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.
Showing posts with label Logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Logic. Show all posts
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, July 12, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, May 31, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 29, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, March 26, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)