Holy Water Can't Be Avoided

For believers all water on the planet should by now be seen as holy. Given that all the water on the planet gets recycled, "unholy" water shouldn't exist any longer. Given the number of times a subset of the planet's water has been "blessed"--millions of times, at least--there is likely no remaining collection of water that doesn't contain at least some "blessed" molecules. Now, unless believers want to assert that there is value in the number of blessed molecules within any temporary collection of them, there should be no need to bless any more water ever again.

Too Soon To Stop

How similar are these things?

1) We stop looking for something once we've found it (used for the badly worded phrase "it was in the last place I looked").

2) Stop looking for an answer when we find something that confirms what we already hold to be true. In other words, when we found what we're looking for, we stop, just like in #1.

It seems to me that we humans have a tendency to stop looking both when it's proper and when it's not by unknowingly and mistakenly treating these scenarios like they are the same. It's likely more complicated, of course, but there might be something there to consider.

Shrinking Degrees of Separation

One of the largely unnoticed side-effects of a shrinking number of people with increasing wealth is that true competition goes away because they can't help but know each other. It would be a near impossibility for a small group of ultra-rich people to have next-to-no degrees of separation (not withstanding Kevin Bacon).

In a society like this, every medium-to-major transaction is always going to be an 'inside job.' It's not possible for it to be otherwise.

More

Both zooming in and zooming out allows you to see more.

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.