Archive for the ‘ Thoughts ’ Category

God Is Like Me … Well, He Wants To Be

Yeah, that’s a bold statement. Perhaps you’ll read on and hear me out

You see, god and I are a lot alike. I’m talking about the god of Abraham, the god of monotheism.

Other gods are a bit more imaginative than the god of Abraham. You see, because I do not know how the universe was formed I cannot know why I am here except to accept the words of others about their god or make up my own reasons. I can find no meaning in existing except what I can conjure up or copy from others. There is no morality but what I find palatable. The god of Abraham finds himself in exactly the same position if we are to believe what we are told by the religions of monotheism. Their god has always existed without predecessor, without community, without explanation. He cannot know morality except that which makes his own mind happy. How lonely he must be that he needed to create little friends on Earth. How childish he has been to have destroyed all life that did not openly worship him. How monstrous he has been to kill without care or remorse.

I too have no place to find meaning except what I personally ascribe to existence. I do not  know for what purpose this existence happens to be. I cannot find morality except that which helps me to survive and does not make me feel bad.

Rather unfortunately for the god of Abraham, he is not quite as good, gifted, nor fortunate as I. He is slated to be stuck in his existence for eternity, long after any of his creations will be around to worship him. He is unchanging and at the whim of some grand plan that he cannot alter except to destroy for he created failed life despite knowing it would not worship him. This he is unable to change as is evidenced by my atheism. He is said to be all powerful yet is powerless against words of doubt. I will die, you will die, the Earth will die, the universe will die. There will be the god of Abraham, alone again, unable to create what he most wants – or so it seems. He is powerless to change his condition. I am not. I can be happy without millions worshipping my every word. If they do not like me they need not live in fear for I am kind and just and have compassion – I will not kill them for the simple act of not liking me, yet the god of Abraham has no choice. His tyrannical fits were part of the grand plan, known to him before he set out to create friends to worship him.

I’m better than that. If the god of Abraham had a choice, he’d want to be more like me. When all is said and done at least I can kill myself and end the infinite boredom. The god of Abraham does not even have this option. He is powerless over the most basic events. He can’t even know why he exists except to make up a story. He is most likely deranged from the loneliness and responsibility. He seeks love but demands it of those he controls… ensuring that it never really happens. This is all part of his grand plan, one that he is powerless to change because he knew it would happen this way before he started.

I am better than such a god. If such a god exists… I pity it and want it destroyed in the same breath.

 

What the F is Egalitarianism

It is not an easy word to say, doesn’t roll off the tongue and does not appear in the daily 24 hour news cycle. So? What is it?

I always go to Merriam-Webster for definitions because I like them

1:  a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
2:  a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people
This seems quite reasonable. So why is it so hard to achieve?
http://urolz12.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/v-for-vendetta-20060221085724795.jpg?w=650&h=275
I don’t want to cast aspersions where they are not warranted but I should point out that religion has been in charge for over 2000 years. Perhaps we should try this without religion?
Thoughts?

The Misogyny Of Atheism

Yeah, that’s a beauty of a title. I didn’t make that one up. A blog called ‘Cutting It Straight’ put up this short post. I want to talk about this given it’s relevance to some episodic rumblings in the atheist community – whatever that is supposed to be.

http://api.ning.com/files/wggDR0Y3MYy7d0lHGugQbPoZiFaUQXR9AJMTt5stnNT9IQ9SvdMlUqve5o9Oe7ra7fErNCDFd8amRj314GSLSE4GN0WHWdqs/biblequote.jpg?width=381&height=480

Their post was short, so here it is entirely.

The Misogyny of Atheism

“How can a progressive, important intellectual community behave so poorly towards its female peers?”

Because atheism’s fundamental intellectual commitments (if pursued consistently) lead inexorably to such behaviour.

This article (not for kids to read, by the way!) shows the fundamental incoherence and hopelessness of atheism, because it displays the logical devaluation of the individual that inevitably results from naturalistic materialism. See, if human beings are merely animals and there is no transcendent, objective morality, “might makes right”–and men, being stronger than women, dominate in the jungle of naturalistic materialism. On atheistic grounds, how would that be wrong? (How is there any right and wrong to begin with, anyway?) If evolutionary theory is right, men increase their chances of reproductive success by objectifying women, using them as means to an end rather than valuing them as individuals.

But, if there’s a God and he made gender and sexuality for a purpose–and if men and women are made in his image and derive their value from him–then, and ONLY then, we have a basis for the inherent equality of men and women. The answer to this behaviour, then, is the Gospel.

 

Did you get that? Not believing in a god is a fundamental intellectual commitment. That means that pastors who stop believing in a god will end up being misogynists. Go figure. Without active belief in an imaginary friend we’re all fucked.

Apparently my thoughts are supposed to be incoherent and full of hopelessness, all because I don’t believe in gods. I’m also meant to be misogynistic. Well, fuck me, how did I get to be egalitarian? I must be doing this atheism stuff all wrong. If only there were a guide book, perhaps weekly meetings so we could all get the same world view to go with our lack of belief in magic sky daddy.

But wait, there is more:

if there’s a God and he made gender and sexuality for a purpose

Now those are some big questions. First we have ‘if there is a god’ and then ‘if _he_ made sexulity for a purpose’ – it doesn’t get better than that. Whatever comes next you can be certain is prattle. To prove it the author follows up by saying only through a god is there a basis for inherent equality. Read it again, inherent properties change depending on what god you believe in. Yes, they wrote inherent. Webster’s says that inherent means: existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute. Clearly that word does not mean what he thinks it means.

This is not to say that there are no misogynists who are also atheists. Nor is it to say that there are no misogynists who are also religious. There is no proven link between the two, though there is strong evidence for correlation on the latter.

I don’t know about you, but I’m counting on people being much more reasonable than their gods. I want them to be egalitarian despite their gods not because of them. Am I asking too much?

 

 

The Sound Of Religion Dying

I love the sound of religion dying. Yes, it has a sound. The cries of the religious whining about how they aren’t special anymore. The blog 410AD id doing just exactly that whining.

 

http://cdn.tradyouth.org/uploads/2014/06/tumblr_inline_mvznfwcq5n1qc27pq.jpg

 

For those you who think atheists are out to get you, this next bit is for you.

You are either misinformed , wilfully ignorant, or dishonest. Atheist do not wish to remove “..every religious reference – especially Christian ones – from public life.” They only want the government to stop using tax dollars to erect them or maintain them and prevent the government and its many agencies from displaying favoritism of one religion over others and none at all. Atheists want the government (federal, state, local) to treat all religions and no religion equally, not giving special dispensation to any single religion or group of religions. When the government et al is allowed to give preferential treatment to one religion over others, the others and those of no religious belief become second class citizens.

I presume that you’d like everyone that is not Christian like you to be a second class citizen. Your speech is bigoted and smacks of someone crying because their religious privilege is being questioned and removed. Go on, use the O word. Yes, just because Christians can’t act like they are above the rest of us they think they are oppressed. I’ve got news for you. Read your book. Nowhere in your holy book does it say you should have privilege. In fact it says much the opposite. So not only are you crying about not having special privilege you are being a hypocrite to boot. Yeah, I get to criticize your behavior. You aspire to be christ-like so the mandates for your behavior are laid out in a book that all can read. I’ve read it and I can tell you this much, you’ve got a long way to go before you can be said to be christ-like.

Eternal life is completely meaningless

myatheistlife:

Yep, most Christians don’t read their book and don’t know what it says about heaven. You can find out: http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/heaven-bible-verses/
It’s not much of a promised eternity… in fact, from the descriptions it’s not much at all. Make believe. Wishful thinking. pffffft If somebody offered you that to loan them 1000 dollars you’d say no. It’s worth nothing.

Originally posted on The Atheist Papers:

I woke up early today with a long list of problems to solve and chores to finish. I started the day off by breaking one of the 10 Commandments (I chose to work on the sabbath). I finished my list of chores and solved many of the problems I set out to solve, and then I came home and worked up an entire new set of chores and problems to solve. Indeed, writing this post is both a chore and a solvable problem (how do I word this correctly?). By reading this you are completing a chore and solving a problem (do I understand what he’s trying to say?). By completing chores (both good and bad) and solving problems, we enable ourselves to form memories of the experiences. These memories form the basis of our experience of time. They also serve as a list of our accomplishments…

View original 641 more words

She’s A Material Girl … And A Particle Physicist

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002501501/3936905985_Materialism_xlarge.png

I know, you’re thinking I’ll never deliver on that title… amiright?

 

That might be a long way to go to get to thoughts on materialism, but I think they segue nicely.

philosophy : the belief that only material things exist
1 a :  a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that
all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations
or results of matter
b :  a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress
c :  a doctrine that economic or social change is materially caused — compare historical materialism
2 a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things

Okay, yes, that’s Merriam-Websters definition but there is a more specific philosophical definition:

Materialism is the idea that everything is either made only of matter or is ultimately dependent upon matter for its existence and nature. It is possible for a philosophy to be materialistic and still accord spirit a (secondary or dependent) place, but most forms of materialism tend to reject the existence of spirit or anything non-physical.

Some theists (and others) get caught up in the idea that materialists do not believe we have free will. Let me correct that for  you. In my opinion the right thinking materialists understand that consciousness is an emergent property and does not rely on billiard ball interaction between past and present to make decisions. The argument is clearly one fraught with issues on all sides. I maintain that we have free will because consciousness is not an elemental part of the physical world, rather it is an emergent property of parts of the physical world. It is dependent upon the physical world yet operates independently of it, at least in the ways we think are important: making decisions and experiencing the world etc.

Yes, I know Sam Harris said this or that, and he’s wrong on free will. Trust me, that’s another argument altogether.

Mind body dualism has a fair bit of dogma attached to it. It is neither necessary nor useful when explaining consciousness. Yes, I know you’ll want support for that but you’ll have to wait. I promise it’s coming. The point is that simply claiming materialism does not preclude you from understanding mammals to have free will. If it did, we would need proof that the mind is not an emergent property which acts in discord with the physical world – meaning that it acts with self agency rather than simply react to the physical world. It would be best if I could prove this, but currently we have no proof either way on free will for materialists. I do know that Sam Harris is wrong because he makes simple assumptions about a set of observations without considering the whole of the brain and how it works.  His views are like saying that vehicles are fuelled by passengers because they never go anywhere until there is a passenger in the vehicle.

In the quote above I highlighted ‘most forms’ for the reason that not all forms of non-physical are necessarily beyond the physical world. For instance (shout out to the philosophy students) red is immaterial but is only part of the physical world. Before you jump too far, the color red is only a problem for philosophers, physicists are quite alright with it. Philosophers are not an overly helpful lot. All this talk about brains and thinking yet not one of them can define what a thought is. They’ve had a pretty good run at it and just can’t get over that hurdle.

I’m a materialist and I know we have free will, all mammals do and probably even more species of life on this planet.

 

 

Why Is There Evil In The World?

Let’s start this out with the right perspective. Those who claim to know the most about evil are theists so let’s see what the Christian Bible says.

Isaiah 44:24 and Colossians 1:16-17

  1. God created all alone (Isaiah 44:24)–“Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone.”

  2. All things created by/through Jesus (Colossians 1:16-17)–“For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

Well, that clears things up. The god God made everything of every description. There doesn’t seem to be much wiggle room to tack ‘except evil’ on the end of it.

Of course atheists have a lot to say about the ‘problem of evil’ and the issues surrounding arguments for and against. It is difficult to argue about something which is very poorly defined. Webster’s (my favorite) says:

adjective \ˈē-vəl, British often & US also ˈē-(ˌ)vil\

: morally bad
: causing harm or injury to someone
: marked by bad luck or bad events

1 a :  morally reprehensible :  sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b :  arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>

2 a archaic :  inferior
   b :  causing discomfort or repulsion :  offensive <an evil odor>
c :  disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a :  causing harm :  pernicious <the evil institution of slavery>
b :  marked by misfortune :  unlucky

Clearly it’s not so easy to define this word. Many people would define it as pain and suffering or the cause of pain and suffering. Whatever the definition we now know what the god God created it or allowed it to create itself. This is all problematic for a number of reasons.

  • It is difficult to discuss unless all parties agree to the meaning.
  • All parties will not always agree to the meaning.
  • Some people think anything that is not “godly” is evil, whatever godly means.

https://americangallery.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/small_hear-no-evil-see-no-evil-speak-no-evil.jpg?w=629&h=354

I’ve got a different view. There is no evil. That explains why it can’t be defined well enough for everybody to agree on the definition. Aside from the fact that there are no gods, there is also no “opposer” or satan or evil. Existence simply is. It does not care about humans nor morality. Evil, pain, suffering, wrong doing: all these exist or seem to because we humans (theists mostly) are trying to impose a made up set of standards for what is good and what is not. We do this from a completely anthropocentric position. Theists try to impose what they call absolute morality which does not consider any animals other than humans. It is hardly absolute then. We can clearly see that many animals exhibit moral actions and emotions.

http://www.ethics.emory.edu/pillars/health_sciences/Beastly%20Morality%20Pic%201

Any definition of evil has to compliment a definition of morality and good. Any definitions of either that do not account for the morality we see in other animals is incomplete at best and at worst a mere human contrivance to serve the speaker’s own ends.

There is no evil in the world as theists would define it, there is only pain and suffering and that is what we expect to see in a harsh cold unforgiving universe that does not care about our species one way or the other. The universe is unfolding as it should and unless we all work together we will remain caught in the trap of delusion and superstition, slaves of ignorance.

So how do you define evil? I want to know.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 651 other followers

%d bloggers like this: