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.
Showing posts with label Reason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reason. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
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.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)