claim. But, I think there is something more subtle (for lack of a better word) to consider.

Anything written by someone about anyone else is going to be faulty. Even autobiographies/memoirs will contain falsehoods. Most of these are probably honest attempts at recording the truth, but we know that our memories are just awful as recorders of stuff. We simply suck at recalling accurately what we've experienced.

Add to that the tendency to want to purposely write a story that tells mostly good stuff, and in an entertaining or clever way, we add even more trouble to the mix.

Now, put ourselves in a Mediterranean town 2,000 years ago. Very few people read or write. Well-known people get reputations mainly through rumor and "information" that is many people removed from a questionable and unknown source. Similar stories get mixed together.

So, given all of that, I don't think we can say that any historical character truly existed, at least not in the forms we commonly get exposed to today. Many are purely myth, some have some character on which a framework of disinformation was hung. Others may have more evidence of their existence. But, IMO, no one before the middle ages (or thereabouts), excepting some prominent royalty and a few others, can be said to have truly existed.

We humans have too many flaws to have recorded accurately any ancient occurrences at a reliable enough level to be considered worthy of being classified as proof. There was probably someone named Jesus; there were probably lots of people named Jesus. There were also probably lots of people who claimed to do miracles and be a "savior." But, given the times in question, there is no way we can take any of it literally--even the simple, non-miraculous claims.

It doesn't matter how many people recorded stories. There is no way to confirm a single source, let alone verifying it independently. The nature of the situation is one that we can only take the stories as stories. Facts cannot be assumed from them.

To say a god preferred this method of communication is to disprove his existence.

Better Information Leaves God(s) Behind

The idea behind the Big Bang is based on the fact that what happens when time moves forward gets reversed when we look back. Given that simple logic, if we take the fact that we attain better, more accurate information as time moves forward, the information available to our ancestors gets worse the further we look back.

That means conclusions will be erroneous that were reached based on information that has since greatly improved, including the claim that a supernatural creature living outside the universe's rules exists and tinkers with our planet.

If we were all to suddenly get amnesia about our god history while retaining all other knowledge, we could never reach conclusions that included some sort of magical and invisible creature existed. We have much better information now.

Like Your Mother Said, Don't Jump Off That Cliff

This article about William Lane Craig points out something people who try and prove something without proof often do and I also find maddening: Simply claim that too many other people agree to have the assertion be false.

Deepak Chopra is another good example of someone who does this. It's a common tactic whereby people name-drop and quote-mine others, dead and alive, to try and claim their garbage isn't.

When I see this kind of thing I'm always reminded of something all of us heard from our mothers: "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?" Old and simple wisdom is sometimes all we need to defy nonsense.

If pure numbers counted as proof, then Aristotle would still be taught in medical schools. All it takes is one new piece of valid and verifiable evidence to overturn a very large majority.

To argue majority opinion is valid based on that one fact is to argue nothing at all.

Some Questions ARE Stupid

I’ve outlined before why we can safely assert that there is/are no god(s). I thought I’d outline my main reason again--despite what some teachers say, some questions are too stupid to be considered.

For example: Who would win a fight between Spiderman and Batman? How many licks would it take to get to the center of Mars? How fast would I have to blink to go back in time?

You get the idea. I think it’s clear that not all questions are valid. Given that fact, when someone asserts that there is an invisible (sometimes visible) creature who also is everywhere (across a 13.7 billion light year universe), exists as the paradox of being all-powerful, chooses to communicate through “feelings,“ hallucinations and ghost writers, and, among other things, has a special interest in all kinds of blood, we can easily assign the question to the stupid category.

When Being Dressed Is Annoying

One problem humanity has yet to resolve is cleaning clothes at the laundromat without having to wear any of it.

Swelling Salacity Not Sustainable

I seriously can't see how any capitalistic system--being based on continual greed and "growth"--can not be seen as a pyramid scheme, all of which are illegal. They are illegal because they eventually collapse due to the false basis on which they are built: unending growth.

We seriously need to remake our economics to be based on sustainable principles that don't reward or require the need for increased capacity or swelling salacity.

All systems will crash when their limits are reached. We live on a finite planet with a limit on what it can provide. We need to work with that, not ignore it.

Morals Are Everywhere

For those who claim that atheism is invalid because it doesn't contain some sort of pre-configured moral code, atheism doesn't need to account for anything. It's simply the absence of a belief.

In addition, morality is never absent; it is a guaranteed result of culture, which can include religion or not. There's no connection to make between religion and morality.

It would be like saying being a football fan doesn't account for the structure of professional sports. It's a non sequitur.

Unworthy Power

As everyone with any sense will freely admit, the U.S. justice system is flawed and not even close to being perfect. Yet, we still have people who will say it's good enough to decide who is worthy of living. To allow such an imperfect system to wield power like that is to prove humanity's unworthiness to exercise it.

Theoretical Recipe

Theories are not facts, they are made up of them. Therefore, theories never "graduate" to a fact; they always remain theories, which get reworked in the face of new/corrected relevant facts. A theory can be thrown out, of course, if enough of the facts on which it is built are determined to be invalid. But the theory's demise doesn't do anything to the facts themselves.

Metaphorically, saying something is "just a theory" is like saying a cake is "just a recipe." The recipe (theory) can get updated with new ingredients (facts), but result is still a cake.

No Pi

Even though I have sometimes been drawn into god-based stuff on Facebook and elsewhere, I still find myself seeing that whole topic as increasingly distant. The more I encounter believers, passively or directly, the less I find in common with them. It makes it very hard to connect with even the most mild of religious commenters. It would be like trying to communicate with someone who insists pi is not needed when doing geometry of a circle--and wanting you dead for disagreeing.

One Size Does Not Fit All

It seems to me that our view of the economy and the society under which it operates could be seen similar to the laws of physics in the sense that there are two sets of rules in play. Even though there is a concerted effort to find a single set of rules to describe the universe, there are at present two--one that describes the very small (quantum mechanics) and the very large (general relativity). The very small is extremely unpredictable and hard to understand; the very large is much simpler and extremely more predictable.

These rules are not set by us, of course. They are simply the laws we've discovered from testing and observation. When it comes to economics, though, we make the rules. The society we create may need to look at setting up rules that mimic the idea of two sets of rules instead of trying to force a single set of laws to work that clearly don't.

Unregulated capitalism is perhaps the most unstable economic system ever invented, despite claims to the contrary. Let alone, the system tends to move toward the concentration of wealth in a few large enterprises and the small groups of people who control them. It also creates a huge and permanent underclass that has virtually no power or wealth. Anti-trust legislation was enacted to stop this condition from perpetuating itself, but it has failed because the forces which push for globs of wealth and power to congeal in the hands of a few have resurfaced. Capitalist "invisible hand" theory depends on every "player" remaining small, on its own unable to provide much influence on the entire system. We know, however, that if regulations to keep things small are not enforced or disappear, we end up with the large and hugely powerful players that the theory depends on being absent and can no longer be called capitalism.

Strict controls on society from a heavy-handed government, on the other hand, create a very structured and much more predictable society. But, too much of this kind of thing means that forces required to test and enact improvements get stifled. Power still gets concentrated; it's just a different path to the same result. "Checks and balances" are absent and the human tendency to grab and exercise power over others rears its ugly head here, too.

It seems that there might be a solution that allows for rules that provide stability and individual creativity. With an underlying structure that can be depended upon to support the innovation we desire, the need for a "one size fits all" approach can be abandoned as the only method to consider.

We need a government that primarily sees itself as providing for a stable foundation through the guarantee of some of life's basic needs such as clean water, health care, and education. We could also consider a minimal amount of food and housing, if needed. If people can absolutely count on not starving or dying due to having no place to live and nothing to eat, then a person's energy and focus can be directed elsewhere and allow for those people who would otherwise not be able to take risks to go ahead and do so. Capitalist forces could then be used in the other parts of society that wouldn't result in the threat of death if they fail. The notoriously unstable and volatile world of capitalism would still have to be regulated in order to keep players small, so that the competitive forces that are the key to capitalist economic theory don't disappear.

This is purely and analogy, but if the world of physics has to live with separate rules that provide separate answers in two different realms, it can allow us to see how we don't need a winner-take-all approach to creating a happy and sustainable society. If physicists eventually do come up with a unified theory that explains everything, we can be sure it won't be from forcing one of the current sets of rules from one realm onto the other.

Hidden Scrutiny

While young we quickly learn that the answers are in the back of the book, at first only available to the teacher. By the time we attack subjects for which there are no definitive answers available, we've been trained to seek them from the book writers and have a hard time giving up that process. But, what we also fail to realize is the subjects for which the answers were given are also subject to scrutiny.

One Religion Doesn't Cure Another

It's nice to see that at least a couple of 9/11 anniversary events excluded religious themes and speakers. For those who complained, it's obvious that they didn't properly consider the religious zealotry that caused the attacks. To pretend that one form of religious extremism is a proper response to another is not sensible. The outrageous religious beliefs of one group are not a cure for someone else's.

9/11 Anniversay? Meh.

I may be in a minority, but I don't feel anything special about the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

I've looked around my own mind and find nothing hidden in any corners or any kind of otherwise suppressed emotions. What I feel can basically be summed up by the commonly used response of "meh."

So, why am I so indifferent? In general, I think it comes down to how society's right-wing fringe elements latched on to the event, infecting it with their fascist attitudes and rhetoric. Trying to see the 9/11 attacks as some sort of universal evil becomes nearly impossible when they so vehemently fuel their hatred and bigotry with the event. It pushes people like myself to the outside of the attackers and those who oppose them in a way that makes them equally unattractive. It's like being asked to pick sides between two street gangs or mob families when you are an outsider to all of them. There is no good choice other than to shun them all.

If people want this event to become something other than an annual and perpetual hatefest, with ignorance and vile rhetoric perpetuating more human suffering and violence, then the prominent parties need to see how they force the rest of us to walk away from the entire thing. Until then, those who have the view of an outsider will see no reason not to remain there.

We Could Do Much Better For Ourselves

I wonder how many similarities there are between what we see as outright corruption and theft (for example, when donated food for the poor is stolen by corrupt governments), and the attitude that rich people in more structured societies have a right to proportionally more stuff than poor people. In both cases, those who have money and power are acquiring more of them while those who need assistance the most are getting less (or none). How can such a system be rationally justified other than to claim whatever system is in place provides divine support for the rules that produce the result?

It may also be that such justifications come from group identity. If a group in power denigrates other groups enough, then it becomes progressively easier to withhold assistance and/or directly steal. This is because if some other group is seen as an enemy in some capacity, there don't need to be any rules and certainly no empathy for that group's suffering.

It seems that those who have money and power justify having so much of each by the fact that they have so much of each. The poor have also earned their place by being poor, in this mindset. Therefore, any action that maintains this setup must be "right" because it is in harmony with this "natural order." We fail to even consider the possibility that these conditions are solely due to our own actions and can change them at will. But, we have this terrible flaw we see coming from some sort of ultimate guidance that allows us to justify the maintenance of a permanent underclass and a wealthy and powerful elite. Until we realize that it doesn't have to be this way, human suffering will always have humanity itself as its root cause.

One, Two, Three...A Lot

Studies have shown us that babies think logarithmically when it comes to figuring out quantities. They do not realize by default that the "distance" between every sequential whole number is identical. For them, the difference between one and two is massively greater than the distance between eight and nine, for example. It's not until children are 2-3 years old that they begin to grasp what we all take for granted, and only after it being drilled into them.

Non-modern societies who do not have any adults who think the way we do about numbers still think logarithmically. They were never taught out of it. They often don't have any words for quantities greater than three or four. They simply lump everything larger into one quantity translated as something like "a lot."

This provides a hint that modern societies have not completely purged themselves of this way of thinking either. We, too, after reaching a certain numeric quantity don't really grasp the reality of very large numbers, even if we do give each a unique name.

If we pay attention--really pay attention--to what our minds do when we are presented with large numbers, we will notice that meaning disappears and an unquantified haze takes over. When we teach ourselves the equidistant digital method of quantifying the world, it still has limits. We don't have the ability to understand these things because, like children, we still hit a wall where everything on the other side of it is simply "a lot." All we've done is move the point after which numbers are all basically identical.

(Another example of this type of mental reaction is when we first encounter a very long word for the first time. The now famous volcano in Iceland named Eyjafjallajokull is a perfect example. Most people will attempt to sound out the first two or three syllables but then give up.)

This is crucial to the way we make decisions about very important things like federal budget deficits and how we understand the distance to the next solar system. This also likely plays a role in the fact that people who commit multiple crimes before getting caught do not get proportionally more punishment than those who break the law once or twice. One hundred counts of dealing drugs does not get 100 times the punishment of doing it once. Killing 20 people is not really seen as proportionally worse than killing two.

Murdering millions is literally incomprehensible. Therefore, many don't even try and might even assert that it is impossible, claiming such things haven't happened at all. This kind of mental activity might also be one of the reasons  that religious believers will dismiss science. If they can't understand it because the details are lost inside that other side of the wall where "a lot" is the only value, there's no reason to accept it. Going with a simple book of easy explanations and magical beings we're not supposed to understand is seen as a valid alternative.

Our minds are wonderful things and can figure out quite a bit. But, we do have limitations and tend to skew reality in favor of easy answers. We need to be diligent about everything we think, trying to pay attention to our thoughts in order to catch those mistakes we accept too quickly and too easily. Evolution isn't done with us yet, so we do have some changes to anticipate. Hopefully they will include mental improvements, including the ability to recognize our flaws more easily.

The Strange Truth

If the adage that truth is stranger than fiction happens to be true, then holding up a religious text along side a quantum mechanics textbook would do nothing to disprove it.

Finding Our Voices

Everyone "hears" voices. Only some of us claim they are from an outside source. Most know it's just their own mind at work. For some, this phenomenon is evidence of dualism and is why some hold their "self" is separate from their body. For others, however, the response is to wear tin hats or clerical collars or create myths.

We Make Our Own Morals

Morality is determined by culture. That's it. There's no more to it than that.

Some people want to claim it is religion that creates morals and without it we have none. Religion is simply one part of some cultures; it doesn't exist in others. It's just one piece of the very complex puzzle of human behavior, and it's never static. That is just the way it is. Deal with it.

For those who want to claim that there is some ultimate moral code handed down from just one of the ancient Hebrew deities, the god in question first needs to show up. Being invisible and only communicating through hallucinations and ghost writers is not anywhere near a valid claim to even consider worthwhile.

In addition, why would it be the case that any creature, deified or not, would have some sort of ultimate (and currently secret) moral code that everyone should support? There's no logical reason to assert that any creature has such a list and that it wouldn't be riddled with flaws that would offend large numbers of other creatures, such as humans.

We have to live with the fact that we are the ones who set our own rules. We create the cultures under which we exist. Any faults found are with us, as are the benefits. There is no group of atheists that advocate or even consider pedophilia as a viable cultural option, for example, even though there are believer types who insist otherwise. These kinds of people also like to claim a moral need for all kinds of information not being examined, such as sex education. Not discussing things is what gets us in trouble. Abstinence-only "education" for kids actually increases unwanted pregnancies. But believers don't look at the results. The only goal seems to be supporting the bad idea that started the idea in the first place.

Information is good--all kinds of information. Myths and superstitions don't qualify, however. We need facts and that requires investigation. If we want a moral code of some kind, maybe that's it: Never believe, investigate--and never stop.

Maybe Size Doesn't Really Matter After All

I re-watched a program recently on fractal geometry and it reminded very much of the idea of "strange loops" in the book I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter I read a few years ago. Both of these look at repeating patterns and what that can mean to various mathematical disciplines. I'm not expert in math, so I don't know if there's a relationship there or not.

In addition, it also got me wondering if there's a relationship between fractal geometry and string theory's idea that there are more than 3 spacial dimensions. In this case, I'm actually wondering if they conflict.

Fractal geometry is a shape that repeats itself consistently throughout, even when looked at in minute detail. The shapes of very small pieces are the same as the larger ones--size doesn't matter. In string theory we throw this idea away and say that when we reach a certain level of smallness, the universe is not the same as it is at larger scales; we not only have different laws in play but more dimensions within which the laws act.

I wonder if it's possible that the unified theory so many scientists are looking for could simply be based on the number of dimensions being used by whatever is being observed (and/or the observer)? Maybe objects that only use (and exist) within "our" three dimensions use one set of rules and objects that exists in any other combination of whatever dimensions exist use a set of rules specific and unique to that combination. It may not be the size of the stuff being looked at that determines the laws under which it exists, but the combination of the dimensions being used by it (and/or who's observing it).

Praying Medically v. Praying Financially

If made to choose between praying for someone to successfully come through a difficult medical procedure or for the bill to be paid, which would a logical person choose? It seems it should be the bill because the patient's outcome still depends on the skill and knowledge of the trained medical team, which remains the same. Unless a random person off the street is handed a scalpel and told to operate, even a believer would be best served by praying financially.

Capitalism and The Stanford Prison Experiment

With the Stanford Prison Experiment in mind, why wouldn't the same attitudes take hold if capitalism is left unregulated? The experiment shows when one group of people is given total control over another, the group in control can't control itself and quickly begins to act horribly toward the other, even blaming the victims for their status and coming up with ways to justify the situation. Being ungoverned means the worst of humanity gets the upper hand and fights to keep it. Those who advocate for unregulated capitalism are arguing in favor of letting the worst of the species be rewarded for that very trait.

Irrational Barking Believers

Trying to get a believer to think rationally is like getting a carnival barker to tell the truth about what's really in the tent.

dee-uh-rif'-ik

New word I've made up (at least I think no one else has claimed this one):

deirrific -- dee-uh-rif'-ik

Any action a believer in a deity assigns to it, even if it's pure evil.

Mental Mismatch

I wonder if a lot of conditions we see as mental problems can be best described as a difference between the view of one's self v. how the society has forced (or tried to force) the person to live in opposition to that view.

As I've written before, I think a great deal of human behavior can be explained with a model that tells us that the human self is made up of everything we accept into it about how we view the universe and our place in it. When that individual self is challenged or voluntarily changed, the person has to go through a process of limited suicide because the self, in its current configuration, is being killed. That goes against a core human instinct, making it very difficult and results in substantial side-effects.

In most cases it is likely that we accept the self we are and, despite a few minor challenges, make due and get on with things. But, what if, for some people, the self never really absorbs the conditions in which it lives. For whatever reason, it just can't make the adjustment and acceptance never happens. The self would be in a constant state of battle with (and within) its conditions. It seems that it wouldn't be too big of a leap to suggest the result could be mental instability.

Metaphorically, it could be like one of the causes of sea sickness where the motion felt by the inner ear is not matched to the stability the eye sees when below deck. The cure is to go above deck and look at the horizon which will provide a visual motion to match the input from the inner ear.

Similarly, if a person can't get "above deck" to match up the view of the universe through the self and the "real" universe, sickness could be the result. Coping mechanisms may be attempted that result in mild bouts of "illness" we might label as quirks or minor mental conditions. But for some people the differences are too great or last too long to result in a self that can function in the society it sees as so in opposition to it. For these people mild coping mechanisms don't work and more pronounced behaviors and conditions come forth.

One of the ways this manifests itself is through the claim of "truth" in a person's or group's view of things. The verifiable universe is somehow faulty and their version is valid because of this special truth which they have acquired. Instead of looking for verification of their view, they look to discredit the verified claims of others, even if it means creating a new version of "truth."

Some of these behaviors are not even seen as problems when they manifest themselves through religious or political avenues. When someone has a view of the world that doesn't match what's really going on, we can end up with extreme personalities coming forward to "make things right." Those with similar mismatched mindsets will join their fight in order to not have to change their self, which would be suicide (at least partially).

When human behavior is views in this way, it's possible to come up with new approaches to deal with this problem, I think. Being aware of what we do and, more importantly, why we do it can only make things better.

Stick To Art

A definition is to meaning as a stick figure is to a full color piece of art.

You Are It

You are the everything contained within it.

The Culture In Communication

I want to share a passage in Women of the Forest, by Yolanda and Robert F. Murphy, an old book I just finished about the Mundurucú people of the Amazon basin:

Sojourners in exotic places become more than mere strangers; they are outsiders and "aliens" in the sense the term is used in science fiction stories. This was our dilemma. We could not speak Mundurucú, and the few people who knew some Portuguese did not like using it. To make matters worse, we could not interpret gestures or facial expressions, and most of the actions of the people around us were without meaning. Indeed, we had entered a meaningless (to us) world, and we would never again underestimate the tyranny that culture holds over our behavior, our sense of self, and our consciousness.

I want to share this because of the conclusion of the passage that culture is tyrannical in its controlling "our behavior, our sense of self, and our consciousness." It makes me think that one of the main reasons--perhaps the main reason--so many people can't (or won't) accept any of the assertions of people with whom they don't agree is their particular point of view that comes from culture in which those views are held and expressed. It seems that unless someone wants to make the effort to incorporate at least a part of the culture of others, any communication will be minimal and has a good chance of being wrong.

Many problems that religious people have with non-believers I think falls within this framework. It is much less so in the other direction because we aren't former believers, we have lived within their society and can't have helped but learned that culture. Life-long believers, on the other hand, have had little, if any, desire or experience in the culture of non-belief. It may be similar to the way a servant or slave knows their master's ways much better than the other way around.

To be fair, many non-believers have a hard time communicating on a believer's cultural terms and using their mores due to a disdain for them, having "been there." But at least they are known. It is common that a believer will refuse to acknowledge the difference and, if so, only work to get the non-believer to move into their culture. Without force, this method has a very low success rate.

Communication Is Never Easy

In order to explain something new it is often necessary to use a metaphor or analogy to something already understood--if the new thing is not understood clearly on its own. If not understood and no connection can be made with analogy and metaphor, then communication fails, either altogether or misunderstanding. When few references are shared across cultures or time, that bridge must be built first in order to communicate effectively and properly.

What's So Good About The Past?

It seems to be universal (or nearly so) that belief systems have as their basis a point in the past where perfection was once found. If not perfect time, then a person or collection of writings that are seen to be so. Whether it is a religion, politics, nationalism, or any other secular "good ol' days" sentiment, the search for truth and a way to improve society through a belief system often comes from looking to the past.

There are at least two problems with this.

1) We know that societies have improved with time. Any serious look at the conditions under which humans live will show vast improvements with time--at least for the majority, on average. (There are, of course, many cases of the worst off of a more recent period being worse off than some of those who lived previously, and vice versa.)

2) It includes the idea that all changes from the designated historical point in time are not desirable. To assert that no new information or better methods can be discovered is ludicrous. Plus, the promoted view of the past in question is often a lie or just plain wrong. There is often not enough information to make such determinations and motivations by the current promoters that make the assertions untenable.

"We think we actually understand things only when we have traced them back to what we do not understand and cannot understand - to causality, to axioms, to God, to character."  -Georg Simmel

Musical Cosmos

Music is the universe...it contains beauty, math, meaning, motion, emotion, has time-suspending ability, love, joy, ability to affect physiology, soothes, etc. It is with music that one's mind--one's self--becomes easily aligned with happiness. There are so many cases where people of all intelligence levels will appreciate and envelop themselves in the same piece of music as if there were no differences between them. The different paths to this place are minor differences that mean little once there. 

Those who don't feel anything from music might be categorized as deficient in more than a trivial way. It could be a type of sensory deprivation like color blindness, a loss on a level we don't admit or even recognize.

All things are scooped from a cosmic bowl that could be described as filled only with music.

The Universe Has No Homunculus At The Helm

I find the general attempt by many in society to link science and religion to be worthless. It's like trying to combine football and the Ice Capades because they are both arena-based entertainment. Other than paying way too much for a hot dog and a soda, there's nothing there to work with.

Religion is not only a belief, but a belief in questions that are too stupid to be contemplated. To try and find something real inside a belief in the creatures made up by human minds is not a valid endeavour. It's an attempt to justify something that has no basis for making the attempt. We are waaaaaaay past the time when we only had the tools of bare human observations, hallucinations, and unsubstantiated conjecture to determine the nature of the universe. We not only have the scientific method--which has never been shown to be faulty--we also have instruments that can determine things like the chemicals that make up a star thousands of light years away and can see the physical structure of molecules. We have much better information now; to try and keep the outdated religious-based stuff alive is just nuts, IMO. Would anyone keep drinking water that was contaminated with human waste after having learned of it?

As far as believing in general goes, we should drop it completely. It's something I've done on purpose to the point where I believe nothing at all. I don't even use the word. I either know something or I don't, I either think something or I don't. I don't believe anything. It does make me a little nuts in a pet peevish way when scientists say they "believe" something to be true. If I had the clout, I'd start a campaign to get scientists to quit using "believe." The contextual meaning of the word is not appropriate within the world of science.

I don't see how science can be seen as a religion. Other than religionists trying to create a false link in order to try and find something with which to do battle, I have seen nothing to justify the assertion. For one thing, science is subject to peer review to try and catch bullshit. While some stuff does make it through the initial process sometimes, it always gets cleaned up eventually. There is no such process in a belief system. They are set, never to change. That's why we get so many splinter groups, including tens of thousands of sects of Christianity, for example. Can you imagine a world where scientists would continually break into separate groups to maintain an ever-growing set of falsehoods? Some do, and they are called pseudo-scientists and quacks and remain on the margins of not only the scientific community (if allowed in at all), but of society in general. Beliefs are not subject to scrutiny by "true" believers and maintained as a badge of honor.

If a group of believers in anything is touting their position simply by the strength of their beliefs rather than logic or evidence, then it can be determined invalid with no further inquiry. Things that are purely observed or thought up by humans should always be assumed to be wrong. Studies have continually shown that our minds do not perceive the world correctly a lot of the time. From mistaken observations to the mixing of dreams and reality, we can really fuck things up when it comes to making conclusions. We need verifiable evidence from mechanisms and processes that leave us out of it. Only then can we begin to develop theories that have any hope of being close to accurate. Before the telescope, electricity, computers and a ton of other things, the stuff humans decided was correct was largely wrong--including the existence of deities controlling things.

The universe has no homunculus at the helm. If there was, there would be some proof of it. There's not. To hang on to the past is in some ways hopeful and soothingly nostalgic, but we now know how wrong those people could be having nothing to help them out in making determinations. We need to say goodbye to them and continue to move forward and accept all the new information that will come our way that updates what we now think we know. To assert that the past trumps the present means that everyone should just go home, get a cow and start making your own butter--if you can get online to find out how.

The Self-Stimulating Brain

We all know how bored we get when we are unstimulated while conscious. We will seek out activities to alleviate the condition. If it lasts too long, we might even do things in contrast to our normal nature in order to "fix" the problem of being unstimulated. Some may even commit violence or otherwise act outside of societal norms in order to get that mental jolt. Why can't there be a similar mechanism at work when sleeping?

Maybe dreams can be seen as a life simulation automatically employed to keep the brain active during sleep. Maybe the brain suffers some type of damage if inactive for too long and, not being able to act physically, dreams are a way of dealing with it. Maybe REM sleep is caused by dreams, being the only (or satisfactory) reaction to the dreaming brain, not the other way around.

We know that minds without stimulation become degraded, even to the point of mental illness. There may be no reason to think the phenomenon is restricted to the conscious state.

Guilty Victims

It seems to me that having a belief in a god makes people act like they are victims of their own existence, looking to "set things right" by developing enemies--real or imagined--to whom they can transfer that made up guilt.

Interrogative Questions Fail As Proof

If someone has to resort to asking a non-believer interrogative questions in order to prove the existence of their god, it means they're still looking for evidence, proving the point that none exists. Proof exists on its own and can, if valid, simply be presented for all to see.

Norwegian Attacks And The Power Of Belief

Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian being held on terrorist charges, has been reported to have a Twitter account with only one tweet: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100000 who have only interests." This has been reported as an adaptation of a quote from the 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill: "One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests."

This sentiment plays into something I've mentioned many times before--belief itself is a problem for humanity. While these quotes are meant to show belief as a virtue, in reality beliefs are way too often the cause of human conflict and general strife. If Breivik acted as he did because he had a strong belief--justifying his actions in his own mind--it goes to show how virtue and belief don't deserve to be attached, not the other way around.

When someone adopts a belief, it is a conclusion. The person has stopped thinking and considering in favor of a mind that's quit doing so. When that happens, the belief becomes a part of that person's self, just as much as a physical body part. If that person then experiences an attack on the belief, the self is determined to be under attack, no different that someone swinging a baseball bat at that person's head. A person will instinctively react in self-defense. And, like is often the case in a physical attack, the actions taken in self-defense can be wild and uncontrolled, even illogical.

For those who are tempted to see this is just a "bad apple" and ignore the ramifications of someone using a mindset that accepts beliefs as part of the self, please re-think that idea. We all should be working against the instinct to believe and, as a much better alternative, think instead. It's a valid way to keep the door open and will not easily allow attacks to be taken so personally as to lash out at who-knows-what.

Not So Incredible

In English the prefix "in" is one of the ways a word can be changed to denote its opposite. Indescribable is the opposite of describable, indecisive is the opposite of decisive. Incredible, however, is not the opposite of credible. I wonder if it used to be. If so, it means that our language has changed to embrace the formerly non-credible as miraculous (or simply rare) instead.

The Validity Of Humourism

If the creationist argument that any gaps in our current level of scientific knowledge prove their claims of ancient tribal deities being a valid default alternative, then any gaps in medical knowledge should also be proof that Humourism has merit. It obviously doesn't, meaning creationist "logic" is flawed at a basic level.

New information and increased knowledge will tend to produce fresh insights, advanced analysis, up-to-date facts and improved direction. Those who hold on to what is antiquated and obsolete will never find validation.

The Mental Condition Of Psychiatry

I wonder if we will eventually get to a place where we make no distinction between mental and physical illnesses, at least not in the way we do now.

In this New York Times article the idea is put forward that addictions should still be treated as brain problem, but a "physical" one. This also plays into an overall growing ability to accept the idea that what we now label mental illness is really no different from those things we now see separately as physical problems. One other example is something called Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). This is where a person perceives a body part as superfluous, often asking that it be surgically removed. Research is showing this to be a condition that can be physically pinpointed to specific parts of the brain, not just an ambiguous "mental" disorder.

From an atheistic point of view, this makes perfect sense. We are only our bodies, but we have a range of reactions available to us that are expressed depending on the environment (social and physical) in which we find ourselves. That's basically it. We are who we are with no separate anything to be seen as a non-physical place we can approach alone.

Alternatively, for those who believe in things like a soul--something separate and independent from the body--the idea that it can be treated on its own supports the current psychiatric "mental" model. The mind is not physical, in this view, at least not identifiably so. To address the mind, it needs to be seen through a different lens than we see the body, in this view.

However, if there is no separate homunculus creature to be targeted--as an atheist would likely agree is the case--the approach to what we know see as solely a mental condition is seriously flawed. Maybe this is the reason why so many approaches to problems with a psychiatric tool set result in old behaviors returning fairly quickly, if they ever get altered in the first place. With a flawed premise, anywhere someone goes from there isn't going to be a rousing success.

This seems to be something not too far from assertions made by Thomas Szasz since the '60s. He has been marginalized by a good deal of the psychiatric profession, but I think he deserves some new attention. In essence, he claimed that what we label as mental illness is not scientific, it's social. Behaviors we, as a society, find distasteful or annoying we label as a mental disorder, even when a person has no physical injury or illness. It's an arbitrary line not verifiable universally. A set of behaviors in one culture seen as deviant could very well be prized in another. There's no way to draw a line other than the culture in which the behavior exists.

Between physical conditions we claim are purely "mental," and behaviors we label as non-physical "mental" problems, our view of our brains seems to be totally screwed up. We need to come up with a model that does away with the idea of a non-physical item within the human body where a treatment can be aimed--it doesn't exist. Shooting at a target that's not there will eventually hit something, but the resulting impact will not generally be useful or something that's expected.

Sicking A Gross God On Your Friends

Why would anyone want to be blessed by a god who supposedly said this:

Leviticus 4:1-12 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the LORD a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. He shall bring the bull to the doorway of the tent of meeting before the LORD, and he shall lay his hand on the head of the bull and slay the bull before the LORD. Then the anointed priest is to take some of the blood of the bull and bring it to the tent of meeting, and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil of the sanctuary. The priest shall also put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense which is before the LORD in the tent of meeting; and all the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering which is at the doorway of the tent of meeting. He shall remove from it all the fat of the bull of the sin offering: the fat that covers the entrails, and all the fat which is on the entrails, and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, which is on the loins, and the lobe of the liver, which he shall remove with the kidneys (just as it is removed from the ox of the sacrifice of peace offerings), and the priest is to offer them up in smoke on the altar of burnt offering. But the hide of the bull and all its flesh with its head and its legs and its entrails and its refuse, that is, all the rest of the bull, he is to bring out to a clean place outside the camp where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out it shall be burned.'"

Gross.

Any creature who ever commanded anything remotely like this should result in a normal person running for cover and telling their friends to stay away. To ask this nut job to bless your friends is to prove how much you hate them.

Minotaurs v. Mermaids

When opposing religious adherents argue, to me it seems identical to people who would seriously argue the virtues of a minotaur versus a mermaid.

Mores Not Divine

Those who argue that the need for an external morality validates the existence of a god are taking a position that's not defensible. Not being able to live without myth and superstition doesn't mean reality should be ignored in favor of ancient mores masquerading as presently divine--and it certainly doesn't prove a supernatural source.

Being An Asshole Works

There has been talk off and on for a few years about being too mean in order to improve the image of atheism. I want to offer up something to think about on the topic.

Whether someone is mean or nice in their political or religious stance seems to be inconsequential. I have never read a story or account of someone who changed their position on something because the "other side" was more well-mannered. Would any of you become religious because the missionary was a nice guy/gal? Of course not. Why would we expect any believer to behave differently? No person ever said, "Those atheists are so nice, I think I'll give their information more weight." It doesn't happen.

Also, of all the world's leaders with the most numerous followers, how many of them were complete and utter assholes? I would say almost all of them. People do respond to those who are seen as mean by some. It works. Being as asshole may not get people to come over to your house to watch a football game, but it can get people to back you up religiously and politically. Being nice seems to carry no power whatsoever; it only serves to make you seem unimportant and easy to ignore.

You might say, "What about people like Martin Luther King? He was non-violent." Yes, but he was still very edgy and didn't give timid and nice speeches. His attitude was one of a fighter. If he was a timid "nice guy," he wouldn't have lasted more than a few speeches.

So, I guess my point is that if someone automatically shuns an atheist who isn't "polite" or something similar, I think you might as well give up. While it's true that people don't change by being attacked, the people who witness the attack (readers of a blog, for example) can openly and more readily accept the information because it's not personal. (And, something that's passionate is more powerful than something that's not.) The object of the attack is not important at all. What's important is that others can see it, no matter what attitude it takes.

The witness to an event always has a different experience than a participant. The witnesses are what's important.

Real Answers To Real Questions

One day, hopefully soon, the unfortunate need by so many to make ancient myths and superstitions seem real will disappear. The hallucination-induced ghost writers that so many have been indoctrinated to see as valid is so silly on its surface. It's especially so in this country, where the limited collection of writings from an ancient sect called the Hebrews continues to be pushed as relevant.

The ancient attempts by people who weren't even aware they resided on a planet at trying to provide answers was never going to be proven true--they could only look at things with their naked eyes and their "visions." Real information can't be gathered this way. Gods are an unfortunate human invention that went sour, spoiling many members of the species. Everything related to them are simply self-delusions and placebos.

The real answers to real questions are continuing to be found--and no one's god is ever discovered instead.

An Unfortunate Declaration

"...by their Creator..." and "...merciless Indian savages..." are both in the Declaration of Independence and both should be seen as a vestige of unfortunate ignorance.

The Biblical Gateway

I think the bible can be seen as a gateway drug to atheism--if you inhale the whole thing, that is. Reading it through is often the first step on a journey to the really adicting hard stuff: science, reality, reason, critical thinking, knowledge, at a lot more.

Science And An All-Powerful God Are Not Compatible

I don't think a god and science are compatible at all. Here's why:

Assuming the god in question is of the all-powerful, it-can-do-anything type, then there is no science to be discovered inside its universe. This is because if the "rules" of the universe are subject to the whims of this creature, then there literally are no hard-and-fast rules, the basis of scientific inquiry.

Any finding of a scientific experiment would have to be seen as unrevealing because the god creature could have either temporarily changed the "rules" to affect the result or altered the result. Science is predicated on the idea that rules are stable, can be discovered, and confirmed through repeated experimentation. If there is a meddling creature who can literally do anything, science would be moot. The universe would be a set of changing funhouse mirrors alterable by a deity that never reveals what he's doing.

So, for those on the religious side who love to say that their beliefs are compatible with science, they either have to change the definition of science (which is common) or ignore the implications of what an all-powerful deity actually means for the scientific method. Either way, the assertion fails.

Something To Believe In

So many of the comments found on stories about science's triumph over religion are of the nature that the issue is either too hard to answer or only leads to another question that would require the intervention of a god. How silly.

The question of a god is a non sequitur. It's a question that only comes up when humans temporarily fail to answer some other question and insert a god of some sort. It's a stop-gap placeholder that has unfortunately become permanent for so many people. Gods--all of them--are an invention of the human mind to try and fill a void that someone can't live with, for whatever reason. It is a flaw in the human psyche, nothing more.

We discover new things all the time--every day, in fact. None of those discoveries has ever pointed to the exiistence of a creature that lives and works outside the rules of the universe and chooses to communicate through hallucinations, ghost writers, and images on tortillas and toast. They always point to that idea being garbage.

Even as the evidence mounts, some humans will still believe differently because it is in their flawed nature to do so. A belief can literally be anything at all so it's not a virture at all. Every time a new question comes up through scientific research, it doesn't mean that someone's magical deity is the answer. It only means we haven't figured it out yet. And, until all the scientists permanently go home we will continue to accumulate more information and better answers. If you want to believe in something, that's a worthwhile place to start.

No Need To Respect Religion

I'm not worried about being seen as mean or disrespectful--or some similar charge--when it comes to believers. We know from a whole host of studies and basic wisdom going back at least to the ancient Greeks, that the attitude with which someone gets challenged has little affect. Any direct claim of disapproval of something that someone has claimed to be part of their worldview will always be defended. Change only seems to come when they find out on their own, first through indirect exposure to information then a personal search.

There will be exceptions, of course. But I don't remember ever reading a de-conversion account that says anything like "I decided to investigate my own beliefs because atheists are so nice about their stance." As another point, people have always "converted" and followed some of the world's biggest assholes, both political and religious. It's not a great deterrent, I don't think.

Now, I'm not claiming I'm an asshole or someone to be followed. (But, others may disagree on the asshole thing.) But the idea that being kind and nice and respectful or whatever seemed intuitive, but it's ironically not the case very often. People make friendships and valid and meaningful relationships on these traits, but they are not the traits that people look for when looking to people for other reasons.

With that being said, there's also no reason to come in guns blazing all the time either. When it comes to the question of whether there's a god or not, it is a question that I think can be answered, even in the universal sense. But, more importantly, I think it's a stupid question. It's not based on anything reasonable and is not worthy of respect.

I think of it similarly to when people assert that some ancient boxer could have defeated some current champion. Maybe it's a fun question to ponder in a bar over a few beers, but it's not something to be taken seriously. Same thing with the claims of a magical deity that lives and works outside the laws of the universe. It's a non-sequitur, meaning it's not worthy of consideration. Having an open mind doesn't mean that every assertion needs consideration--or respect.

On taking a stance on a universal god, it's technically impossible to prove a negative. But, at some point you reach a point after a certain amount of time that any claim can be said to be false after repeated attempts to show claims of it's validity continue to fail. Any claim that some new piece of future evidence is valid would also have to re-validate all of the accumulated proven failures to that point. Holding out some hope for that is close to win the lottery on the night there's no scheduled drawing.

That's my two cents. I know others disagree, and that's okay. We are all in different places when it comes to this stuff. But, personally, I feel I've moved on and, like learning to ride a bike, I don't need to keep revisiting how to do so.

Awful Past v. Unknown Future

I wish I knew more about the details of why people not just support people like Michele Bachmann, but are so vehement about it. Time after time she has been shown to be either a liar or so horribly misinformed that if she were the basis of a Saturday Night Live skit instead of in congress, everyone would laugh openly at her.

What is it about people that allows them to accept obvious bullshit as truth, and with so much vigor? It's a serious human flaw that I think all of us suffer from--some more than others, of course, as with most afflictions.

Maybe it's simply something innate that causes us to want to maintain the status quo, even for those who are the worst off under it. Change for those who are vulnerable is more feared than attempting to make improvements. Maybe it's that simple.

The often-used claim that things were better in the past and returning to it would be preferable also has an appeal because it's a known condition, even if that condition is made up and lied about. It can be sold as a known commodity, which is more comforting than the unknown future touted by those who want change to occur there. Plus, for groups who were seen as better off in the past, members of that group who are now struggling can more easily support a move backwards, even if its a subconscious energy. Some whites, for example, might see themselves as better off before integration and the Civil Rights movement. Returning to a segregated society might seem to be an advantage.

So, maybe, anyone who promises to either maintain the current system--or go back to something familiar (even if it sucked)--has an appeal that causes people to fight for it rather than taking what is seen as an unacceptable risk to improve society.

Throw a god into the mix and the future gets even scarier if humans are allowed to tinker with it. Someone's god may not like it.

Detox From Love

Simply being apart is an aphrodisiac when a couple first gets together. When that situation fades, it is a hard fall, similar for some to a detox period.

Noah The Hoarder

It would be a funny premise for a SNL comedy skit to set an episode of "Hoarders" on Noah's Ark.

The Human Queen Bee

According to a TED talk by Wade Davis, there is a tribe that sequesters future tribal leaders in a cave for 18 years before being allowed to assume their role. In essence, they create a leader by raising him via a special process until adulthood. This process produces an altered human different from everyone else. It seems to be similar to the creation of a queen bee. An otherwise normal bee is treated differently while being raised to adulthood when they emerge as a queen.

The More The Messier

It seems that, by default, we tend to think in binary terms—yes, no; on, off. If true, this pulls us toward quickly eliminating all but two (or maybe three) options when faced with a decision. We want clean options from which to choose—do this or don't; don't do that, do this.

Maybe this can be glimpsed from the infant perception of numbers. Small children see things as ones and twos and nothing much more. Anything more than that is simply more than one—one and more than one is the binary categorization. Adding more complexity is not natural to a very young human brain, and maybe it's more pervasive throughout life than typically acknowledged.

When given choices we would rather have fewer, even though we protest otherwise. Fewer choices makes life easier to manage.

We also look and risk and reward this way—I will win or not, I will get hurt or not.

There is a comfort level that exists when we have made a choice between a very small list of options rather than from a huge list of options because a larger list increases the odds of being wrong. Usually only one option is "right," so the odds go down of choosing that option the more choices available to us. Dealing with complex probabilities amongst a large list of choices or outcomes is not a place we like to find ourselves either.

When Nothing Is Real

If anything that is shown to be impossible is still claimed otherwise by believers due to the unlimited magic powers of their meddling deity, how can anything experienced, observed or tested be declared as accurate and true? If no universal laws are off limits to manipulation at any point and in any manner, then there's no way to verify anything at all.

Evolving Together, A Dual Beginning

It is known that for any species to survive, let alone thrive, there needs to be a symbiotic relationship with at least one other. No one--individual or species--can survive for very long without help, at least on this planet.

I wonder if the work that gets done by scientists on evolution and abiogenesis is missing an important point by concentrating on individual species/individuals. When looking for the reasons as to why life began and why it evolves, it might be more fruitful to look at the possibility that multiple changes in more than one individual or species need to occur together in order to be successful, at least in some cases. Maybe that's a part of the reason why it takes so long for evolutionary changes to occur and why it took so long for life to begin.

A single change in one individual or one species can surely be propagated to others and remain. But, looking at the effects of those changes on relationships with outside groups might provide more accurate and detailed answers to some of the remaining questions about how life not only got started but how it kept going once the right mix of cooperatively existing species was achieved--until the next change(s) that stuck around came along.

On Taxing Churches

Technically, churches are supposed to stay out of politics for the privilege of being tax-exempt. If they are taxed then many would demand to be able to legally get involved in politics. And, since the advent of the mega-church, that would not be a good thing.

However, on principle I do think that churches should contribute to the society in which they live by paying taxes. Some people will equate them with non-profit groups who are also tax-exempt, but churches don't provide any services for the public good. They may have "sister" programs that provide some services, but they could remain tax-exempt as long as they remain secular in nature.

If I had my way, I would make purely religious organizations subject to taxes AND keep them away from politics. It would take a constitutional amendment because of free speech issues and Supreme Court rulings that overturned regulation of political contributions. But, I think it would be worth it in order to keep church and state separated in wording that's clear.

As far as the economy goes, it would actually help. It would reduce government deficits (or their rate of increase), which would calm and stabilize markets. The amount of money from each church would be minor, so each church wouldn't be hit hard. There could even be a threshold where the tax kicks in so very small churches don't get hurt.

As far as society goes, it would be hard to predict. On one hand, people could feel more connected to society in having to pay to help support it. For conservatives, this should be understood because it is they who so regularly claim that being given something for free means that it's not respected and gets abused. If that's true, then churches should contribute so they don't feel like freeloaders. On the other hand, if there is a backlash where church people claim that if they pay taxes they should also take over the government, that would be awful. I'm sure both sentiments would emerge but I don't know which would prevail.

Jungle God

It would be entirely appropriate to make a documentary on crazy American religious people in the same tone and manner documentaries are done about religious beliefs of Amazonian jungle tribes.

Good Socialism

The political right does, in fact, think that collective socialistic action is perfectly fine--as long as it's in the form of a corporation, a place where individuals are collectivized for the sole purpose of making money for owners and upper management. Collective action that benefits everyone else is what's seen negatively.

Hunger Strike For God

I often wonder if those people who "fast" in order to get their god to act in their favor realize that it's very much like a hunger strike.

Zero And Deities

The concept and mathematical use of zero is something that took thousands of years to be accepted as valid by the human race. The concept of nothing being a real and logical value to be used like anything else is not intuitive. Math itself needed to advance to the point where zero was needed to solve increasingly complex problems in order for its acceptance to solidify.

Similarly, the concept of no god may need to take a similar path before our species fully accepts it. It has a late start compared to zero, but the concept of a deity-free universe (or multiverse) is gaining hold. Those who don't see it as possible are digging in their heels, but we are facing problems that can't be solved if people believe a deity is in the mix somewhere directing things. Our universe only makes sense if deities are removed. 

It's Not Deserved

Whether dirt poor or filthy rich, neither is deserved.

Lonely Proof

One thing that I find outrageous from believers is that their claims of proof depend on trying to knock down the people who disprove their claims. Proof doesn't require anyone else's presence or involvement. It should be able to be placed on a table in an empty room and anyone else who comes along later and sees it can accept and validate it on its own merits. Believers don't get that.

On Agnosticism--It's Bullshit

There is a new book out by Vincent Bugliosi called Divinity of Doubt. In one of the book reviews Bugliosi calls himself an agnostic and said, "As an agnostic, I believe that the question of God's existence is impenetrable, that it is beyond human comprehension."

Leaving behind the point that he said "I believe...," making him a believer, this is the kind of bullshit I find maddening--someone who is too blind or too afraid to take the final step out of belief and into reality and decides to wimp out. I can understand if someone is still moving toward reality and is in the transitional state of agnosticism. But for those who think it's a valid place to permanently rest someone's mind, it's sad because it's actually someone trying to have it both ways.

Let me explain.

The concept of supernatural beings (deities) with the ability to alter the laws of physics and nature is a human invention. There has never been any proof, nothing even close. All we have are “visions,” ghost writers, mystics, story-tellers, and the like. As humans we can make up stories about all kinds of things, and do. In almost every case we know that the stories are fiction and treat them as such, never trying to prove they’re real.

However, from time to time, we get a person who presents us with a story that they insist is real even though there is no proof, much better explanations for what they claim happened, just too far out to be considered fact, or without enough information to make any conclusions. This last scenario is where agnosticism sneaks in, but badly. A reasonable point is twisted just enough to make it still seem valid while killing its reasonableness.

To say that someone’s claim doesn’t come with enough information to show its validity is not the same thing as claiming the question is ultimately “impenetrable.” Time and time again throughout history claims that something will never be accomplished by our lowly species have turned out to be false. Therefore, to claim that something is “beyond human comprehension” is in my book to assert the claim to be bogus.

We, as a species, have proven that we can figure stuff out, lots of stuff at an ever-increasing rate. If someone comes up with a question that is ultimately not able to be cracked, the question itself is faulty, not the human attempts at trying to crack it. It is a bad question and should be thrown out. It certainly doesn’t deserve to be promoted as so difficult that it can’t be answered--ever--and, therefore, is to be given a place of honor.

This kind of question falls into the same category has ancient aliens in UFOs having built the Egyptian pyramids, would Spiderman beat Batman in a fight, or if cows have a soul. They’re not “impenetrable,” implying some status worthy of special status. They’re bullshit questions to be discarded.

So, for those who make the claim that the question of any particular god’s existence is too hard for us to answer, come up with a better question. In this case a much better question would be: Why do humans continue to believe? It is a question I’m sure we can crack.

Similarities Between Believers And Hoarders

When watching a show on hoarders, many of the things said by not only the subjects, but their families and psychologists had me thinking that's there are a lot of similarities between how hoarders and religious believers see the world. Let me see if I can explain.

First, I am starting with a view of belief that is something I use and is likely not used by many others. This view is that a belief is intertwined into a person's self-identity so deeply that to alter it is very similar to committing suicide. A person's identity of their self is not only physical; it also includes the way we see the world--our place in it, how it works, the rules we accept as valid to explain what we experience, etc. Just like when our physical bodies are assaulted, we automatically react self-protectively when our beliefs/views are attacked, too. If we were to change those beliefs on our own, the assault would be a self-inflicted one and, therefore, suicidal.

Now, back to the hoarders. One of the psychologists actually used the word "assaulted" when describing how a subject felt when his sisters were cleaning out his apartment for him. He argued to keep his stuff, even the garbage, and brought stuff back into the house that had been removed. He was looking for any reason he could think of to not change. His stress levels went up and he couldn't even stick around for the entire time. This, to me, is the same reaction you would likely see in someone who's beliefs are being "cleaned out" and "assaulted" by an outsider who doesn't agree with their view of the world. The self-identity of the person was so infected with the view that all of his stuff was useful and special (similar to divine, in my book), that he didn't see the clutter as anything other than worthy of the effort exerted in collecting it.

After the cleaning was done, he was described as "subdued" and was "not used to all this order" in his apartment. Being subdued I can relate to many stories I've heard from people who de-converted from a religious belief when it was first accepted. There's no celebration, no sense of euphoric relief, just a subdued attitude that they now have to accept reality. Not being used to "order" screams out to be used as a metaphor for when science replaces religion in a person's life. The order isn't perfect, but is certainly more in-line with reality and certainly would illicit a similar response.

In another case of a woman who hoarded pigs--hundreds of them--she couldn't see that her initial intentions to help a few pigs had morphed into something completely different. The pigs took over the house, which was condemned, and eventually were all taken away and euthanized because they were diseased and in general poor health. The woman said the pigs were "her life" and wanted to start over because she had a "special relationship" with the pigs. Again, the similarity to religious beliefs stands out for me. How often to believers say their god is "their life" and have a "special relationship" with it. They even take care of their god(s) with offerings, sacrifices, rituals, etc. to keep the god(s) happy, many times to the point of not taking care of their selves, their property or family.

Another woman explained that all the stuff was "a part of me" and couldn't see the clutter as clutter. Most things appeared to be unopened and never would be. But, when she was shown a picture of her stuff taken by her daughter, she could recognize the piles of stuff as clutter and not treasure. She described herself as "two people," one who could see the truth in the picture and one who couldn't when looking at the actual stuff. It was suggested that it would take hundreds of "sessions" of help from a therapist to get her to accept the reality of her situation. Her sense of her self is so strongly connected to the clutter that for her to see her self separated from it--it is "a part of me"--that to remove it would be like killing a huge part of her self.

It seems to me that a lot of mental conditions could be seen and treated with the idea in mind that they are being asked to commit suicide. I don't know if there is a psychological method that has been developed that can be used to ask people to commit selective suicide or not. But, if so, it's probably worth trying in a wide set of circumstances. If not, one should be developed.

The Power Of Wealth

Too much wealth in the hands of too few causes too little wealth in the hands of too many.

Corruption No More

It sometimes seems that corruption is simply a set of actions in queue to be legalized.

Government Adversary

It's hard for a country's people to be happy when the government becomes their enemy.

The Full Glass

Looking at a glass as half full is a positive sentiment--unless it's already overflowing.

More On Ditching Beliefs

I have no delusions that my perceptions are my own and are not truly reflective of reality. Knowing this, I try, however, to leave room for altering those views when new, valid, and useful information comes along.

Personally, I don't like the word "belief" because of all the religious baggage that comes with it and is not easily separated from it. I like to say I know something or I think something. The meaning of those words might seem similar to belief for some, but the connotations are completely different, which makes the words far from synonymous.

That being said, I would rather use the word perception instead of belief when it comes to the results of my interaction with the universe. Again, it doesn't have the religious baggage and is, therefore, more accurate.

Some people claim that this kind of stuff is minor--"only semantics," they might say. While I agree that it is semantics, it's instead very important and not something to be taken lightly. The words and phrases we use help to paint the picture we make of the world we see and experience. Definitions are useless because they leave out the most important thing--the connotations and context which give meaning, the actual thing we absorb and/or convey about a word or phrase. Poetry and fine literature wouldn't exist otherwise.

I would suggest that no two words are synonymous because meanings are different. I would also suggest that the same word heard/read by two different people are also not synonyms. Each person attaches subconscious meanings to everything heard or read. And, since no two people are alike, the meanings they develop will be unique.

Finally, for me, my atheism is simply a subset or side-effect of my non-belief on/about everything. I have purposely decided that beliefs are not virtuous and, therefore, need to go. People get killed over them as well as cause strife in ways too numerous to count. We need to keep our minds open for new quality information to inform our perceptions. If we believe something, it stops that from happening because a belief is a settled, static state of mind with explicit resistance of change and improved information. It's dangerous and holds back humanity from achieving new and wonderful things.

Diplomatic Psychiatry

It seems that the tactics of diplomacy would be useful for psychiatrists. So many of them challenge someone's assertions as lacking merit that the patient simply shuts down or hardens their positions. In order to reach someone the first step is to sincerely and truthfully acknowledge that someone's feelings and view of their problems is real and possibly even valid. Many studies show that attacking a person's view of themselves or the world increases entrenchment of those positions. To get someone to move, attacking is, therefore, not the best option. First get on the patient's side and then make small challenges in an open way that does not include deceit.

Patriotic Backfire

It seems that whenever someone pushes for something based on patriotism, that thing they are advocating makes the country something to be less patriotic about.

Forces Against Pursing Happiness

Needing to work together in a society that tries to push people to be independent causes so much stress and anxiety as to make pursing happiness all but impossible.

Life Support

Existence is a support group for everyone’s eventual death, no different than a support group for older parents about to die. But we don’t treat each other as well, looking to get over on one another as if no one dies.

Divine Abuse

It seems to me that the way believers defend their god is very similar to the way an abused wife "defends" her husband (and her marriage) before realizing there's a way out.

Happiness Is Losing Your Self

It seems that the most common form of mental peace is described as the loss of “I”--the sense of individuality gives way to a connected experience to everything else. It comes from drugs, meditation, strokes, etc. People don’t get a “moment of clarity” and declare they were separate from everything. Yet, we still fight to maintain a sense of separate uniqueness with all of its unhappy results.

You Don't Deserve It

No one deserves the required experience of their own success or failures because they are not solely reached.

Wasted Plans

No matter how much we plan, we seem to rarely use those plans when the time comes.

See What I Mean?

While trying to rationalize, people will switch back and forth between definitions and meanings in order to suit their prejudices and immediate needs.

Immoral Reason

If a god can make anything moral by declaring it so, even though we can reason otherwise, why do we have reason at all? Is reason then to be delcared immoral?

Flat v. Hollow

Looking at the rest of humanity as an atheist is like attending a never-ending debate between people who believe the earth is flat and those who believe it’s hollow.

Nothing IS a Theory

Nothing is a theory. A theory is an explanation of a set of facts and/or how those facts produce an observable phenomenon and likely contains within it a means to disprove its validity. To say something “is just a theory” would be similar to asserting your secret dessert is “a just recipe," a statement that is pure nonsense.

The Theory of Gravity, Music Theory, Theory of Mind, and Theory of Crime, are just a few theories that go right along side the Theory of Evolution, all of them offering explanations of the subject being studied--not something that eventually gets “upgraded” to a fact. Available facts gets used to build the theory, which changes as new or corrected facts get discovered.

If people misunderstand the scientific use of "theory" they don't understand that the best layman's equivalent is "explanation." When anyone hears someone use "theory" in the scientific sense, replacing it with "explanation" would be extremely helpful.

 

A Regrettable Afterlife

Even if you are a god-believer and believe you are going to heaven through "grace," wouldn't it be better to look back and say you made life as pleasant as possible for as many people as possible rather than looking back and seeing the pain and suffering you caused through bigotry and intolerance?

So Glad Things Have Improved

Suggested possible response to those making claims of being hellbound: "Thanks so much for the reminder of the myths and superstitions developed by ancient peoples because they didn't have access to the information we now have. It was a shame they had to live in a time like that. Can you imagine what that was like? Yikes."

The Glue Test

Do you ever get the feeling that some zealous believers are just like 2nd graders who refused to grow up, still primarily using the part of the brain that remembers fondly what it was like to eat glue?

A Perspective On Glenn Beck

If Glenn Beck wasn't famous and you ran across him in a rubber room saying the same things he's saying now, I doubt anyone would think it out of place to find him there.

Real v. Fantasy Should Have A Clear Winner

When people try and dispute real history (and in connection, science) with the Bible, I get the same feeling I suspect would arise if they used "A Tale of Two Cities" or "The Three Musketeers."--surreal, WTF moment that makes me fear for the future of humanity.

Information Always Improves With Time

It still slays me that the assertion of error-free truth in any religious "revealed" text can't simply be rebutted with the counter-assertion, "We have better information now." Unless you hold a position that knowledge doesn't improve with time, this should be a simple and logical statement that's easy to understand and accept.

Controlling The Future

If you come to understand how something works, you can essentially predict the future. If you can control that thing you now understand you can manipulate the future. Maybe religion is like that, too. Praying to a god gives you a sense of control over that god and power over the future. You just have to first understand how that god "works," which leads you to priests and holy books.

Missing The Cycles

We live in a primarily cyclical universe. We can see cycles in everything from the universe itself to weather to planetary rotations to the circulatory system of plants and animals. But we often try and impose linear explanations and planning on our cyclical existence. It can only cause conflict but we fail to see that and continue our mistakes. Ironically, we often impose "circular logic" on an issue, which is an invalid form of rationalization.

Successful Communication Is Joy

It seems to me that successful communication with others is what brings a joy we often don't realize we require before any other kind of joy. It may be what we seek as a pre-requisite to much else and don't even know it.