Wednesday, March 18, 2015


Posted this as a reply to a friend- It was originally a reply to on old professor. It is in a premature state but the overall point is here. Please read with this information in mind.


The philosophers God, aptly named God 4.0, with the four characteristics (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent) attributed to it’s definition is an easily refuted God (I’ll explain why in a moment). These attributes are the same basic attributes defining God within most of today's theistic texts. So if arguments for God 4.0 are deemed logical, then, at least on a fundamental level, there would have to be some plausibility given to the accuracy of at least one of the texts. Likewise, if it is determined that God 4.0, the foundation for all these textual deities, is impossible, then all the Gods of all the texts are also impossible. If determining any single attribute contradictory, then this also deems all the Gods of text, false. Determining one attribute contradictory does not, however, disprove a God entirely, simply a God with that attribute. But as I am about to show, all the attributes are easily refuted. 

Thursday, January 1, 2015

A tricky question

I once answered this question:

If you don't believe in choices, and that everything is determined, then why do you try to convince others to "choose" that there is no such thing as choice?

and I felt my answer to be accurate but long winded, and not as to the point as I would have liked, so this a a more clear follow up attempt.  

Sunday, June 15, 2014


(I encourage commenting and debates, however, please read the entire article first to make sure I have not already addressed your proposed issue. Thanks.)

The strangest things have been occurring recently: Many whom agree with me on the subject of free will, disagree with my claim that responsibility is an illusion administered by those who wish to feel justified when they blame and seek retribution. (which, oddly enough, there is scientific evidence for)

I find this half agreement to be completely bizarre, because to admit there is no free will removes any accountability. The only conclusion I can draw from the outcome is that those claiming they agree that there is no free will are either lying or they do not truly understand what "no free will" means.

So, this article is to make a point. It is to explain why there is no free will and why this proves there is no accountability. I will also argue against the ever-disappointing philosophical stance called compatibilism.

Monday, May 12, 2014


It is true that there is probability, but not in the way most think. It is not some actual thing that has some effect, rather it is an estimation of our ignorance. It is a neat trick to make sense out of events that happen too fast and contain too many variables to be calculated accurately. A good example is weather prediction. Everything is presented in terms of probability (eg. chance of rain), however, in actuality it either rains or it doesn't. There is wind or there is no wind. Still, the variables involved in predicting such complex events are innumerable. The moon, the rotation of the earth, the time of year, our angle to the sun, the temperature of every molecule of our atmosphere, an accurate count of the molecules of our atmosphere, topography, emissions, animal activity, water currents, water temperatures, and so on. With such a daunting number of variables, and the challenge each present, it makes sense to have probability sciences to help us understand such events, at least to some degree.

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Why I'm a 7 on Dawkins' Atheist Scale.

First, it should be noted, for those who do not know, The Dawkins' Scale is a measurement of belief or disbelief in god (see image to the right). Dawkins himself claims to be a 6.9. I, as the title suggests, am a very solid 7. It is unusual for someone in the science field to pick something with certainty. For accuracy, most scientist make approximations accounting for estimated uncertainty. But not all things have any uncertainty that should be accounted for. An example I'm fond of is: There is no such thing as a married bachelor. This is easy enough to see: to be a bachelor means to be unmarried. This requires no estimation for uncertainty, and I am going to attempt to prove that the idea of god does not require it either.



Upon being asked the question of  "Why are you an atheist?" I find that there are too many reasons and yet only one reason...

I crave the truth. 

This, however, is not quite to the point for those who ask. When asked by a theist, who finds the very idea of godlessness so alien that growing a third eye seems like a mundane everyday activity, this could never make sense. The "truth" to theists, words of scripture, is in direct contradiction with scientific and objective truth, but they believe the words of scripture are the truth, so actual objective truth seems false. More so it must be false, or the purposes they have ingrained into their existences become invalid, and by association, so does their existence. A theist cannot accept or grasp this explanation in the same way a bachelor cannot be married. To understand this explanation would mean to be atheist.

The only way to answer then, is to challenge, and this becomes an endless torrent of logic, and facts, and displayed doctrine contradictions and logical failings, and so on. Some theist attempt to push back with the anger of an annoyed child who has his hands over his ears and ranting maddening gibberish in hopes to avoid absorbing even a word of truth. Others, however, try to challenge back with pseudoscience, not realizing that for them to truly understand the scientific stances on the supernatural, then they could not be theists. Not understanding that science, the study of testable explanation of the natural world, is a direct contradiction to the supernatural and, by extension, to their arguments.

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Mass Media

The first thing that usually comes to mind when I think about media, news, or journalism is my old sociology professor defining anchors as "talking heads". It's a point of view that just stuck. I recall he had a great deal to say about the media, but perhaps he wouldn't rightfully be a sociology professor if he did not. The second thing that comes to mind is, unfortunately, "commentation".