Y2K Delayed a Do-Decade

Before I begin, I must confirm what a Do-Decade is. It is twelve years. Similar to a dodecagon or dodecahedron, d0deca- means twelve.

Now that that's out of the way, I'll begin. Take a step back in time to 1998. The world was different then. No terrorist threats (at least to my knowledge), no Xbox vs PS3. Not even the PS2. Computers were rather basic in comparison to how they are now. And, of course, the threat of the Y2K bug. Being very young at this time, I got numourous rumours about how and why the Y2K bug was so scary. The most prominent was that all the computers would shut down, simultaneously launching all nuclear weapons, destroying all life on the planet! Strangely, I wasn't scared. I don't think I was old enough to understand the gravity of the situation. Still, with multiple levels of panic, I didn't know what was what.

Then came the inevitable money making schemes. Vast amounts of Y2K merchandise came out. I still own a few Millenium bugs, the little toy game which came out alongside a plethora of other items, made to get rich off of the hype. The funny thing was, those toys came with little bits of information about Y2K. The most important of which lowered my tension 3 months before everyone else.

I'll bet that even now, few people realise the problem wasn't New Year's Day 2000. It was the nineth of September, Nineteen Ninety Nine, or 9/9/99. On some of the older computers this would translate to 9999, the year in which they were set to shut down. At risk computers were either disabled or repaired, and when September 10 came around, I was relieved, though I seemed to be the only one. And even though I told people we were safe, no-one believed me. Who would've guessed.

And now come back to the present. What do have now? No Twin Towers. No national security. No trust in strangers. Online wars between consoles. And: 2012. "Oh, look honey, another end of the world. Get the camera, it may be the last one we'll see for a couple years."

We're getting in fast now aren't we. Already there's a blockbuster movie about it, and several documentries. I suspect within the next 12 months, there'll be toys, games, books and even scams relating to the newest end of the world. One thing I can't wait for is getting a "I survived 2012" T-shirt. I'm not going to quote apparent evidences for the destruction that is 2012, because it does not make sense. I will quote a couple I heard: Nostradamus' prediction (not the first by the way), and the end to the incan calendar. I wouldn't care to trust ancient civilisations predictions. What do they know that we don't? But I ramble.

I will start the scams. I am so certain that 2012 will not end the world I am willing to bet on it. If you are willing to bet against me, e-mail me to make your wager. I'll bet anything, because I won't lose. Give me your best shot.

(Psst. I don't expect anyone to take me up on this, no-one is that silly, right?)

Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Another Vulture

I was sparked into feeling intellectual today, and as such followed my own advice and googled "Proof of God". What I found was this. I'm going to pick it to pieces, though it won't be as well done as my last vulturing. I'm typing this as I'm reading it, where-as my last one took weeks of preparation. I apologise for my low insight in advance.

PART ONE:

The first point: Earth. Apparently, earth is too perfect to be true. It's exactly the right size, so the gas that stays is just the right mixture to support us, while others float off into space. This isn't true, Venus is the same size as Earth, and it's atmosphere is uninhabitable. It's worse then New York. Being any smaller or larger would change the size of the atmosphere, potentially losing lighter particles or gaining heavier ones. The effect this would have on life's evolution could potentially be dramatic. If nothing else, the differing gravitational pull would change bone-density and muscle strength.

Despite what the website says, Earth is not in the absolute perfect distance from the sun. It resides within the habitable zone, which is the distance from the sun where life as we know it can exist. Basically this means that within this zone, liquid water can remain on the planets surface. Earth could be anywhere between 0.725 and 3.0 Astronomical Units. An Astronomical Unit is approximately 149,597,870 km, which is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun. So Earth could be about 41139414 km closer to the sun, or about 299141740 km further away. Don't know about you, but that's a huge distance to me. More than the exact distance of 1Au suggested.

The Earth doesn't keep a perfectly circular orbit. At some times of the year it is closer, at others it is further away. It's closest at during the time of Northern winter, or southern summer, and furthest away during the opposite season, thus defeating another part of point 1.

I'll leave the last point alone, as I have no research available to refute it. All I can say is, if the distance, or size, were changed, the effect on the tides would be dramatic. Not enough to cancel life entirely, just enough to change the outcome up to this point.

Point two: Water. It's shape and polarisation mean it's God's work, designed solely to permit life on Earth. Sorry creationist, that's not the case.

It's true that all life needs water. It's not true that being mostly made of water keeps our body a perfect temperature. Our temperature is kept constant though a series of internal chemical reactions, most of which don't require water.

Water is not a universal solvent. If it were, it would mix with oils, grease and other non-polar chemicals. As it is, most polar chemicals, and very few organic non-polar chemicals with mix with water, and the rest wont. This is a very important biological point, as phospholipids contain a polar and a non-polar end, causing micelles and lipid bilayers, aka cell membranes. If water were a universal solvent, life could not exist.

Water has little to do with the transport of food throughout the body. It has pH7, most of the time, but that is of little help to life, as most blood is slightly basic, meaning too much water causes death. It's surface tension has little to do with being brought out of the ground and up a tree, there are specific proteins designed to let water go up, but not back down. It's part of the beauty of evolution.

Liquids freeze from wherever the temperature is coldest. It only seems like it freezes from the top because ice is less dense than water, so it floats. As for water recycling... I don't know. I have no knowledge of weather, and won't claim to here.

Point three: The human brain. This isn't a point for or against, but an explanation of the sheer awesomeness of the brain. I like it.

Point four: The eye. First off, this isn't an argument for God, but against evolution. Second, it's a bad argument. A mutation occurs that allows a cell to sense photons, now you can see night and day. Another causes more to be created. You get a sense of the time of day. These curve, allowing basic sight. With 3 mutations, a basic eye is formed. Irreducible complexity is a silly argument, given the time evolution has had to work. As for not understanding the original eye, I just pointed out how the most basic eye could work. Other mutations could give it more defense, or more acuity, but that means little over the very basic photon sensing cell eye.

PART TWO:

This is an argument for initial state planning, or a first cause. This is a silly argument. Whether or not the Big Bang was caused by anything other then quantum mechanics is irrelevant in this argument. If it was, there are a plethora of possible explanations that don't need God. If not, then God wasn't needed anyway.

PART THREE:

Physical laws exist therefore so must God. No. In random environments/situations, like the random generation of numbers, patterns WILL occur. This isn't a perhaps/maybe/sometimes type deal. They WILL occur. If they didn't, the simple fact that there is no pattern is a pattern. It's inescapable. A random universe is compatible with spontaneous order, despite the claims of theists like this one.

PART FOUR:

Of course, the Atheist's riddle. I will not disprove this here. It has been effectively debunked here. Alternatively you could google Atheist's riddle, and clicking the first link. It's the same thing.

PART FIVE:

A stab at atheists. The writer even claims he was an atheist at one point. Whether or not this is true, he isn't now, and shows no evidence of having been one. He doesn't fully research his points, and uses logical fallacies without care. His biggest mistake, as far as I can see, is that he assumes that disproving scientific theory automatically proves God. Sorry, mate, it doesn't work that way. Now he's a misleading liar. I say liar, because he says he used to argue against God, which is clearly false, judging by his prior points, and the amount of research evident. Can anyone say copypasta?

PART SIX:

Oh Christ, another argument for the divinity of Christ. Jesus was a magician, performing magic tricks that pale in comparison to the tricks of modern street performers. He did claim to be God, but so did LOTS of people in his time. Which vaguely leads to my next point: There's no real evidence for Jesus' existence. Jesus is mention in scripture, the bible and several books written by Christians, sometimes hundreds of years after he died.

If I had the time and patience I would research every single point of this tripe, and pick it to it's bones, then bury them... I have respect for the dead. As it stands I have metaphorically found the carcass, taken a finger and left the rest to the birds.

Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Do it yourself!

Hopefully, I've inspired some of you to want to get out there and start reffuting the stupid claims of ignorant people. However, chances are, you don't know how to begin. I'll give you a quick tutorial.

First, many of the links on this page can lead to sites that are begging for refuting, don't be afraid to click.

Second, if they don't help, google it. Try to stick to a topic you understand well, like I have done in sticking to biology, and out of cosmology. If you don't feel learned enough on a subject, research it. The last thing you want to do is argue from ignorance.

Third, by now you have a site that you feel is just talking nonsense. Read into it, separating the truth from the lies. If it's all lies, that makes things easier.

Forth, begin your argument. Generally, I find it best to quickly get to the heart of the subject by saying the site your refuting. There are other ideas about this, some like a long-winded intro, where they can build suspense. Others feel a joke is necessary. Do what feels right, though be wary of falling into the boredom trap.

Fifth, frame your argument. Don't just say everything wrong with the site. organise your thoughts, flowing almost seamlessly from one point to the next. That is the hardest part.

Finally, finish your argument with a brief conclusion. I suck at these, but I feel that a good witicism about the offending site is a great way to finish, leaving readers on a high note. If done well, not only will readers be in a good mood, they'll also feel annoyed at the refuted site, and others like it, prompting them into action. This is success in my books.

Post your newly finished artwork in whatever style you like; blog, forum, youtube, facebook... the list goes on. So now you know, don't just sit there, click the links, or go google some ignorance.

Until next time
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Empiricism

Today, I'll be speaking on the subject of Empiricsm. Despite the fact that I see and hear it all the time on the internet, it seems as though very few people are actually aware of what Empiricism actually is. Be prepared for alot of big words...

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from experience. Or so says wikipedia. Effectively that means what you sense through any of your five senses is empirical knowledge. By applying simple reasoning, we can draw conclusions about the world using this knowledge. These conclusions, or hypotheses, can then be tested through the experimental method. The experimental method is the systematic manipulation of variables in an experiment designed to disprove a hypothesis. *Phew* That's a mouthful. It means that scientists control as much of the experiment as they can. Such things as temperature, humidity, salinity (saltiness) or any number of other things. They do this to understand how certain things react in certain situations.

I believe an example is suitable here. Scientists discover life on another planet. As you might expect, they are very excited. The first thing they do is examine it's environment, taking samples and testing them in their natural state. After doing this, they have a fairly good idea of how this new species lives. They come up with a hypothesis about it's life cycle. Having a new hypothesis, they design an experiment. They take a sample of the life form, and put it into an artificial enivronment where they can control the climate, and food supply. They then set about trying to disprove thier hypothesis.

That's right, I said disprove. All well designed experiments are created to destroy a hypothesis. It's when the hypothesis survives the rigors of multiple experiments that we consider it worthy of being part of a Theory. Anyway... back to the example. After testing the life form six was from sunday, they have a strong concept of it's entire life. By thoroughly checking the place it was found, they find even more life. While they experiment on this new life form, they then start to form hypotheses on the ecosystem of the planet. The more information that can be determined without experimenting, the more hypotheses need to be tested, and the more knowledge about the planet is gained.

This is but one example of empirical and experimental evidence working together to add to the wealth of knowledge humans already have. So there you have it, a VERY brief explaination of empiricism. Hopefully now there'll be fewer mistakes flying about the internet.

Until next time:
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Vulturing Catholic Education

I have been browsing the web, looking for data for a new post I'll be loading when it is finished, and I happened upon this article:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0012.html

After reading it, I was filled with an odd feeling. It was similar to uncontrollable rage, deepest pity, and absolute mirth. These feelings kind of mixed into a grim resolve, as I decided to pick this thing to pieces, destroying it's apparent arguments, and humiliating the writer by showing his stupidity. That is what this post is about. I'll do it sentence by sentence, if when necessary, but by the end, you should be able to understand the problems presented.

Religious believers are accustomed to being accused as perpetrators of intolerance and violence, and there is enough truth to such charges to take them to heart.

This is relatively accurate. Believers ARE constantly accused of intolerance and violence, so there's no reason to doubt that some take it to heart. There is definitly enough examples.

At the same time, it should be recognized that what is called religious strife is usually only partly that. The "religious wars" of the 16th and 17th centuries were at least as much about politics - with, for example, Catholic France supporting German Protestants in order to weaken the Catholic German emperor.

This is also true, in the same way that a book is only partly paper. Most of the things described as religious strife have strong ties to religion, and are therefore tagged as such. Using the word "partly" is a neat trick, designed to make the religious ties seem less important. These wars were based soundly in religion, with other reasons coming in a distant second. The war in question was between Protestants and Catholics in Bohemia, which elevated into a war between many European nations using germany as a battlefield.

Today it would be extremely simplistic to think that religion is all that fuels the strife in Northern Ireland or the Middle East.

Once again they point out that religion is not the only factor in current violence. The problem is that while there may be other reasons, the MAIN reason is religion. Cathloicism and Protestantism are different enough to cause violence, as are Islam and Judaism, despite their similarities.

However, religion does possess a peculiar potentiality for "extremism," because it has to do with extreme things. We might be able to compromise a boundary dispute, for example, but how can we compromise the will of God?

This brings up a well known problem of religion. Extremists always do stupid things to appease God. This argument of course fails to point out that if you add the element of god to a boudary dispute, no compromise can be made, no matter how extreme the people involved are.

Critics cluck their tongues and note the contradiction whereby religion, which is supposed to be based on love, has the potential to turn into strife and hatred.

Obvious and over-used, but still viable.

Critics do not note the close parallel to the family, where love can so easily turn into hate.

First of all, I'd hate to live in that guy's family. Second, while most religions cause intolerance and hate despite their message of love, very few families hate each other, or kill each other for simply being in another family. The "parallel" is rather crooked, and not particularly parallel.

But the dangers of strife and fanaticism come from the very nature of religion itself, which deals with ultimate things.

This is true, religious fanatics are far too common to be considered as deriving from a fringe element of religion. Many believers say that religion deals with ultimate things, though this is really only partly true. Not all religions claim to deal with ultimate things, such as Bhuddism, which has the lowest violent fanaticism of all the religions I've studied... Although, I have no clue how a violent buddhist fanatic would act. (insert joke here)

In a sense people ought to be more ready to fight over religious dogma than over disputed territory, because religious dogma has to do with the highest and most important truths. (It requires some kind of divine revelation to teach us that we should not kill one another over religious dogma.)

This is a contradictory sentence. People should be more willing to fight over religious dogma, but divine revelation tells us not to kill. Also, religious dogma only deals with the most important truths to the believer. For people such as myself, what God says couldn't be less important. And, because I don't believe in an afterlife, listening to what He says seems kind of trivial. Before I go further, I'd like to point out that common sense morals such as don't kill and don't steal DO apply to me, They just have nothing to do with God.

The terrorism which manifested itself on September 11 has of course started a whole new round of alarmed warnings about the dangers of religious fanaticism, with some secularists professing to see no significant difference between Osama bin Laden on the one hand and the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the pro-life movement on the other.

I have never heard of Rev. Jerry Falwell, which I suppose is a geographic problem. As far as I can tell from my brief reading on the man, he said and did very stupid things, but had redeeming qualities, such as defending civil rights for GLBT people. I can't say one way or the other whether there is an appropriate comparison to Osama bin Laden.

Thus, we are warned, the extirpation of all forms of religious intensity is what we must do to achieve social peace.

While this may work, it isn't true. Some religious intensity is in a good area, like helping others. Religion is not neccessary for this, but that doesn't change the point.

In this secularist world, merely saying that one disapproves of homosexuality, for example, is equated with bombing the World Trade Center.

No. Saying one disapproves of homosexuality is excercising ones right to free speech. Inciting violence, or attempting to cause hardship for homosexuals with your words can be equated with the bombing of the WTC, if only loosley.

We can all agree on the need to end the kind of religion which does issue in violence and hatred.

Yes. Which is to say ALL religion.

But as the secularists point out, all real religion has that potential, in the same way that deep love between a man and a woman has the potential of leading to murderous jealousy.

I think the tendency for religion to turn violent is a little higher then the deep love between two people leading to murder.

Thus many secularists in effect now call for an end to religion completely, something they have been predicting for a long time but which so far has not happened.

We've been calling for it? I think we've been saying that it should not have a role in government, or education. I'm an evangelical atheist secularist, and I still think it is well within your rights to have a church, and believe in an invisible flying zombie jew. Not all secularists wish for all religion to be destroyed. As for the prediction, the internet is quickly disproving all the pathetic attempts religion has at proving it's right. It's only a matter of time before the willfully ignorant are forced to take notice.

Why is there religion at all, of any kind?

Why indeed.

Ultimately the only satisfactory answer is that it enlightens people about the meaning of life, of how they should live their lives.

Or, before science progressed things scared people, like lightning, and they could only explain it with deities. These became more prominent, eventually forming groups, known as churches, where people learned about it, and taught it to others. Eventually, these organisations became so powerful they were able to control most of the population. Dark ages anyone? Slowly, but surely, they have been declining in power as science enlightens the areas they would wish to keep in the dark. (Space, orbits, evolution)

Religion is what gives meaning to human existence.

Human existence gives meaning to human existence. Meaning is subjective, we decide upon the meaning of our own existence.

Therefore, it follows, to abandon religion would mean abandoning all hope of meaning — to which the secularist nods and says, “Precisely!”

No. Abandoning religion would mean abandoning all hope of being told we have meaning, and forcing people to decide on their own. It would devastate willful ignorance, though not totally destroying it.

The secularist position, which has a long history, is that the religious search for meaning is an illusion but that, even when successful, it is a bad thing, because man should not be encouraged to think about ultimate realities.

What? Get your facts straight. The search for meaning IS meaningless, not because it's an illusion, but because we create our own meaning, subjectively. If it's successful for some, wonderful, there are a few who find the religious meaning of life similar to their own. The problem is when those who feel differently are guilted, bullied, or brainwashed into believing the religious meaning of life.

American Pragmatism is perhaps the clearest example of this tendency.

Do go on, good sir.

It argues that we can choose moral positions, and orient ourselves in life, not by asking what is true or false but simply on the basis of what seems to work.

EXACTLY! This is how morals are usually formed. It has work up to now, despite what a theist says.

We might claim, for example, that all men have worth and dignity but, if someone asks why this is so, we are not required to answer. It just is.

The claim that all men have worth and dignity is a relativly new concept, born out of compassion and the plight of others. It wasn't always accepted. The ancient Egyptions didn't believe it, and slavery was common. But it worked for them, just look at what they accomplished, the great pyramids. Nowadays, we've got this idea of equality, and what has that got us? To the moon and back. It allowed people of all sexes and races to work together in the pursuit of a common goal.

Although they seldom admit it, these secularists really are calling upon the human race to amputate itself spiritually, to suppress, quite consciously, the religious hungers which have been part of human existence since the beginning of time.

Those "hungers" are really the desire to explain the world, which in older times was the province of religion, but is being replaced by science. We don't want them supressed, just applied to a more effective model, the scientific model of explanation.

They call on us deliberately to wall ourselves up within the empirical limits of our world and resolutely to ignore everything which does not fit.

Except when empiricism is not quite enough and we must resort to experimentation and logical deduction.

Whatever else might be said about such a view of existence, it is immeasurably drabber and shallower than what men have thought was real for these thousands of years.

I'll agree with this. Science is much drabber and boring then the magic and demons of religion. It's even more shallow, limiting itself to reality, unlike the Powerful GOD outside the universe. What men thought was real for 3,000 years is horribly out of date, and needs to be refreshed. We are constantly working to relieve humanity of ignorance, though articles like this really set us back.

There we go. Sentence by sentence. I realised how long this was going to be, so I dodn't get into the origins of morals, or explanation of emiricism and the scientific method. I do apologise if I insulted any Buuhdists with my joke, there was no offence intended.

Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Intelligence Quotient

I have a high IQ. I'm not a genius, but I have a higher then average intellect. This I know based on my experiences with school, work and people. I've always been able to understand things easier then most. During school, I was generally looked to by classmates and teachers for the answers. In 9th Grade I learnt and taught the teacher how to correctly use the computer program to achieve the desirred results. She apparently wasn't a computer whizz... In grade 10, I broke the rules. I profited a small sum by writing out the asssignments of several students in my class. I don't regret this, and here I will explain why.

It is the way of society to be hypocritical. We respect our betters with bitter resentment and open aggression. We treat our lessers with either utter contempt, or complete ignorance. During high school, I learnt to fear those who dressed or acted in certain ways, despite the fact that I could, with ease, logically talk them out of, or into, doing pretty much anything. The teachers would tell us that we're preparing for real life... In the classroom, perhaps, but the whole schoolyard society was warped, or so I thought.

Now I realise, the aim wasn't to prepare everyone for their lives outside of school, but to teach the few who showed talent how to succeed. I took an opportunity when I was younger, and I felt guilty for so long. Having come to this realisation, I notice many opportunities I have missed. I failed university. I didn't have a proper girlfriend until I was 19. I even lost precious opportuities to make money. If I took full advantage of my life up until now, I could be in a much bettter postition then I am in now.

In life, we all face important decisions, and many risks. If we always take the safer road, we may be able to predict how it'll turn out, but we'll miss the chance for true prosperity. Next time you have a choice between certain low gain, and risky high gain, take the risk. Who knows, it might pay off.

Next time, I'll be discussing a moron I saw on youtube. Until then:
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

A Hoax is a Creationists best friend

Everyone dislikes being proven wrong. Especially in a manner that makes you look and feel like a fool. Normal people worry about this problem for only a little while, and even then they usually accept it and adopt a new point of view on the subject. Not so with creationists. Despite being figuratively beaten over and over and OVER again, they just keep coming back with the same stupid arguments that were disproved and debunked decades ago. Some, however, are a little more devious. When they see their comrades being defeated, they search out alternative arguments, less seen to the average atheist. These are the more nefarious in nature, and generally drawn from unscrupulous websites and books. This is the domain of the hoaxer.

Whether or not it is intentional, there are many websites out there that are dedicated to hoaxing. My most recent encounter was in the form of an e-mail, sending a few pictures and directing me here:

http://hheartbeat.com/?p=1527

It seems pretty convincing, yes? Look again. The first picture has nothing really to do with anything, so I'll just ignore it. The second is a fake. There are a few things that lead me to this conclusion. First, the teeth and the head wound are very highlighted for a colour photo. Usually, there would be a slight colour variance, allowing for the change. The second thing is the quality of the photo around the skeleton when compared to the rest. It seems to have little bits of white floating about, an effect mostly seen in early photographs, you know, black and white or sepia tone. The rest of the photo doesn't have these. From these two problems, it seems to be a black and white photo, spliced onto a photo of an archiological dig.

The third is a little harder to prove, but easier to see. The skull itself looks flat, and seem to fade at the left hand side. After a little research I discovered that this photo was in fact the unearthing of bones. Dinosaur bones. The skull was merely photoshopped in. Hell, one of the workers is standing on it. And not that well, might I add.

At this point I would like to point out that I saw a few of the photos and discontinued my examination of the page. Looking at it again today has made me notice the large statement in red after the photos, which points out that they are all fake. Seems kind of pointless to continue my debunking, huh.

I would next like to touch on a subject I have little to no knowledge in: hoaxes for evolution.

Apparently, some people decided that evolution didn't have quite enough evidence to support it, who knows why, and came up with these lies, which hinder more then help it.

I've seen only 1 website like this, which I believe has since been removed. I don't remember the name, just the barest details. Please update me if I'm mistaken.

Effectively the hoax is as follows: "Fossil of an unknown creature found. Looks like a cross between shark and snake. Must be common ancestor. Evolution is proven."

This really annoys me. Despite it's attempt at being helpful, it is still an argument from ignorance AND obviously not real. If such a fossil were discovered, it would be all over the news. I don't remember if there was a photo or not, but it doesn't matter. If there was, it can be used as another piece of evidence against the hoax's credability, if not, what evidence is there this discovery occured.

The major problem with this is that creationists can take it and use it to put credence to their insults. Like "Evolution needs to lie to be taken seriously" or even worse "That creature is described in the bible as x in Yyy:zz,zz, therefore this proves evolution wrong and the bible right." For this last quote I've used the hoax as a broad idea, scoping many different animals.

These hoaxes aren't difficult to debunk, given the time for a few minutes research, however, they are annoying, as when they are presented in a debate, "callin hoax" won't cut it, and disproving them on the spot will be nearly impossible, without forewarning. I don't have any other hoaxes to present aat this time, though if I'm presented with any more, I'll post them here, with appropriate rebuttals.

Like most athiests, I've debated on occation with hard-headed creationists. Where I'm from, it's harder to find them, but they're around. I've been acccused of calling hoax, right after they've done the same thing. I am not an expert at these things, but my advice is to calmly, but firmly dismiss hoaxes in a friendly manner, lest you open yourself up to ad hominem attacks.

Sorry if I have any spelling mistakes, I'm very tired. I'll be posting my next topic in the next few days. Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

I'm Back

All right. Due to a cock up with my internet service provider, I have been absent for way too long. This has been fixed! I will now be posting regularly once again.

My next post is going to be on the hoaxes created or used by religious nuts to discredit or disprove evolution, or prove god. I've lost most of my research on this subject, so please point out my mistakes. I'll announce the problems and fix them. Otherwise, please feel free to throw in your two cents, whether for or against my point, and I'll respond appropriately. I'm only mean to trolls, and trolls who don't realise they're trolling.

After that post, I'm open to suggestions for what you would like to see. I have a youtube channel, though I have no videos yet. My plan was to first do a video discussing empiricism, but it seems that I can't explain it in a way that average people can understand. So I'm open to suggestions for that as well.

Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Evolution, my thoughts

Been a while since the last post... Time to enter the debate!

Let me start by stating my credentials. I am not the most intelligent person, but I always try to think my arguments through. My IQ is roughly 121. I am currently in an Australian University studying Microbiolgy.

Now, as for my argument:

I am going to point out a few things I know about life. Things which are rather obvious.

1. Everything that lives will eventually die. Be it Disease, famine, predator, accident, not knowing water depth and jumping, everything that is alive, or will be, will die.

2. Something that is not suited to it's environment is more likely to die. Examples: A crocodile out of water, Plant in constant shade, slow rabbits etc.

3. While things are alive, most of them will reproduce. These reproductions are not clones. Life reproduces with variation. Easily observable, just notice how you're different from your parents. The exception to this rule are creature is reproduce asexually, but even these mutate to create variation.

Because life reproduces with variation, life is constantly changing. In an unchanging environment, if a species has a high survival rate, few changes will occur over long periods of time. If the environment changes, and the species is no longer well adapted to living there, the changes will be more dramatic.

The term 'more dramatic' means that while individuals will still look very similar, the whole population will change in a certain evolutionary 'direction' very quickly. The individuals who are best at surviving in the environment will reproduce more, causing certain features to be more prominent, and/or others to be less prominent. In some cases, two populations of the same species, in the same environment, will begin to diverge. The populations have to be somehow separeted, or else the gene pool will be flooded by the other. The separation may be an earthquake caused fissure leaving half the population on each side, or perhaps a diverted river.

I haven't found evidence for it, but it seems to me that if behavioural conditions cause certain packs or herds to remain separate, despite no other barrier stopping interbreeding, speciation could occur. This would probably take much longer, considering the likelihood of outliers who cross to another herd or pack.

Eventually, the separate species have varied so much that interbreeding is no longer an option. This is when they are considered 2 different species. I even have an analogy for how a reptilian-like creature(RLC) could have evolved into a bird.

Based on observed facts, we can choose a group of RLC's who lived in trees. The survive on a diet of insects and plants. A RLC is born with slightly lighter bones. This gives him the advantage of being able to jump higher, and use less energy during the course of life. He survives longer, and reproduces more, because he can get more food, and is less susceptible to death due to fatigue. There are other factors, but they don't play a particularly significant role. His genes are passed onto the next generation, some with lighter bones, some with heavier, but all lighter then the average of the last generation. This trend continues, creating lighter and lighter bones, until a compromise is reached between survival through extra resources, and death through broken bones. The original mutation could have occured a number of ways. It could have been a random mutation caused by mutagens in the diet, or environment; it could have been a result of a particular combination of genes; etc..

To answer the obvious statement: "Bone-density doesn't make a bird", I say You're right! But the idea behind my logic can be applied to wings, feathers, beaks.... basically anything. The thing it can't work for, are things that don't originally give a benefit, even if the might eventually. It uses the argument "what's the use of half a x" as evidence for evolution. AND, whose to say that only one change can occur in a population at a time? While bone density is improving, perhaps vestigial wings are developing, or scales are growing into feathers.

And finally, evolution has no aim, no foresight. It has no hindsight either. Whatever works right now is what is selected. And, NO! I am not suggesting something is guiding natural selection, other then the energy, and fertility, of the individual beings, and the choices of the sexual chooser. (By this I mean when a certain sex selects a mate based on appearance, or dominence)

Now, hit me with your best shot! I want to hear counters to my explaination, flaws in my argument and other such things. I especially want to hear from Athiests, and Evolutionists (I know, not a real group, but used for understanding purposes). If you come at me with a stupid argument, be prepared for an equally stupid response. I'll do my best to answer all responses.

Sexy Sexism in the Sex Industry... Sex

Having done what I consider a lot of third party research (I wasn't going into the sex industry for first or second party research), I feel I have an idea of the sexism in the sex industry. Most of my research focussed on pornography, as opposed to prostitution, so theat's wherre I'll focus.

There are instances of sexism to both sexes, but in different ways. For women, sexism occurs in the meriad of ways in which they are paid to act. The more extreme, the more payment. However, due to the nature of the work, most actresses will be forced into these types of situations. When they start, they can make alot of money on very basic things. As there carrer progresses, however, the people will have already seen them like this or that. As such, if they want to keep working, they have to do something new. This works more for videos, though there are model shoots of a similar variety. As for prostitutes, most work for pimps who take most of there profit, and if they don't, some guys don't feel the need to pay. They are treated badly by both pimps and customers. If they are lucky enough to work in a registered brothel, there are precautions taken to ensure there safety, but even so, the conditions they work in can be deplorable. And once again, the more extreme they are asked to act, the more they can charge.

Male video pornographers must have the following attributes: Well endowed (except for the few for that kind of fetish), ability to maintain an erection for extended periods of times (sometimes hours), and the ability to ejaculate on cue. This is easier to achieve since the invention of viagra, but is still difficult. Any man would understand the risks involved in such strain. On top of this, male pornographers only make (usually) 40k a year without doing gay-for-pay videos, compared to women making 100k-250k a year. An actor looking to make more money will usually do gay-for-pay videos, which runs the risk of labelling them as a homosexual, and subject to homophobia.

As for prostitutes, male prostitutes don't normally work for pimps, on the assumption that they can take care of themselves. Not only that, but they can't flaunt their business like female prostitutes, and take a risk every time they try to pick up a job. And, once again, they get apid less unless they go gay-for-pay.

Most people focus on the sexism seen against women here, because it's been seen in other industries. It's all well and good that we want to eliminate sexism in the workplace, but we shouldn't fall into the assumption that only men can be sexist. What this industry needs isn't more restrictions and laws, but better working conditions, and more equality. A better understanding of this industry would go a long way as well.

Youtube Channel

Hello my faithful followers, all three of you, I'm here to say I'm actually going to post a video on my Youtube channel soon. The only problem is that everything I think to do has been done. Everything I wish to debunk, or disprove, has a video debunking, or disproving it. So, seeing as I have no idea where to start adding to the ever growing pile of redundancy, I'm going to leave it up to to you.

Tell me what you want to see! When I'm done, I'll post a link to the video here. Then, maybe I'll get some more followers. Don't be afraid, I'll take all suggestions into consideration, and may even post videos of each, unless they're just completly retarded.

Also, my next post: Sexy Sexism in the Sex Industry... Sex, will be here soon, after I've finished my research. Any thoughts about that should be left to stew, so that when read it, you have a strong point to make. Thanks guys!

Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Discussion among Nerds

While I'm not old, I wouldn't consider myself a young Nerd. I'm 20, approaching 21, and I realise that the Nerds of today probably have different ideas of why they are Nerds. Likewise, Nerds from older generations will differ in views. As such, I have started this topic as an open discussion for anyone who considers themsleves a Nerd. I want to to why, to see if there is anything consistant between the generations that makes a Nerd.

I am aware that some people may be offended to be called a "Nerd". To these people, I say: "Either you don't belong here, or you are in denial." Being a Nerd is not a bad thing. From what I have gathered by talking to other Nerds, a Nerd is an unpopular person, who enjoys intelectual pursuits, and usually is good with numbers/money. They differ from other outcasts in that they are generally mathematically minded. Similar outcasts are the Geek (Sciences), or the Computer Whiz. These 3 groups are usually able to get along, for they can relate in several areas.

That is a basic description of a Nerd in my generation. I'll give a more detailed description later, as well as what I've found of Geeks, Goths, Emos, Computer Whiz's, Artsy types, and unspecified outcasts. But for now I open up the topic to Nerds, to give their 2c about current, and previous, generations of Nerds.

Anxiety

Today my faithful, I shall be discussing something close to my heart. Or should I say mind? Yes, I'm going to discuss my mental problems, namely my Generalised Anxiety Disorder. I was diagnosed with this, and several other related disorders about half-way through last year, though I had suffered for longer then that. And, despite the growing knowledge of anxiety, and panic disorders, few people understand what it is like to live a life suffering from them.

I suppose I should give a brief explaination of what GAD is. GAD is a mental disorder which causes high amounts of stress in otherwise normal situations. This means along the lines of feeling like you're going to die before a public speech, or the sensation that something bad is going to happen when you go to do the shopping.

This is a vague description, and doesn't at all describe the true extent of the problem. GAD is often acccompanied by Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD), Panic disorder (PD), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Depression. There are others mental health issues related, such as schizophrenia, but these are less common. I personally suffer from GAD, SAD, PD and depression, with symptoms of Asperger (Though I haven't been tested). (Quick note, I'm in a Deep Blue Depressed mood, so this article may seem less then happy). A life with these problems is horrible. Firstly, GAD and SAD can easily be misnterpretted and shyness, just little extreme. I was a shy kid, so I made few friends. The friends I did make I trust with my life. When my Panic Disorder started to show up (around grade 9), people just assumed I was being a little more dramatic in my fears. It wasn't until a few years into uni that people realised It was more then that.

Everyday, I live with a feeling of dread. Imagine you're walking to your car, and standing around it is a group of obvious Gangtas. That feeling that you're about to enter a horrible situation is what I feel always. Even at home, reading a book in bed. This has caused me to basically stop going out, except to places I consider safe, like a freinds house, or university. I avoid things that may lead to bad situations, like drinking. When forced to I'll go to social places, like a mall. When I do, I'm constantly on alert, watching everyone and everything, checking for signs of aggression, while trying to blend in with the background. I get in and out as fast as I can. This has caused me to lose contact with several friends.

Then come the ppanic attacks. Most people would have had one at some stage. Your heart pounds, your mind races. All you can think of is your imminent demise, whether it be via a heart attack, or by some third party or force. You realise you can't fight, and can only flee, but there's no escape. For most people, it happens rarely, usally in ultra-high stress situations, like before major surgery. For PD sufferers, they can occur when you inhale too sharply. It's caused by a chemical imbalance in a certain part of the brain (I forget where), in which nearly everything can be seen as a life or death situation. There are symptoms, such as constant quick brething. A normal person takes 10 breaths per minute, whereas a PD sufferer could take 20-30. This is usually the first thing countered by psychologists. I personally have slowed my breathing to be about 15 breaths a min. This wasn't easy, I had to count my breathing for weeks.

Depression. I've heard that many people don't consider this a disorder, or disease, or whatever, because one of its symptoms is depression. This is bullcrap. Everyone feels sad. People have ups and downs. People with depression have worse, and more frequent downs. In me, they are so bad I can't remember being happy. It can express itself in many different ways, and be brought on by many more. It could be you feel like killing people because the girl you like ignored you, or you feel like dying because you misspelled a word on a blog. It's completely irrational, but can't simply be stopped by realising it's irrationality. I know that people find it hard to think about suicide most of the time. A depressed person finds it hard to think of anything else. I have a feeling that the emo clique started as a group of kids who suffered from depression, and found a way to identify with others of thier 'kind'. Then of course, kids came into it who weren't depressed, but acted that way to fit in. Of topic... sorry.

SAD is basically the same as GAD, except that GAD applies to events and actions, and SAD applies to social situations. SAD sufferers feel that every little thing they do wrong is judged harshly, usually causing them to do more things wrong. Such as, during a presentation they stutter once. Thier mind will obsess over that stutter, making tthem stutter more, causing them to obsess more. With me it's diffferent, I don't have problems in social situations such as presentations. I have problems with going to social places, with large groups of people. I also worry about times when there is no-one around. I think this is more of an opposite to SAD, but because of its social nature, its still called SAD. (It's funny how SAD and depression are usually experienced together).

The most important thing about this post is that I'm trying to educate normal people to the plight of GAD, SAD, PD, and depression. The term "just get over it" has on more then one occation made me feel like slashing my wrists. Then that feeling made me feel like a jerk, because why should I cause so much pain to the people I know, and also, my life is good, what right do I have to feel like this. I'm looking into therapy to help me, cause I know that when I'm depressed I'm a suicide risk. Please, before you open your mouth to a person with GAD and Depression, put yourself in there shoes (I hopefully have given at least a shallow idea of those shoes), and think about what you're about to say. Too many people have died because of a lack of understanding, not just in this area. Don't make this any worse then it already is.

Though it doesn't fit, it's my phrase: Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Heaven is a place on earth

This post is an open call to all christians. Grab your bibles, learn to read, and find me some information. Because I have empirical evidence for the existence of Heaven.

The other day, I was reading a few parts of the bible, in order to better understand the christians I have been talking with, when I noticed something intriuging. Upon reading it, I instantly went outside, and there above me was Heaven. I was dumbstruck. Here's why:

I have read the bible, and as far as I can tell, "Heaven" is nothing more than the sky. Right smack on page 1 it points this out, though not as clearly as I would like. Gen 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This can be interpreted as God created Earth, in a base form, as well as heaven, including the kingdom of heaven. This is however disspelled later in Genisis 1:20, "And God said, 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly across the expanse of the heavens'."

God either exists in the sky, hidden from view somehow, or exists outside reality, yet in the same vicinity of the sky. The latter is more likely, considering we've not observed god in any way. This also means that God doesn't exist. Consider that all within reality is in existance. That would make them real, hence the term Reality. Now, God exists outside reality. It follows that everything outside of reality is also outside of existance. If something is outside existance, it doesn't exist. I can't concieve of a Half-existant being, unless it exists solely in the minds of people.

But I digress. I have read, and have come to the conclusion that when people die, they are judged and sentenced to hell, or to wait until judgement day, when God will create the holy city, New Jerusalem, where he will live amongst His people, wipe tears from there eyes, despite the fact that there is no grief, no sorrow, no sin. It will be devided into different tribes, so that different peoples may worship God in various ways. It doesn't say eternal life, but it does say that Hell is the second death. Although, I guess Second Death is only for perverts, murderers, liars, cowards, traitors, witches, idol worshipers, and the immoral. That sentence leads me to believe that murder, perverted actions, cowardliness, lying, witchcraft, trechory and worshiping idols are moral, because whilst they are thrown into hell, they're thrown in with the immoral.

It should have read "...and all other immoral souls", or something similar. I guess a backstabbing necrophiliac who lies about the spellshe casts is just as moral as you or me, but they go to hell, where as we go to.... a place of second life, where god didn't fuck up the world. I still have questions though.

1) If God can create this fantastic place (which will come down from heaven, but isn't heaven), why didn't he do it to start with?
2) If God is perfect, why would he need to "try again" as it were?
3) Why does God need a throne, if he is a sky man, who feels that the rich should burn in hell?
4) What makes you think that you'll pass God's many petty tests?
5) If I follow the important comandments, with the exception of worshiping God, would I go to the New Holy City?

While these questions may or may not be difficult to answer, the final question should be easy.

If God told you to kill a child, would you do it?

If you answered yes to this last question, let me suggest 2 courses of action. 1, kill yourself before you hurt others. 2, Check yourself into a mental hospital, before you start hearing voices.

Heaven exists, just go outside and look up. There it is. What christians call heaven is actually a place that will probably fuck up after a little while. God is either infallible and evil, or He is fallible but well intentioned. Or mabe, just maybe, He doesn't exist at all.

Christians reading this, could you please tell me if I'm mistaken about Heaven, and how so. Answer my questions, if you can, and justify them. This is a humble request, though, I don't expect any christian answers.

Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Cosmology, and it's place in Theology

Hello again, my faithful few readers. I'm about to BLOW YOUR MIND! With information you've likely already seen, and understood.

First, I'll talk about something brought up by a Creationist, in one of my hour long discussions with them. The Cosmological Argument for God's existence. I shall point out that, while I'm no Physicist, I was able to figure a few things out just with logical thought. He, on the other hand, was a physics major, so I found it hard to believe he'd use this argument.

The argument is as follows: http://www.carm.org/apologetics/apologetics/cosmological-argument

1. Things exists
2. It is possible for things not to exist
3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists must have been caused to exist
a) Nothing can bring itself into existence, because it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
a) An infinite regression of cause ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
b) Since the Universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

There is little to nothing wrong with this... Excepting, of course, parts 2 through 6.

Things exist. Yes they do. If anyone says otherwise, they're an idiot, or they're insane.
But is it possible for things not to exist? Who says? Have we managed to observe things not existing? Or things changing from existence to non-existence? No? Then where is the validity of the statement.

Given that things can be non-existent, which we don't know, why can't they bring themselves into existence? They must exist to bring themselves into existence. Once again, HOW DO THEY KNOW? Bringing something into existence, be it matter, energy, or something completely different, hasn't occurred in an observable way, during our time. We can't say that something must exist to bring itself into existence, because we have nothing to base this off. Just saying it's logical doesn't make it so.

The main problem with this argument is the baseless assumptions. An infinite regression of causes would have no initial cause. But that isn't a problem. Imagine this: A man builds a time machine from some schematics he'd found. He goes back in time, and places the schematics back into the place he'll find them. Without him finding the schematics, he wouldn't build the time machine, and be able to give himself the schematics, so he can build a time machine to give himself the.... seems kind of silly huh? But, since he found the schematics, he will always build the machine, and always find the schematics. No paradox, just some uncaused schematics. The same analogy could be used with Shakespeare, except that one of his books is given to him in the past, so he can publish it to become famous, etc.

Therefore, there is no real need to add God as an uncaused cause.

One could also say that the Universe itself is the uncaused cause. It may have always existed. It may be caused by an outside force that is not sentient, or even "alive". Why, it could also be that WE create the universe, when we travel back in time to witness the Big Bang. We don't know, but it IS explainable without an imaginary friend. And that is all this describes anyway. That SOMEONE created everything, whether it be God, Allah, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Wolverine.

Anyone who has been fooled by this sly deception of logic, please, feel free to contact me, so we can let the healing begin. Eventually, I will actually talk about theology. Look out for that, cause I'll be bringing more mouldy old ideas, and cooking them till their digestible. I'll also bring tasty new ideas... if I have any.

Until next time, Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Debate, Discussion and Deliberation

I enjoy learning. I enjoy thinking. I enjoy teaching. What I don't enjoy is arguing. In my experience, there are 3 main methods for creative thought: Debate, Discussion, Deliberation. The 3 D's.

Debate

Debate is an extremely good way of inspiring creative thought. By having someone refute your ideas, and you defend and refute theirs, you must think on your toes. There has been many an occasion where I've come upon sudden realisation because of having to point out flaws in a well constructed argument. On several occasions, this realisation was the flaws of my own arguments.
I don't like debate. It's easy to let emotions run high, and lose sight of what your point is. For example, I was once discussing how evolution works. I decided to use the bird as an example. By the end of my argument I was pointing out that radiometric dating was therefore justified. I remember little of my argument, only that afterwards I felt foolish.

My advice to debaters, whether formal, or just amongst friends, is keep your cool. In the heat of passion, your arguments may seem valid, but upon later reflection, they were off the mark.

Discussion

Discussion of a topic, whether it be as important as the existence of God, or as silly as the theme to your next party, is a good way to figure things out. It doesn't work well for extremely outspoken people, as most will try to prove their idea correct, rather then try and adapt theirs in the light of others. This is not to say outspoken people shouldn't discuss their ideas, just that they should be careful when they do.

I enjoy discussion, it allows for me to add my 2 cents in such a way that it helps others learn. By listening to others explanations and examples, I can grasp ideas that were until then completely unintelligible. It was through discussion that I first came to understand the concept of Natural Selection. From the above example, I later tried again at using the bird to explain evolution to a christian, with the help of a friend. Questions I couldn't answer my friend did, and ones he couldn't answer I did. We both started with a very basic concept (mutation causes advantages change), but during the discussion we reasoned out a strong explanation.

My advice to those wanting to discuss, find others with an interest in the topic, and ask questions of one another. Or do like I did, and try to teach it to someone, even if they know it better then you, they may have some pointers.

Deliberation

Deliberation is basically thinking about a topic. This is a direct approach, and as such can help quickly, provided you have a rational mind, and can look at a topic objectively. It has a varying amount of success, because you either don't grasp a concept, or your not hindered by the flaws in others ideas. It is also the most difficult for those not used to thinking. I don't mean to sound cruel, but most people I've met are sheep. They just do like everyone else, and never think for themselves.

I LOVE deliberation. I constantly do it. At any given time, my head is trying to figure something out. Sometimes it's important (like the evolution of the butterfly), sometimes it's not (why'd my mate put on that skirt). Because of this, I usually have an answer to questions asked of me. Whether or not the answer is correct is based mostly on whether my original understanding was good. Creativity is a vital ingredient to the reasoning recipe. Lateral thinkers are adept at thinking creatively.

My advice for people trying to think of the answer is, realise that there may be more then one way towards the answer. Don't assume the first way you think of is right. If it isn't working, try a new approach. Above all, ENJOY IT! If you're getting stressed about it, relax, take a break and get back to it later, you may find that after a break, your mind is ready to find the answer.


I'm fairly sure that these three avenues of thought are the three main "kingdoms". Although, they could be lumped into personal and public deliberation. In any case, the 3 I've listed here shouldn't be used alone to solve a problem. Thinking privately about a debate you've had is a great way to prepare for next time. Discussing what you thought with friends and colleagues will further hone your ideas, until you have a solid understanding.

Until next time, Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Einstien's coffin nail

I've recently seen this popping up alot. Basically, a troll/poe/creationist will post a link to a website, which has no facts on it, and claims that this is de-bunking Atheism. In fact, I had one of these on my Immaterial Materialism post. While the sites I went to were... I wont say intereting, as they were boring as hell... they were completly stupid. Without any facts to support thier claims, they point out to the reader that Atheism "destroys hope" and is "Immoral", and that "Because of Atheistic belief, all Atheists should kill themselves". It's possible that I'm reaading this wrong, but this seems like yelling at the rain. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you won't get wet. The sites were supposedly to do with Nostradamus, an apparent seer, though they said nothing of his predictions, nor did they link to sites with his predictions. They just said that the "confused Athiests and Sceptics" were now "Nostradamians". With no proof, I'm inclined to think of the websites creater as a retard.

Then, most stupidly of all, they post a link to a website (normally youtube) which talks about Einsteins theory of relativity, as though it somehow confirms that atheism is false. The one I got went to a video describing how Relativity allows for time travel. Big F*cking Deal. I really don't see what this has to do with whether or not God exists, or whether He created everything. It's a completly seperate subject, and should be treated as such. I don't claim to know physics. I know a little, but not much. But I do know that Einstein didn't believe in God, nor did his ideas cause him to believe. Even if he did, that doesn't mean that God exists. There is no proof for god, or creation, or any super-natural claim for that matter. In fact, there are challenges about in which you recieve a large prize for the simple act of proving a paranormal claim.

So, what is the point of these pointless websites, and silly reasoning? As far as I can tell, they realise that if more people see their stupid site, there's more chance of one of them converting. The only thing they forgot was that for it to work agaisnt the thinking population (Atheists in general), they need to at least sound like they're giving information. Bypassing the intellect wont work, because we realise our intelect is more likely to hold REAL answers then our emotions.

Until next time, Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Easter!

A time for egg hunts, chocolate suger-rushes and wearing bunny ears without thinking of playboy. A time to spend with family... until you leave to do your own thing. It's also got religious events based around it, but really, who cares? The current market allows for hundreds of different chocolate eggs, bunnies, and anything else you can think of. And provides a reasonable excuse to give in to temptation and "pig-out".

The 2 biggest times of the year: Christmas and Easter, are both embraced by many people the world over. I won't say everyone, cause that is just not true. But what is the point? That seems to be my most important question. "What is the point?". Hm, well in any case, Christams and Easter both have points. Christians will tell you that it's the birth and death of JEEZUS! But, alas, they be lying, and there a couple reasons why. First, there is very little evidence of the existance of jesus. Just the bible, and other scriptures, all of which are already biased. Second, Christmas was celebrated as the Winter solstice for a LONG time before christianity. I won't say how long, I don't know. Easter was a celebration of the spring equinox. It originally occured on the day of, and around the equinox, however, christian easter is celebrated on the sundayon or after the full moon following the equinox. A nominal date was set up for this purpose... i think it's March 21st, or something similar.

You're probably wondering why I'm pointing this out. I am wondering that same thing. Turns out this is merely a pointless blog, designed to educate a little, and keep my few readers happy. I will post again in a couple days, when I'm feeling better.

Until then, Fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Immaterial Materialism

Recently I've been thinking about the current trend towards consumerism in society. I wasn't thinking so much about how, or even why, but more on it's value. Within our current society, Capitilism has taken a firm hold. This is no secret. While there is no firm definition of Capitalism, one of it's important aspects is profit in the marketplace. Nowadays, this has led to an 'anything for profit' mentality.

Some people will be up in arms, pointing to the Ronald McDonald house charity, or one of the numerous other big corporations doing charitable things, assumably at there own expense. However, every year, McDonalds has a McHappy month, in which they say they'll give $1 from each big Mac to the Ronald McDonald house charity. All well and good, but the number of big macs sold in this month can double or even triple, because of people looking to help charity, while still getting something for themselves. Ask yourself, have you even chosen one brand over another, not because of price or quality, but because you have heard of the good things the company does? I know I have.

Now you're expecting me to say something like "And this is horrible because..." But I won't play that game, yet. We've all heard it before. Instead I'm going to direct your attention to something that I have been thinking on. I call it Immaterial Materialism, and for simplicities sake, I'll treat it as real. Basically, some people get sick of prices, and whatever, and decide to give up things. Most do this sensibly, and give up all but the bare essentials, and 1 or 2 comfort items. Others however, take it to the extreme. They live with nothing but the barest of essentials. Clothes and a little bit of food and water. Many don't start like this, but slowly 'achieve' it. Bit by bit they sell, or give away they're 'useless' objects. Towards the end, they either give away thier money, or buy things with it to give away. I would assume that, like inversing materialism, every time they give an object away, they feel a sense of accomplishment. This is dangerous, as eventually they sell their home, or worse give it away, meaning they live on the street, or in the wild.

Everything has an opposite. Happy and sad, black and white, Theism and Atheism. This was my interpretation of the opposite of materialism. I'm yet to see evidence for its existance, though I am fairly sure it does. As it stands, materialism is on the up and up, and belief in people is dropping. Eventually, if this trend continues (assuming I'm correct in my assumption), people won't even notice each other anymore. They'll be aware of their existance, but other then that stuff is what matters, not each other. Just watch the movie Wall-E. Points it out perfectly.

Until next time - fui fides tantum in testimonium.

My Social Experiment

In my last post, I pointed out a few things that I'd noticed about childhood, and school life. And I would suspect you would like for me to explain how I feel it has affected the adults of the world. Well, too bad. Today, I am instead going to explain an experiment I am going to conduct, and some research I am going to do, on the topic of the competitive nature of man.

First, I am writing a survey. Within this survey, it asks for age and gender, which will be used on for collaboration; and it will ask a few questions about different aspects of life. Of these aspects, the ones I am most interested in are relationships and education. Now, I'm no psychology student (yet), but I still feel that this information can be used to determine the benefits and detriments this system has on society as a whole.

I will not only be speaking with regular people, but also with businesses, schools, and other organisations. They will have both the questions asked of everyone else, plus a few that are for organisations only. With the line of questionging, this should determine how embedded competition is within the infastructure of society.

With this information, I'll draw conclusions about the welfare of the populace, as well as attempting to divine a plausible reason. If at all possible, I'll try and find a better solution, but without any experience in this field, I'll need some help.

That brings us to my experiment. It will be a long running experiment, if I can even get it started. I wish to test a idea of mine, though it may be difficult to find voluteers. My idea is that we survived the evolutionary process due to our cooperative nature. When people work together, the best abilities of each can be utilised better then if each person works seperately. As such, Children who work together throughout their education should have a more firm idea of the concepts presented to them, and of how to utilise their own abilities in the execution of said concepts. This basically means that a group of children, about the age of 5-6, would be placed in a group. This group is always together when learning. This includes grading systems like assignments and exams. As such, they'd be held to a higher standard. My thinking is that by the age of 18, not only is this group efficient at thier work, but have the understanding to survive outside of the group... though I doubt they'd want to.

Obviously this is a very strange, and difficult to organise, experiment; with far-reaching possibilities. It is also quite clear, that I haven't done much background research into the subject of childhood development. That being said, this is of course simply in the conceptual stage, and is far from being implemented, if it ever is. I am only posting it now so that I don't forget it, and to see if anyone else has ideas to put forth on this subject, or would like to help me.

The research part is also conceptual, however I should have the rough draft of the surveys in a month or two. Stay tuned to see how it goes.

Until next time - fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Fun times!

Logical Prophecy has been added to Atheist's Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

I'm too lazy right now to come up with a more original post for this. Seriously though, checck them out. They're all you'll need when you're bored... In blog terms anyway.

Until next time - fui fides tantum in testimonium

Childhood brainwashing

In my first post, I casually asserted that there is unnecessary competition and conflict in society, with showing proof of my accusation. This was wrong. In order to make up for this, I am here to show you: "My proof of excessive competition in society today". Maybe that's a little long, but it's informative.

Before I begin, I'd like to say that not all competition is bad. In fact, if it weren't for the competitive nature of science, we'd still believe physics was completely figured out with Newton. It's also useful in the market. If there was no competition, there'd be no choice of quality or price. My post today, is about the excessive amount of competition in society.

From a very young age, we are brought up to believe in the usefulness of competition. One of my earliest memories was watching a childrens program, and hearing about a competition they were running. You send in your best drawing, and if yours is the best you win a prize... I think it was a toy of some sort. I spent days working on my drawing, and when the prize was finally drawn, I didn't win, because someone else was better. Far better. It seemed like it was drawn professionally, thought that's probably because of how my mind was. This was sometime before I started school. It might seem minor, but the things children learn in childhood stay with them their whole lives.

In grade 1, we were taught (not directly) that in order to do well, we'd have to be better then the others in our class. This idea is fundamental in society, because without striving to be better then others, we'd only be average (Like everyone else). This also may seem minor, but considering that humans must be taught how to learn most effectively, and it's easiest to learn in you schooling years, this contest for good grades, and approval becomes so ingrained, it's hard to separate it from anything else in life.

Within the classroom was not the only competition. And I'm not speaking of P.E., despite the fact that it's technically not within a room, it is still a class. I'm talking of school houses. In my schools, both primary and high school, there were four houses, within which, every student and teacher was placed. Once every year we'd head down to the oval, and have race after race after race, starting with the youngest, and ending with the eldest students. The houses were given points based on the students who won. Not only that, we were taught different chants, depending on our house, which we'd yell at the top of our lungs, in an attempt to drown out the other teams, and score a few more points.

There was no point to this. Everyone got a little ribbon for participating, and the next day, every thing went back to normal. There wasn't even a prize! This was an annual occurrence for 12 years. 12 years! Then there was inter-school sport, where various sports teams were picked, and sent to other schools to prove that they're better then the others. Competition within competition within competition. Whether or not it was designed to be that way, childhood is a time to confuse us, while we're told to work together, but are rewards for working against each other. The end result is today's average adult, which I'll describe in length in my next post.

Until then - fui fides tantum in testimonium.

Introduction to The Prophet of Logic

I have only recently discovered the world of Blogging (kind of late, I know). From what I've discovered, it's the perfect place for me to start discussing all of the things I have learnt, and add to my repertoire of knowledge through discussion and debate. Within this oh-so-crowded internet communication medium, I have decided to post mostly on a contorversial, and highly populated, topic: Atheism vs. Theism. For my first post, I'll give a brief description of my beliefs, and the reasoning I apply.

Recently, people in my life have begun to question my beliefs, trying to determine a cast-iron code of conduct that I live by. This doesn't make any sense! It's extremely difficult for me to pin-down my beliefs, whether they be ethical, moral or social, because they can change. Alot of people will be outraged to hear that my morals/ethics can change, but I challenge anyone objecting to stand firm when an act that is normal acceptable makes your blood boil, or when an unacceptable act seems reasonable. Hell, I'll even use examples.

For the former, free-speech. You try to stand firm in your belief in freedom of speech when a charismatic man is lying to people, or using word-games to convince people of something that you know is a lie, or is directly harmful to the ones you love. For the latter, killing. Try and say all killing is wrong when a man hunts you relentlessly, for whatever reason, with the intention to make you suffer. Hopefully, this will allow you to see when it is possible for morals and ethics to change. I will say that I DO believe in freedom of speech... In fact I believe everyone should have as many freedoms as is possible, and I DO NOT think that killing is moral.

As for my beliefs in society, I feel that the masses are under-educated and overly aggressive. This is not helped by the poor education systems of the world (I don't know them all, if you feel you countries education system is good, please let me know). Add to this the unnecessary competition we are all placed in - known as the 'Rat-race' i believe - from a young age. I won't enter into it in this post, that will come in a later post. I will say, however, that from school houses to sporting teams, "reality" television to job-searching, we are saturated with the idea that competition is the way to survive.

Now, for the meat of the post, my Religious beliefs. You all know this is what you want to hear. I am completly Athiest. The idea of an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent deity is out-dated. And proven illogical many times over. I'll be doing a post later on about the illogical nature of god. I believe that if a being exists that created the universe (caused the Big Bang), then they are an alien. Not all powerful, not all knowing, not infinite, just another life-form.

I will believe anything that has sufficient evidence. As such, I support the Big Bang, Evolution, and pretty much all of actual science. While I do not claim to know all of science, I do know that the scientific method is a reliable means of determining the truth about the universe, and exposing the frauds and dealing with them appropriately.

Wow, that turned out to be longer then I thought, and I even set myself up a couple topics to post about in the near future.

Until next time - fui fides tantum in testimonium.