Nature, you cruel!

A recent post on Atheist Propaganda has made me think about nature, and all the different ways plants, animals and other lifeforms treat each other. It sometimes makes me sick.

I love nature, all the beauty and majesty of it. But here are just a few reasons to fear it.

1. Carnivores. Anyone who knows anything about animals knows that sometimes they get eaten. It takes a little more thought to realize how horrid this is. These creatures spend their last minutes in excruciating agony and unparalleled horror. And nature doesn't give a shit. Humans, and other creatures with empathy (I'm assuming we aren't the only ones to apply empathy to other creatures) have the ability to put ourselves in others shoes. We don't usually do this with, say an antelope. If we did, we'd realize that even the most minor natural savagery is unecessarily cruel. There are some more cruel than others (playing with prey or eating it before it dies), but they still fall into the realms of natural horror.

2. Parasites. We've all had run-ins with tics or lice or fleas. They don't seem too bad, right? But what about the others? Like Leocochloridium Paradoxum? This is a fucked up and fascinating creature. It infects snails, horribly disfigures their eyestalks, making them thick and green like little caterpillas, then invades the snails brain to make it climb as high as it can, so it'll be eaten by birds. Honestly, what the he'll is with that? More mind control with the most horrid bug yet. The emerald jewel wasp. This thing will find a cockroach, paralyze it with it's stinger, after a fight because nothing likes being stabbed, then continues to fuck it up. It stabs the roach in the head, inject venom into it's brain which stops its fight or flight response. The cockroach is now a zombie. The wasps then takes it back to her nest, where she lays her eggs on it, rips off it's antenna and drinks it's blood then covers it in rocks (pebbles). Then it leaves, knowing that it's eggs will hatch in a couple days to eat the still living cockroach. Sometimes nature seems sadistic.

3. Time for specifics. The Japanese giant hornetis a thin-sized flying fuck you. It shoot acid at you, which will dissolve flesh and call more wasps to you. All of which will spray you. Then the really attack, biting you with powerful pincers until, painfully, you die. Scary. Though I suppose it could be crueler...

4. Diseases. No-one like to be sick, but some illnesses are worse then others. For disease, the amount if pain and fear caused are the factors I would use to determine how cruel it is. I'm kinda tired so I'll just say the cruelest I know of at this time. Feel free to chime in. Ebola. This scary disease starts out similar to the flu, with chills, aches and fever. Other later symptoms include: headaches, nausea, Shortness of breath, Adela, anorexia, seizures focal tissue necrosis and Lucas membrane bleeding. There are a lot of symptoms I've left out, many aren't as bad, but combined they are worse. Also, the bleeding only occurs in about one in ten cases. However, being within a rumor radius if a case of Ebola virus disease (EVD) will cause panic and general unrest. The amount of pain within the month or two that a patient has EVD is indescribable, before they die from any number of possible symptoms, but usually from complete organ failure.

5. And I saved the least scary for last: Disasters. Fire, flood, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis. These are forces of nature that we can't empathize with, and don't judge as harshly because of it. Natural disasters kill more people then any other force during one strike, with the possible exception of the black death. How many animals or diseases can kill 300 people, wound 2000 and destroy homes and businesses making life a struggle for years to come? 200 rampaging elephants? Not likely, and far less common than a cyclone. I haven't done mmy research on storms and other disasters, so the numbers I pulled are out of my arse. But to see truth in the idea, think about hurrican Katrina. That was a powerful act if nature that was needlessly cruel, mostly because as a weather effect it didn't really need to exist. Although that is purring life on a higher pedestal than nature...

In any Cade, nature can and will fuck you up. This article is supposed to not only alert people to the worries of nature, but to point out how not perfect the world is. If God created this, he's a sadistic asshole who I wouldn't follow on ethical grounds.

Relatively Good Morals

A large contention between atheists and theists is that of morals. "If there is no God, why be good?" This is something I hear fairly commonly in my life, whenever I start talking about evolution in a place where ignorance is high. There are many books, blogs, articles, videos, podcast's, and radio shows that answer this question. I will be included, with my own intriguing spin.

What is the benefit of being good? There are 4 evolutionary reasons for altruistic behaviour (helping others even to the point of hindering yourself).
Firstly, there's Relatives. A person you are related to has a higher chance of sharing similar genes to you, and so it would be beneficial to those genes that you help our family.
Second is Reciprocation. If you reward good, you'll be rewarded for your good acts. Reciprocation is a 2 way street, if you don't do good acts, you wont be rewarded, and if you do bad acts, you will be punished.
Third, Reputation. By doing altruistic things, you are known for those acts, and are more likely to be rewarded, if only because you are likely to reciprocate it.
Lastly, there's Ego. Large, obvious acts of altruism can be used as a way of saying "Hey, look at me, I can afford to give you my food, cause I'm that good. I can head the charge, cause I'm brave." This technically isn't altruism, as the reason isn't selfless, but the word fits better than most.

These can easily explain why we have a conscience. This doesn't explain how we determine our morals. A lot of it is easy, and obvious. An application of the Golden rule (which is attributed to religion, but can be traced back otherwise) is all we need for most of our morals. We don't kill because we wouldn't like someone to kill us. Immanuel Kant was right on the money when he said: "act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Understand? I didn't get it at first either, but what it means is that you should act in a way that you would want everyone to act at the same time. Be nice to others, because you want everyone to be nice to others. Don't be violent, because you don't want everyone to be violent.

Morals are, and always have been, relative. Relative to the circumstances, to the people, to society as a whole. I feel that everyone should be morally correct killing, provided the circumstances left only that option. I also feel that there would be certain circumstances in which being mean would be right. Just cause I can think of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

"Without god, why be good?" seems to me to be the same as asking "Why not rob them, they're blind". I also never thought god wanted you to be a brown-noser. I suppose there's no "thou shalt not kiss ass" commandment, and he does want you to please him above everything else. I guess it is better to be good to make a petty, vengeful guy happy, than to be nice without worrying about him. He'd make you pay for not trying to please him, or so it seems.

I am going to look into the research on the correlation between religiosity and morals/crime/violence/life span/living conditions/education. I have a strong feeling that the less religious a person/city/country is the higher the morals/life span/living conditions/education and the lower crime/violence is. It will be up next week. Until then,

crites evidentia logica.

Attack of the Velocirapture

And once again, the founder of family radio Harold Camping has failed to predict the date of the Rapture. This comes as no surprise to those of us with an IQ in the double digits, but for those who had high hopes for today, let me explain a few things.

1) You believed the founder of a radio station without looking into it. That's not something anyone does, without evidence that they are trustworthy, from a reliable source. This is not the case with Harold Camping. There's been nothing to show that he should be taken at his word. And being christian is NOT a reason to assume he's truthful, just look at televangelists.

2) Harold Camping is 90 years old. There is a good chance he is senile. He's got a lot of life experience, and a lot of faith, but that doesn't make him sane. Not everyone loses their mind as they age. But if a 70 year old person starts claiming the end is nigh he is labelled as deluded at the best, deranged at the worst. When a 90 year old starts taking random numbers from a "holy" book and finds a nearby date and cries about the coming of rapture, you should lock him up. Not pay for billboards to promote his ideas.

3) The bible says that the second coming of Jesus will be like a thief in the night. Unknown to man. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, whether inspired or written, then you cannot also believe that God was lying, and that he warned you about the rapture when he said he wouldn't. I suppose that makes as much sense as any other part of God...

4) Only a complete moron would not have a contingency plan against the Rapture. It is already illogical to believe it will happen, but to put absolute faith in such a fantasy, to the point of giving away all of your things and donating all of your money, is complete lunacy. If you did this, you don't deserve to own things.

I had a fifth point, but at the time of writing this I have forgotten it. I'm sure it was witty and insulting, and highly relevant. Oh well, I think I've made my point. If you are one of the people who was hoping to go to heaven today, I truly pity you. And I'm sorry to inform you that your life should be spent in a rubber warmed room. Until next time,

crites evidentia logica.

An Argument for God

This post is strange for me. I will actually argue for the existence of God. However, due to the nature of the argument, I must also point out it's problems. I came to this idea not 10 minutes ago, whilst in the shower. I'll return to the post tomorrow, and leave a comment explaining my ideas after some thought.

God has been defined in many different ways. Common elements within these definitions are: Eternal, powerful, and affects the world/universe. There are others which are not as common, and are not important for this argument.
For a being to be powerful, it must be somehow better then it's counterparts. An adult weightlifter is more physically powerful than a child. A scientist is more mentally powerful than a person with down syndrome. In the case of God, It can affect the world either by it's mental will, or by physical modification. It can do so in a better way then ourselves, or any observed beings. All things observed to affect the world are within Space, so it stands to reason that God is within Space.
However, all living things are observed to die. So for God to be eternal, either It is the one thing which cannot, or does not die, or It exists outside of Time. If It exists outside of Time, it could spark the Big Bang, without defying physics.

I can see a few things wrong with this, can you? Post a comment of your answers before you read on. Go on. I'll wait.

...

OK, enough of that. I offered no evidence for my assertion about being powerful, I just state it as fact and move on. I also assume God is true, which has yet to be proven. I go on to use an inconsistency fallacy, wherein I state that everything observed to affect the universe exists in Space, but don't apply the same premise to Time: Everything observed to affect the Universe exists in Time. I then use the naturalistic fallacy and introduce an idea into the conclusion that wasn't in the premises (without defying physics). I feel like I'm missing something, or perhaps I screwed up which fallacies I used. If I did, please let me know, as I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the different logical fallacies.

This hopefully shows that it is easy to make an argument that sounds convincing, that actually follows false reasoning. I do hope that the next time your are presented with an argument you look for, and expose, any and all logical fallacies within it. With any luck, people will stop intentionally using them. Until next time,

crites evindentia logica.

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.

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.