tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10574892326934520632024-02-07T00:40:18.466-08:00Subject To ReasonA guy's attempt to apply reason to various subjects as well as promote the use of reason.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057489232693452063.post-7842353010164472872015-03-18T20:51:00.000-07:002015-10-10T23:23:59.161-07:00God<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
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.<br />
<a href="" name="more"></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
God</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
-Omnipotent. The easiest to refute. There is an old riddle: Can God make an object he cannot move? If he can, then he would no longer be omnipotent because there would exist something he could not move, meaning some action he could not perform. If he could not, then again, some action he could not perform. In both instances he fails to be omnipotent. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
-Omniscient. Paired with the power of "free will" that is commonly attributed to all but Spinoza's god, there becomes a fairly simple contradiction. If God knows everything, and as such his own future actions, can he express the free will to not perform a particular action. This causes a couple issues: If he cannot veir from his predicted path then he mustn't have free will (not to mention omnipotence), and if he can, then at some moment he did not know something, contradicting the attributed omniscience. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
-Omnipresent. This one is also self contradicting, however the contradiction it has with another stipulation, omni-benevolent, is much easier to articulate: If God is everything, and is all good, then all things must be all good. But if all things are one thing, then there is no contrast to notice that it is good. To have benevolence, there is a requirement for the contrasting malevolence. So to be omni-benevolent there must be some malevolence, but if he is also omnipresent, then he must be the malevolence also. If that's not the case then there is no malevolence and then no omni-benevolence. If there is both then there is no omnipresence. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
Adding these 4 attributes into further combinations brings even more contradictions. But like I stated, disproving these attributes does not remove the possibility of a God who is without these attributes. Because of this I move to an even more basic definition of God which is “the creator” or “the starter”. A God like this, without these, previous, defining stipulations, is a much harder God to refute, but this will be an attempt at doing just that. If found that God as a creator is plausible then a God that does not have the 4 other stipulations is possible. If found false, then no God is possible. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
1. Argument of intelligent design. Many submit that complexity is proof of a maker. The logic involved is quite narrow, and falls into the realm of infinite regression quite quickly. The bad logic for this is as follows.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
(1) If something is complex it must be created by a mind that is more complex.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
(2) Therefore there must be an ultimate being. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
The contradiction is that there cannot be an ultimate being, a being of great complexity, as per the stipulations of being complex, must have a creator, who must also have a creator, and so on, never actually having a beginning, or greatest, creator. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
In lamens: a watch is complex so it must have a more complex creator, which is man. Man, being complex, must also have an even further complex creator, which is God. The proprietors of this argument usually stop here, believing they have made some point, however God, being complex his/herself, would also have an even more complex creator, to meet the stipulations of the argument. This creator would have a creator, who would also have a creator, and so on and so on. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
2. Prime Mover argument. This argument is conjured through the understanding that motion is caused by motion, and as such, the causes of motion regress infinitely into the past without ever having an actual catalyst. The argument concludes that this would be infinite regression, and as such, we could not actually have motion. So the only explanation is that there must be something that “can move, without having to be moved”: The prime mover, or God. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
I have several disagreements with this argument. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
(1) The claim that motion must be caused by motion is false. Motions is caused by force, but force in itself is not in motion. An object in motion may have force, but motion is not a stipulation. For example, place 2 objects into space, nothing else, and they will descend upon one another. This is motion is caused simply by the objects existence within space. Mass causes an impression on space-time, which produces gravity. This is motion caused by the existence of mass, not by a previous motion. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
(2) The assumption that a) there is such a thing as universal rest, b) that this rest must have existed as the beginning, and c) that there must be a beginning. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
a) Universal rest is not of anything we have ever experienced. We have experience things at rest within our relative environments, but everything, as far as we can observe, is always in motion with respect to something else. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
b) There is nothing to suggest that there must have been inactivity. We know that causation of motion can come from sources other than motion, yet turn around and claim that there must have been a causing motion. We then allow this to form an infinite regression and then solve the problem by implementing God. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
c) The idea of a beginning is a huge contradiction. If things are caused, then there must be something that caused. Yet, if there is a beginning, this become another infinite regression. If we say “okay, lets allow this assumption”, then what? Everything just starts from nothing? A sentence that contradicts all we know. But still, lets allow it, and say there is a starter, a God, who has a purpose. Purposes, as we know, come from some other purpose or set of purposes. Purposes are causal. This means something before the "purpose to create existence", caused the purpose. This is tricky because before existence there cannot be anything to have a purpose, and if this is the beginning, then there is no time, yet we have something, which can’t exist, being cause by something "before", which is a measurement of time, which cannot exist, trying to create existence. (If this is confusing, I come back to it later.)</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
The idea that motion can be caused by the existence of matter/energy alone leads to another, very silly, philosophical question: How did matter/energy get here? The reason I call it silly is because I, nor anyone else, can describe an observation of any creation of matter/energy. We don't, and can't, understand what creation of matter/energy means, yet we ask these stupid questions. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
Non the less, lets address the question. If matter/energy was created, we run into a large contradiction. And we might as well add, using this same (terrible) logic of “if exists, then must have not existed”, that existence itself must have, at some point, not existed. If it is here, then it must have not been here, per this train of thought. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
It may be getting clearer to see that every time that we claim a grand start for something we wind up with some infinite regression contradiction. Some may argue that the alternative, an infinite constant, is also a paradox, but only because we can never witness it, not because it has any contradicting stipulations. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
So lets get back to the confusing bit (I’m gonna break it down a little bit more here). We are in non existence. Non existence being the absence of existence. A place that, by definition, cannot exist. To say that anything is in this non existence, is to deny that this <i>is</i> non existence. Yet somehow, from all this nothing, and non movement, and timelessness, and godlessness (because god is something, and if something is here, then again, this is not non existence) we gained all of reality. So from all this nothing….Boom! Something?… Really? And can nonexistence exist? Does the last question even make sense? When I say non existence, I cannot know what that means. It would be something, that no thing could ever recognize. It cannot, by definition exist, for it would then, not be non existence, but rather something that does exist, and the statement “Non existence exists” makes no sense. So another large issue with starting is that the medium on which to make existence, cannot exist. If there must be something to build upon, then there must always be an existence. It is a thing that cannot be started. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
To further break down the claim requires some more allowances. This may be overkill, but I wish to present findings on every level, even if unnecessary, to avoid any ambiguity that may be exploited in the future. So, allowing that there could be non existence, and god could exist within this nothing (try to bear with the absurdity of this). The reason God is so important to humans is because it endows us with what many might consider the greatest of all endowments: a purpose. To give this purpose, requires a mind with intent, with it’s own purpose. The subject of purpose, opens yet another infinite regression contradiction, which I briefly mentioned earlier. Purpose is for an end. An end which is for another purpose. Through logic and observation, we find that all purposes are produced by previous ends, which come from previous purposes and so on. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
But again, allowing this. God is existing, in a place that cannot exist, with a starting purpose. Now there is to be an act of creation. This implies that there is at least three primary time intervals. Before the act, during the act, and after the act. So, using the bad logic, “if there is existence, then there must have been non existence”, then there must be a start for existence. So “before” existence there was these impossible variables that we are allowing. “Before” is important, because with no existence, there is no time, yet “before” is a measurement of time, as stated earlier, and “act of creation” or just “creation” are temporal actions: meaning they have time specific functions. Hopefully this contradiction is apparent. (You cannot make time because that would require time to already exist)</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
3. Ontological Argument. This argument, presented by Anselm, attempts to support God’s existence through the definition of God. God is defined as “That which no greater can be conceived”. Anselm argues that if there was a being that met this stipulation within our imagination, it could not be God because we could imagine a greater being that exists within our imagination and in existence. Therefore God must exist.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
A few problems with this. First, why is God that which no greater can be conceived? What I mean is, somethings cannot be conceived, like an infinite universe. We may find this perfectly plausible, but to conceive it…to really conceive it would be impossible because our capacities for conceiving are finite. Even if they weren't, and we could somehow scope infinity, this actions would be eternal, and never actually quite something conceivable. Tying this back into the ontological argument, if a person can conceive of a God but not of infinity, then by this argument wouldn't infinity be greater than God? If then the logic was to move to say that infinity is God, this would then contradict the stipulation that God is “That which no greater can be conceived” because infinity itself cannot be conceived. So our idea of God must again be something finite, yet we can understand that this is not greater than infinity, but we are stuck because we cannot, using these rules, claim God is something we cannot conceive, because then we could not understand God enough to claim that he is “that which no greater can be conceived”. Rather defining God as “that which no greater can be conceived” is claiming God is conceivable, so to go further and claim him inconceivable is a contradiction. The only thing that could be attested through this definition is the limits of our conception. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
The next thing wrong, is the assumption that our ability to conceive is the premise for what would define God. It is premature conclusion considering our ability to conceive relies on our consumption of information, which is a constant act. Everyday we learn more, and everyday our ability to conceive is greater than the last. This could be viewed as a sign we are growing, but it can also be view as proof that we are in need of growth. That we are children, and we are pompous to think our abilities to conceive should be the stipulation for anything other than empirical proof of our understanding of our ability to conceive at this time. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br />
<br />
4. A perfect god, or a perfect being. This is an observation that is more than a thousand years old, but still stands very firmly. For theists, god is a perfect being. To the individual who developed this thought experiment, this means that god is perfect in every way conceivable, meaning god is perfectly content. However, if god is perfectly content, then our actions cannot cause god any pain nor pleasure. Our actions cannot anger or please god. If god is perfect, then god cannot care. This contradicts omni-benevolence starkly. Claiming god as perfect, contradicts the base message in the most prevalent theological texts. If god is perfect, then he/she cannot care what you do and what is right and wrong. To think god cares about you, is to contradict claims of his/her perfection. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px;">
Joshua.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057489232693452063.post-9890647037024381972015-01-01T09:57:00.000-08:002015-10-17T16:53:10.771-07:00A tricky question<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">I once answered this question:</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><span style="color: #990000;">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?</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">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. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"></span><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1057489232693452063" name="more"></a><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">I started the last post stating this was a good question, but the truth is: this is a terrible question. It is much the same as the question "why can only purple giraffes fly?". There is a trick in here, and to attempt to answer the question is to admit on some level that there are flying giraffes, or that there are "purple" giraffes, which, as far as my understanding of the evidence is concerned, is not the case. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">So in the same vein, to answer this (initial) question is to admit, on some level, that I think people can choose, and therefore contradict myself. The truth is, however, I do try to convince people of my argument, but I do not recognize their actions to do so, or not do so, as a choice. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">I urge the reader to re-read the question. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="color: #990000; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">"If you don't believe in choices" </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">- meaning you cannot conceive of such a thing existing given a logical understanding and an earnest account of the evidence available - </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">"then why do you try to convince others to "choose"" </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">- now the questioner has forgotten that you have no conception of choice, or does not care that he/she is contradicting himself/herself - there is now an assumption that you somehow (all of the sudden) know what it means to choose- </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">"that there is no such thing as a choice?"</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">It is within the realm of the question: "If you don't believe in god, why do you pray to him?" This cannot make sense because if the person truly does not believe in god, then the person cannot pray to god. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">Why do vegetarians only eat lions? Why does Wal-Mart smell like the color purple? How come 8 is great than 15? These are all very stupid questions, and though this particular question does not seem as such at first glance I would like to make it clear that it is, and add it to the stupid-question pile. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">dank je wel,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.4799995422363px;">Josh</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057489232693452063.post-15778474048062001022014-06-15T21:47:00.001-07:002015-01-05T11:18:00.291-08:00Blame<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(I encourage commenting and debates, however, please read the entire article first to make sure I have not already addressed your proposed issue. Thanks.)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">BLAME</span></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ronefoxync.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/blame-google.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ronefoxync.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/blame-google.jpg" height="287" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="more"></a><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red; font-size: large;">CHOICE</span><br />
<br />
Choice, the idea that we are "picking" one or more options from a greater selection of options while maintaining that we could have done otherwise, and most importantly, doing so without coercion. <br />
<br />
My argument against this is that nothing is without coercion. All action is influenced. To argue against this is to proclaim there is no such thing as causation. You would have to believe that anything could "just happen" for no apparent, causal, and actual reason. Imagine being a carpenter and cutting a 2X4 to a length of 6 ft. to fit a particular gap and then when you got back to place the 2X4 into the gap it was now 27 ft.long. And then to no surprise, because all of this must make sense, it suddenly turned into an army of fairies which flew into the sky and exploded, raining down rainbows and salt-water taffy. To believe in choice is to believe things happen without cause. To believe things happen without cause is to believe that anything, literally anything, can just happen. And however delightful this scenario may be, I doubt that anyone would find this a possibility. On the contrary, if people truly thought this way, things would not get done. We would not have buildings, automobiles, generators, cell phones, internet, or anything that was built through the use of the understanding that things do not "just happen". Buildings do not make themselves. They do not "just appear". People labor, parts are made, priorities are organized, plans are drawn, land is surveyed, wood is cut, concrete is poured, structures are measured, stability is calculated, and so on.<br />
<br />
My only answer to this strange contradiction, where people obviously do not believe in the consequences of what it means to have a choice and yet still believe in choices and responsibility, is that it is convenient to a stubborn way of life. This is what someone like this must sound like:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">"I am certain that things are caused and are not happening "just because", but people still have choices and should be held responsible for their actions."</span><br />
<br />
I actually know a few (intelligent) people who would say this, but if analyzed just a little, it sounds like the ramblings of a crazy person.<br />
<br />
If you believe people should be held responsible for their actions, then you believe they are the sole cause for their behavior. This is claiming that no influences are coercing people's actions. Yet this directly contradicts the claim that "you do not think things happen "just because"". The statement again with this clarification:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: purple;">"I am certain that things are caused and are not happening "just because", but people <b>can</b> do things just because."</span><br />
<br />
So, an individual wakes to find his or herself in a cave, high up on a cliff side, with no supplies. When looking out of the cave, the individual notices there is a ledge connected to another cliff wall that looks just outside of jumping distance. The only way down seems to be a path leading from the other cliff. In this situation, there is really only so many options available: try to jump the gap, or don't. However, you cannot hold the person responsible for, lets say, not eating cake, or not riding a bike, or not growing wings, etc. So an individual's actions are always influenced by their surroundings, epoch, biology, disabilities, talents, desires, education, and the list goes on and on. In no real way is any person truly the cause of their own actions.<br />
<br />
Others may jump in here and say "I'm not saying they are responsible for the things that cause the action, but they "did" perform the action and should be held accountable."<br />
<br />
To this I argue, to what metric or standard do we hold the individual too? If the person in the cave was being told to jump from a guy behind him/her with a gun, would we claim the individual was still responsible. Or when the individual is falling, do we hold him or her responsible for not being able to fly. Our method today is to not blame the bullet, but to blame the individual pulling the trigger. Yet we blame people all the time for being stupid, when the aliment (the fact that they could not know better) is the standard we are holding them to. Are we to hold a child, who has never seen a stove before, responsible for being burned. Of course not. To do so would be to hold them responsible for something they could not possibly know. So we blame the parents, yet if someone passes a driver's license test, because the administer was too lax, and then unknowingly causes an accident, we blame the individual for his or her "ignorance". (How the the hell do you blame someone for <i style="font-weight: bold;">ignorance</i>?)<br />
<br />
If people saw a scene where a man shot another unarmed man, it would be a convention to hold the shooter responsible. If we could rewind the scene a bit, and saw that the unarmed man had just strangled the shooters wife, we would switch the blame over to the unarmed man. If we rewound further, and discovered that the shooters wife had just murdered the unarmed man's children, we would shift the blame to her. If we determined that the woman had a tumor that caused her to crave the harming of children we would then blame her biology, however, if we learned that her craving to hurt children was instilled in her by her parents, we would give them part of the blame but maintain our blame on the woman. We would forget that, tumor or not, a grown person that craves the death of children is sick. We would then proclaim, "well, she had a choice.", and provide evidence for our idiocy. Truth of the matter is, we have no logical, or moral, reason for applying responsibility where we apply it. As we discover more and more proponents for the cause of something, as we look further back, we shift our titles of responsibility. Even if time was not infinite, there would be an inconceivable number of causes for every event, yet somehow, in all our glorious splendor, we strain out the truth, that this one individual, who does not even control all the functions of his or her self, is solely and entirely responsible for everything that has lead up to this particular actions performance. <br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">RANDOMNESS</span><br />
<br />
Another objection is randomness. This is the most recent argument I have had flung at me. That an individual can do something random, and as such- things can "just happen" because to be random means there is no influence in the action, meaning the person must be solely responsible. At least this is what I think the individual meant when he/she was saying it. This, however, doesn't work on so many levels. The convention of randomness that people talk about doesn't mean "cause-less". Randomness is the level of our current inability to calculate something. It is not an actual thing, and I feel sorry for anyone who would actually believe it was some actual thing. (So, I feel sorry for Epictetus.)<br />
<br />
I wrote about this in the entry "<a href="http://subjecttoreason.blogspot.com/2014/05/probability.html" target="_blank">Probability</a>", that if something behaves in a way we do not understand, all it proves is that we do not understand it. This does not prove that randomness is a thing. If I built a robot that could shoot an arrow, which always hit the target at the same point indoors, but outdoors the arrow landed at various spots, the phenomenon is not some magical randomness "causing" the arrow to sway this way and that, it is the wind variable, which, due to it's complex number of variables, is extremely difficult to calculate. <br />
<br />
When applied to behavior, randomness is just a lack of understanding of one's own behavior, a scenario which makes it even harder to attribute blame to the individual. If a person was hypnotized and performed some tasks, we could not hold his or her so-called will responsible, and from the persons perspective things would probably appear random. This really is a silly argument, considering that we claim someone must be consciously deliberating their actions to be held responsible.<br />
<br />
The argument could turn to- "I decided to do something random.", which I would argue that the individual would have had cause for behaving as such. Even if the person claimed that he/she didn't, the action itself is proof of a disposition. Most likely the action would be performed in hopes to make an argument against my case.<br />
<br />
Also, humoring the idea that actual randomness could exist, we would quickly find ourselves in a contradiction. If something was caused by randomness, then there would be a cause. However, actual randomness would mean cause-less. So randomness itself would disprove randomness. Rather the existence of randomness would disprove the existence of randomness, and if randomness could not exist, then there would be nothing to disprove in the first place.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: purple; font-size: large;">COMPATIBILISM</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
Finally, compatibilism, the claim that determinism and free will coexist. This appalls me the most, because it is the stance held by the majority of the worlds greatest minds, and I am convinced it is nonsense.<br />
If it is not nonsense, then there would be merit to the idea of holding people responsible even when there is no free will.<br />
<br />
Lets start with a few compatibilist examples:<br />
<br />
Example 1. Lets say that Bob has a test to study for, but is scared that he may end up partying instead. So Bob prays to his god to help him stay focused on studying. Bob's god commands an angel to stay near Bob, and if he starts getting off track, to help put him back on track. Finally, when everything is said and done, Bob studies without the help of the angel.<br />
<br />
The point that compatibilists are trying to make here is that both outcomes would have been the same, but in one outcome Bob "chose" to study, rather than being coerced to study.<br />
<br />
This example is actually really great for pointing out the major flaws in compatibilism. Determinism states that there is only <b>one</b> possible outcome, where compatibilists are claiming there are <b>many</b> possible outcomes. Compatibilism, being the claim that determinism and free will are compatible, is failing to submit to the stipulations demanded by determinism. So again, where determinism states "an action or an event is proof that the said action or event was the only possible outcome", compatibilists state "an action or event is proof of one of the possible outcomes." The problem with the compatibilist view is the same as the problem with randomness- they are giving merit to some impossibility. It's a pompous conclusion. Rather than stating that we do not understand the variables at work they state that there exists actual entities of randomness and probability.<br />
<br />
I think the misunderstanding, on all accounts, is the assumption that thoughts are some mysterious things that exist outside reality. For instance:<br />
<br />
Example 2. Bob is at a fork in the road. Right is the quickest path to take for Bob to reach his destination. Left is the scenic route. Unknown to Bob, the bridge is out on the right path, so no matter what Bob chooses, Bob would have to take the left path.<br />
<br />
To the compatibilist, each scenario is the same. Whether Bob goes left or right, the only concern is the outcome, but for some odd reason there is an exclusion of the state of Bob's mind, time, location, and experience. Compatibilists promote this as choice, and for some reason disregarding the action as proof that it is the only possible action per said moment in time. They are saying that there are several <b>different </b>possibilities, but they are all the <b>same</b> (See the contradiction?). How else could they have tied choice and determinism together?<br />
<br />
For a moment, lets consider disposition. If Bob was in a hurry to get wherever he is trying to get to, the right path is the quickest, Bob understands very well that the right path is the quickest, but he does not know that the bridge is out, he would have a great disposition to go right. And if these were all the variables at play, he would indeed go right. So Bob, at 10 am, on the second, turns right, as expected, and finds that the bridge is out and that he, subsequently, has wasted time, and has actually taken the longer of the two options. So lets rewind time back to the exact conditions. This also means Bobs brain (memories), which I think many compatibilist forget to equate, is reset as well. It is again 10 am, on the second, and Bob has all the for-mentioned dispositions. He is unaware of the state of the bridge, and will again take the right. Rewind this an infinite number of times and the outcome will always be the same. The only way this outcome could be different is if we did not return to the previous conditions.<br />
<br />
There is a scientific principle of probability that states that per infinite amount of time, all possibilities will be achieved. Compatibilists, in my eyes, fail to understand this "per infinite amount of time", or rather they do not understand that returning something to the exact previous conditions requires the turning back of time as well. Instead, they bend this principle to their meaning: that if we repeat this scenario an infinite amount of times, then it equals an infinite amount of time passing, which means, if we are to fulfill the principle, all possibilities would be achieved. This is not only wrong, it is poorly thought out (especially for the caliber of the people who endorse this philosophy).<br />
<br />
This hypothetical we are speaking of is scientifically and temporally impossible (i.e. the same moment cannot happen a period of time after itself). It is a tool for observation that we use to understand such things as causation, again, something I believe the compatibilist doctrine has overlooked.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #20124d;">For clarity, were it actually possible for time to reset over and over, it would not matter, for we could never understand what has happened because we would be returned to our previous conditions, because those conditions are directly linked to given points in time (i.e. my 31 year old self knows that I have lived to be 31, where my 20 year old self could never know that with certainty). If we were not returned to our previous conditions, then it would have to be a different point in time. For example: If Bob kept his memory "<b>after"</b> the reset, and knew that the bridge was out, then in Bob's perspective this would be the second time he was sitting at this fork in the road at 10 am, on the second. There would be a clear temporal distinction in Bob's perspective despite the actually temporal impossibility. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #990000;">Note: Another way to think about compatibilism is to imagine a physics problem. Okay, so...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Imagine a ball is travelling at a velocity "V" to collide with a perfectly cylindrical bat, being swung at force "F", at point "p". The bat and ball have specific densities, "D" and "d" respectively, and are perfectly elastic. Determine the angle the ball travels from the bat and the distance it will travel if there was no wind resistance. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #990000;">This is a perfectly normal physics problem, which does indeed have an answer. It has <b>one</b> answer. To physicists, and many other people, this makes sense. One answer is really all you can get. For compatibilists, the result is not the same. To them, there must be multiple, and they may even argue an infinite, number of answers. This is obviously ridiculous. If the conditions were exactly the same the result would be the same, or rather if the result is different, then the conditions must be different (one, or many, variables must be altered).</span><br />
<span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #990000;">Quantum physics, though not measured or observed in the same manner as Newtonian physics, <b>is</b> the same in that conditions produce singular outcomes that, should the conditions stay the same, will produce the same outcome. I mention this, because brains function on a quantum, but <b>completely</b> physical level, and each firing of a neuron is subjected to a particular set of conditions, of which, has a singular result. Just because we cannot observe as well as we like on this level, does not mean we get to say that there must be multiple possibilities. </span><br />
<span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span><span style="color: #990000;">When the conclusion is that "there are multiple possibilities", this only means we do not understand the variables involved enough to understand what, whatever it is that we are observing, is doing.</span><br />
<span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">FINALLY</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
If your comment is that I am over analyzing, that I am using to much reason or "thinking to much into it", please stop and ask yourself if you are using reason to determine this argument. Please stop and ask yourself if you have ever figured anything out without thinking. If you simply do not value reason, I would love to hear your explanation for this. No doubt you will be using reason.<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
I look forward to your thoughts,<br />
<br />
Josh<br />
<br />
One final answer to a discomfort a friend of mine has.<br />
<br />
The 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?<br />
<br />
If you wish to read my answer click <a href="http://subjecttoreason.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-trickystupid-question.html">here.</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057489232693452063.post-28725119816796877362014-05-12T09:43:00.001-07:002014-06-15T21:52:49.865-07:00Probability<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/715p0uqpMNL._SL1500_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/715p0uqpMNL._SL1500_.jpg" height="161" width="320" /></a></div>
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. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
An example of its use would be a physics problem where they tell you to ignore some variable (often some complex variable like wind resistance). Your final answer will be a theoretical yield, and as we move to empirical test, we gain a range of answers, the actual yield, which usually bear some relation to the theoretical yield.<br />
<br />
If we had a missile, and we were calculating its accuracy, we would assume some wind variables and resistances and formulate a theoretical yield. When the actual yield does not equal the theoretical yield exactly it is not due to some magical force called probability, rather there is an actual cause for this difference. Most likely it is the wind variations, which are extremely difficult to predict, or it could be some manufacturing error. The point is: There IS a cause, and probability is just stating that we cannot equate those causes accurately. Another thing it could be saying is: So far as our understanding is concerned, this range of error will always be present, and if our understanding increases, our range of error narrows.<br />
<br />
One last time: Probability is not a force, but rather it is<br />
proof of our inability to calculate some events accurately.<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
<br />
Joshua.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057489232693452063.post-57485344259746803632014-01-01T19:53:00.000-08:002014-01-08T11:58:34.464-08:00Why I'm a 7 on Dawkins' Atheist Scale. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2012/10/dawkins-scale.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2012/10/dawkins-scale.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
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: <span style="color: #38761d;">There is no such thing as a married bachelor. </span>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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 18px;">For utility, god is the creator, of everything, of time, of existence. This is a suggestion that there was, once, no existence, no matter, no time, no space. This would have to be, as nonexistence is the correct medium for which to create existence. The problem here, lies in the medium: nonexistence.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 18px;">It's quite an odd thing to think about. Imagine you found nothing, an area of nonexistence. As you are within existence, it must exist and would have some dimensions to it. It would be explainable. This thing we are speaking of could not be nonexistence. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 18px;">Nonexistence has no dimension, cannot be recognized, and cannot be defined. This very effort is a contradiction. Nonexistence would have to be an absolute. Either there <i>is</i> existence or there <i>is </i>nonexistence, there cannot be both. More importantly, nonexistence cannot exist. Just trying to say it exists in a sentence is a contradiction (in the same way that saying a "bachelor is married"). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 18px;">"Nonexistence exists." </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 18px;">See what I mean. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 18px;">It should be noted that if god is real he would exist, but as such could not exist in nonexistence (a statement that is littered with nonsense and contradictions). Still, to promote temporal causes, god would have to be real, and to create reality, there would first have to be no reality. The very medium in which god could use to make everything, nonexistence, by definition cannot exist. Therefore, the utility of a creator makes no sense. In this way, with respect to existence, creation makes no sense. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 18px;">The only possible answer to why there is a presence of existence is that there cannot be the absence of existence. There must always be an existence.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">A creator cannot exist. Not "may not" or "probably can't", but absolutely cannot exist. And if creator is what god is...then god cannot exist. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Thank you.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 18px;">Josh</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057489232693452063.post-32024414256091938202014-01-01T19:25:00.001-08:002015-02-01T21:49:59.606-08:00Atheism<h1 class="firstHeading" id="firstHeading" lang="en" style="background-image: none; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; font-family: sans-serif; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.2em; margin: 0px 0px 0.1em; overflow: visible; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: center; width: auto;">
<span dir="auto"><span style="font-size: x-large;">ἄθεος</span></span></h1>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Upon being asked the question of "Why are you an atheist?" I find that there are too many reasons and yet only one reason...</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I crave the truth. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">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 </span>bachelor cannot be married. To understand this explanation would mean to be atheist.<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #990000; font-family: inherit;">In a not-so-tiny nutshell, if it can exist [in nature], then no matter how phenomenal the display or how absurd and mystical the event or action may seem, it <b>must</b> be natural, and therefore can be understood by science. Another way of looking at it: if god is real, then god is natural, measurable, and would leave evidence to his existence. There is no evidence, however, that pins anything to god that could not be pinned to the flying spaghetti monster or fairies. There are things science does not know, yes, but scientists are not making random speculations, claiming them as facts, and demanding the rest of the scientific community to accept these speculations as fact without receiving any evidence to support the claims. With as much reason that is used by religious texts and authors, I can make unfalsifiable claims that the universe was created by witch-craft performed on a giant thimble by a magical turtle. It's complete nonsense, but hey, the turtle lives outside of nature and time(whatever that means), and as such you can never prove me wrong(except that I said he lives outside nature and time-the argument many make for their own religions). </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But many theist, do not behave as such (use pseudoscience or gibberish). They reply with logic, and they express genuine curiosity. They have a desire for knowledge, and are more thankful for information than they are hurt for losing arguments. They understand healthy arguments, and are willing to change stances of subjects when the evidence contradicts the previous stance. Most theist like this are raised theist. They are indoctrinated by their parents and communities that such nonsense is the truth. But their practicality eventually expels this nonsense. It is because of theist like this that atheists do not give up the argument. We are an ever-growing society of ex-theists. We know there are some who will see logic and understand they had it wrong because so many of us were those people. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So the answer to the original question, "Why are you an atheist?", is book-worthy long, because some people require more examples of logic than others. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I think a better question, or at least one that gets a more specific answer, is "Why did you become an atheist, if you were a theist?". I think it is a better question because the answer can start were many theists are. They can follow from a familiar place and see the path you took out. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I would like to answer this. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">To start out, I will share some </span>backstory<span style="font-family: inherit;">: I was raised Christian. No real denomination, just told to believe in god, and Jesus, and that saying "goddamn" was bad. Pretty much raised in the typical protestant Christian family that hardly ever went to church. I thought the devil was real, and angels, and all sorts of things unrelated because, if all of this is real, then so could magical realms and other what-nots. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As I grew into my teen years, I became extremely interested in spirituality and philosophy. I started thinking more about god and the bible. In a predictable response, I started reading the bible as well as started taking a bible study class in high school. After my parents divorce, I moved out with my dad and eventually talked him into going to church every Sunday. I was really into it, but I was also into philosophy and practical thinking. As was my dad. So often our nights were spent in casual debates about all sorts of things, from morality to astronomy to time. When on the topic of religion, I started noticing inconsistencies in the arguments and the bible, or at least some analyzing part of my brain was. It was like coming home and noticing something was missing, but not knowing what it was exactly. Despite all this, I eventually got baptized through the Presbyterian church we were attending, and everything seemed fine. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Two days later, it all hit me. I was finally able to articulate and calculate the contradictions. This is when I stopped believing in the biblical god...</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I used to wonder why god would make people. For what purpose would a being that could do anything make people for? How does that lend to our own purpose?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I learned he was omniscient. This mixed with the biblical claims that "people had free will and could commit sin" did not sit well. How could god make something bound with so many limitations, and with a perfect understanding its future, claim there was free will? If someone desired and "chose" to be an unrepentant murderer, god would have known when making that person, and likewise he would have known how to make the same person without these desires to be a murderer, but instead makes them that way, again fully understanding they would eventually go to hell, and when the person behaves as expected, god would actually send the person to hell. Again, <b>a person was made with the intent to go to hell.</b> This is labelled by many as predestination. The bible is littered with it: Romans, Peter, Ephesians, John, Timothy, Acts, James, Titus, Colossians, and more. This all contradicted the areas dedicated to free will and sin and accountability, not to mention the "made in gods image" parts.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Many Christians shrug this off because they do not believe in the literal words of the bible, or what is practiced as Calvinism. They believe it is up to their personal interpretations. These Christians, should you ever meet them, have not read the bible, or lack the capacity to comprehend it...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #38761d; line-height: 18px;">"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #274e13;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="line-height: 18px;">With this, if there is any direct contradiction, it cannot be attributed to interpretation errors. "But...the text has been altered many times to be read in many languages." Surely some error must have been made(unless, of course, god would not allow that). This leaves room to say maybe there were changes made in parts one doesn't agree with, but with what logical steps has such an individual used to determine that the unlikable parts were altered while the parts such a person agrees with were not? Further, if there is any contradiction what logical assessments are used to determine which parts are accurate and which are not? Also, if the argument is that: "it is just something we cannot comprehend", then it is gibberish. Again, if this is the case, what logical assessments can be used to determine which parts gibberish and which parts are not? </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 18px;">So with the understanding that god was claimed to be an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinitely merciful, infinitely just, cruel, benevolent, and jealous being, I stopped believing in Christianity. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 18px;">I didn't become an atheist right away, however. At first, I became an agnostic with the belief that if there was a god then it was not any god in text. It could not be fathomed by my brain. This was a clinging want for me, rather than any logical development. I was used to the idea that I had a soul and I truly wanted an eternity of existence(which now seems silly and selfish). </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 18px;">Eventually I came upon the hard truth that I was just evolving an idea given to me to suit my wants. It was through long arguments and efforts to find some reason and evidence for a soul, that I finally became atheist. Every subjective feeling that I can experience that produces the idea that I could have a soul (some supernatural existence) could be pinpointed and explained through medical and neuro sciences. They were natural, normal feelings that depended greatly on my physical awareness. When my body stops, there is no continued feelings, no continued personality and memories, because all this relies on the stipulation that my brain is alive.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 18px;">This was a hard realization. I was admitting to myself that I was not a part of some universal goal. That I had nothing to do with the purpose of the universe. That there was no purpose of the universe. That purpose wasn't really important outside the human realm. I was admitting that afterlife is the same as before life. That there is an end. It was an extremely scary experience at first: letting go of all the "purposes" I was raised to believe in. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 18px;">Eventually, the "scary" passes, and, with the realization that this is the only life I may have, everything takes on an air of preciousness. The world, and the life on it, became infinitely more important. It is no longer an ugly step on my way up to glory. <i>It is everything</i>. Purpose is rediscovered in the form of enjoyment, and the spreading of happiness and health. For these ends we advance our knowledge and desire for truth. Our real goal is to live harmoniously and happily. If you have a fall-back, a heaven to go to, why should you care for what you leave behind? How could harmony through grudging servitude ever stand up to harmony achieved through the desire for harmony?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span>
I am a scientist at heart, and soon to be in title, and matters of the truth will always hold my greatest attention. For this reason, I find the topic of theism so entrancing because I witness it as a campaign against truth. A campaign set in motion by people who wish for a speculation to be the truth rather than looking at what is actually the truth. People who refuse to gaze at the evidences and knowledge freely given to them.<br />
<br />
I am an atheist (<a href="http://subjecttoreason.blogspot.com/2014/01/why-im-7-on-dawkins-atheist-scale.html">a level 7 on the Dawkins scale</a>), and I could almost leave it at that, but I find religion harmful. Harmful to minds, societies, and lives. So I continue to hold the title. I continue to use logic in an attempt to convert people away from religion and religious harm. I do this with the hope that one day everyone will hunger for the truth as I do, and maybe the people in the future who are like me won't have to call themselves atheist, but rather they will call themselves normal.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you,<br />
<br />
Joshua<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057489232693452063.post-786560683966703132013-08-04T21:13:00.003-07:002013-12-22T07:27:58.186-08:00Mass Media <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYPMvbWGsZVbc-PaZBENZk-nx3yNi8FDJhOjx5RzFFIaZSCVx4zJofOa-IoUclnCmvXcntG5Qtsgw0P9Uq6nDLqjqrw17Ev3fgqVId6IYRZXPm9qrmLRtFEwHA7jTm4oln7rjJEaiwnsWK/s1600/mass+media.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYPMvbWGsZVbc-PaZBENZk-nx3yNi8FDJhOjx5RzFFIaZSCVx4zJofOa-IoUclnCmvXcntG5Qtsgw0P9Uq6nDLqjqrw17Ev3fgqVId6IYRZXPm9qrmLRtFEwHA7jTm4oln7rjJEaiwnsWK/s1600/mass+media.png" height="136" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
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".<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Journalism has declined from the realm where it was not only praise worthy to report the truth, it was a duty. A duty that, if not taken seriously and, if used to propagate for political, ethical, and religious bias, was rewarded with grave punishment and humiliation. The media has managed to shift, however, from the function of telling the truth, to a faulty machine that gives airtime to pseudo idols with their ever present commentary. Commentation heavy with the held biases, political stances, religious preference, and ill thought opinions. It's not good enough that some event has happened and it is truthfully reported, they now have to add such commentary in hopes to draw more viewers and maintain the ones they have. This means that not all the fault can be given to the media. Viewers are just as much responsible for holding these anchors as faultless idols as the media is for wrongly telling the people what they want to hear.<br />
<br />
It makes sense really. Television and media companies compete for stats. They are businesses, and as such the intention is to make money. Journalism, however, should not share such stats. Their stats should be based on verifiability, precedent, and detail, not viewers. Their income should not depend upon commercial investment, which places the focus on viewers, but rather it should be based on a national allowance. This, by no measure, is saying that it should be a government ran industry, though many argue that it already is, but the service should be paid by our nation, as journalism is a public service. Our taxes are spent every day on billion dollar projects that we are unaware of. Why not support something we are, and demand objectivity?<br />
<br />
That is just one option however. If the viewers truly sought accuracy, then a larger effort than taking O'Reilly's word for it would be required. People hear only what they want, and the journalism world uses this to their advantage, but what is truly sad is that there are so few who want to hear objectivity. People have become apathetic to deduction. We would prefer the news world "figure everything out" and let the anchors deliver it in tidy little packages rather than being presented the facts and determining whatever it is for ourselves.<br />
<br />
On top of all this, is the power. The media literally controls the masses, because they control what the masses know. Media has not simply shifted from something that presented truths to something that presents opinions, but it has shifted to something in charge. The strange thing is their control is simply, them taking advantage of everyone elses readiness to believe in something simply because they are fans (i.e. "Fox News said it, then it must be the gospel.").<br />
<br />
The internet has freed up the hold some, but it also helps prove just how deep the hold is on so many. When all the information of the internet is in front of you, and you take Sean Hannity's word on face value alone rather than looking it up yourself and doing some cross referencing, then you are both lazy and stupid. <br />
<br />
This is the real heart of the matter. The media can perform better and can be held to a higher, more objective bar than it currently is, but only if the masses stop wanting it to be the way it is. This is a frustrating situation to the select few who wish for these higher standards. Although many do not involve themselves with such nonsense, there is no avoiding the effects of the masses, which means there is no avoiding the effects of this ugly thing that was once called journalism.<br />
<br />
This is not a small subject, and I have barely scratched the surface. I will stop here for now, though it is likely a topic I will revisit.<br />
<br />
Tchuss<br />
<br />
Josh<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057489232693452063.post-25127053482928714652013-04-25T11:35:00.003-07:002014-06-15T21:56:30.253-07:00Free Will<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheE_GnV5qwDJzVcEXAt4TksKI1H-ziGWcKNOiIqIg2VmyNf6fEFIRSdkNHGFu9ftkHzXHOMXY1E83HffkQxXBT66t7zKReLkR6AKyu26jHQLpBKL0tmEvxh-JI_-Tg-bAd_c-GnNggn4Rw/s1600/mind.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheE_GnV5qwDJzVcEXAt4TksKI1H-ziGWcKNOiIqIg2VmyNf6fEFIRSdkNHGFu9ftkHzXHOMXY1E83HffkQxXBT66t7zKReLkR6AKyu26jHQLpBKL0tmEvxh-JI_-Tg-bAd_c-GnNggn4Rw/s1600/mind.png" height="182" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
For as long as I can claim to have attempted to be a calm, collected, and objective thinker, I have been a determinist. Determinism, for those who don't know, is the philosophical position that everything is in the state that it is because, giving the conditions up to that point, it is the only state it could be in. Another way to look at it, is that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. In a nutshell, there is no such thing as free will.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Now, this has been a subject of which I haven't considered for a time, but due to certain events, it has come back into the forefront of my attention. (I recently read Sam Harris' book, titled "Free Will", and, coincidentally, my ethics class started covering the idea of "Moral Luck", with consideration of the man to coin the phrase, Thomas Nagel, and the existentialist who opposingly says that humans have "total freedom with total responsibility", Jean-Paul Sartre.)<br />
<br />
If you ever find yourself reading "Free Will" or taking a philosophy or ethics class, you will discover, had you not by the grace of logic, that it is an immensely important and controversial subject. Primarily, if there is no free will, then there is no accountability. Many argue that this revelation would ruin our entire ethical system. A few others, myself included, think differently.<br />
<br />
Some might ask:<br />
<br />
"But Josh, without accountability couldn't people just do what they want without worrying about the consequences?"<br />
<br />
Well, first you <b>are</b> doing what you want right now, and you are concerned with the consequences. Also, when you say "do what they want", you are suggesting that what people are doing, being harmonious components of civilization, is not what people want to do, but rather doing something harmful or discordant, is. And second, at a closer look, wants are the products of prior uncontrolled events. This does not mean that people are not deliberating, just that the reasons that have compelled their deliberating are the products of previous experience.<br />
<br />
For instance, you have two options in front of you. It doesn't matter if they are very similar options, or extremely different. In this hypothetical situation you must choose, or pick, one option. So you start to contemplate which is better. Better being a subjective preference. "Better" is a good place to start. The reasons you find something better all depends on influences. Whether or not the option is preferable to your mood, your tastes, your physiology, nostalgia, or it could even be something you think someone you want to like you would like, none of these factors are, even remotely, in your control. Whether they cause you to pick one or the other, or <b>not</b><i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>pick one or the other, is also not within your control. Though control is something you never really have. To be the author of our abilities and our actions, we would likewise have to be the authors of ourselves and everything else. However, we are not, and we are constrained to the physical laws of nature.<br />
<br />
Others might ask:<br />
<br />
"If we don't have free will, why do anything?"<br />
<br />
Sam Harris attacks this in his books and lectures, and I will attempt it as well. First, apart from dying, there is no such thing as not doing anything. You can "choose" to go home with the intent to lay in the bed for the rest of your life, but that is a reaction to learning there is no free will. If you logically conclude that free will is not present and then think that you can "choose" to just do "nothing" for the rest of your life, you would be contradicting your logic. In which case, it is exactly what you would have done, because prior events cause you to respond as such. Something Dr. Harris has said, and I'm paraphrasing, is that not doing anything, which you are suggesting, is an action, and attempting to do nothing is nearly the most difficult action for a human to do. If attempted, your body will start compelling you to move, and as time passes this urge will get stronger and stronger until you do move.<br />
<br />
The overall picture of what we call "choice" is actually just "response", and the responses we make are determined by everything that precludes them. Dominoes would be a good analogy here. If after reading this, you do something you think is <b>not</b> what you would have done otherwise, with intent to discredit me, then that is a response to reading this, because had you not read this, then there would be nothing for you to desire to discredit, and the action could not be made with the same intent.<br />
<br />
As of yet, I have found any attempt to counter this argument against free will, as well as those that simply propose free will on other bases, self contradicting and unsatisfying. My ethics professor in college and I argued this subject a few times, and with a doctorate in philosophy as well as law, he is quite good at arguing. His method of teaching is to assume a role of someone backing the arguments for the day's topic. Despite his prowess as an arguer, when the topic was on Sartre's "total freedom, total responsibility" theory, the arguments were unconvincing to me.<br />
<br />
For instance, his argument (when arguing Sartre's total freedom theory) against Nagel's article "Moral Luck" is that Nagel is stating that there is no choice, and that you should <i>choose</i> to believe his point. Which, if it is looked at like this there seems to be a contradiction, but it is being misinterpreted. Still, Sartre is not accounting for what causes the choice. Say someone reads the "Moral Luck" article and <i>chooses</i> to believe it. Why did they choose to believe it. Because they liked it? Because it was logical? Because they wanted to?<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>If the person chose it because the he/she liked it, why did he/she like it? Was it something that fell inline with some beliefs that were gathered in the experiences of this particular life? Experiences, mind, that were acquired entirely on luck. Unless, of course, the person planned his/her own conception and every external interaction for his/her entire life, a time that also must have been foreknown. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Was it because it was logical? Then, did the person <i> choose</i> to have a disposition toward logic? Again, if the disposition was not due to experiences, and it was a <i>chosen </i>value, why was it chosen rather than not?</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Was it simply because the person wanted to? Do we choose wants? Are we in control of why we crave the things we crave? Do these cravings have nothing to do with our physiology, culture, epoch, education, and all the other experiences we can not claim accountability for? Can a person choose to like the flavor of a food never tasted? If the person <i>chooses</i> to taste the food, can he/she be held accountable for disliking the taste?</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
My attempt to make this claim, as I was the only person in class in favor of "Moral Luck", or at least the only one voicing it, was rebutted by saying that I made the "choice" to believe "Moral Luck". An action based on a disposition that I cannot be accountable for.<br />
<br />
The argument really fell into tragic waters when he argued that we could choose whether or not to believe facts. When I attempted to attack this idea of choosing belief, I placed a pencil on the ground and asked "Can you believe that is not on the ground?" and he replied yes he can, based on quantum physics (which states that things, on extremely microscopic levels, don't actually touch one another). I understand now, that I should have held up the pen and asked "Can you believe this is not an object?" I may still attempt this. Still, the route taken with this argument is that the things we perceive as real, as knowledge, and as facts are all chosen or accepted beliefs rather than beliefs based on evidence. I starkly disagree with this. If things are not as they seem, then there is evidence (or obtainable information) of them being in a state that is "not as they seem". If things are as they seem then there is also evidence of this. If within the perception of the unaltered human eye something is a color, a shape, a texture, or in a relative position, it can, within the universally shared perception, be considered knowledge. If scientifically it is a tentative state, and the knowledge is tentative, then there is evidence of it being tentative knowledge.<br />
<br />
For example, the walls in my house are white. It could be argued that it is off white, grayish white, and so forth. It cannot be argued that the walls are purple. Despite how hard I try to <b>believe</b> they are purple, the evidence that the walls are white, has outweighed such nonsense. A belief is a calculation of observations, influences, and habits to determine something that is not being sensed or observed by an agent and by association, cannot be known as true. Still, belief can be very compelling. For instance, I strongly believe my car is still parked outside. The reason is, I have been parking it there for years, and it's always been there when I go to it. This belief is the product of habit. Belief cannot contradict subjective knowledge (e.g. I cannot believe my laptop is the moon of Jupiter, Io). I state that it cannot contradict <i>subjective knowledge</i> because many people believe in propositions that are in opposition to evidence. Most the time because of a lack of education in the field of the concerned subject. In which case it is understandable because, if you do not know something, you cannot take it into account when calculating.<br />
<br />
Even if you have a pseudo Cartesian perspective on reality, and believe that nothing is real, but rather everything is some sort of delusion, within the scope of said delusion, things can be measured and observed, which leads that in this possible delusion there is what is, and there is not what is not, despite the possibility of it not being this way. More to the point of the topic, their can be no claim to this perspective without using methods which are governed by disposition. Whether logic leads you down this route, or "choice", or the lack of other options, in no way does this give ground to the idea of free will.<br />
<br />
All this talk of knowledge and belief is important, because if the evidence was obsequious to (chosen) belief, rather than belief being servile to evidence, then the grounds of communication, observation, consciousness, and existence altogether fall apart. Nothing would make sense, and the world would be shifting and changing in ridiculous ways. If knowledge was a slave to belief, I could simply believe I was rich, and everyone would then know that I was rich. Also, I would somehow, inexplicably, have a fortune.<br />
<br />
This applies to my argument against free will in that, we cannot decide to believe as Sartre has led on. Belief, like everything else, is a function that we have no control over. If I believe that there is no presence of free will, then it is a response to certain influences. If someone believes that having belief is in support of the presence of free will, they have not thought it all the way through yet (a disposition they cannot be accountable for).<br />
<br />
So again, there is no free will. There is no choice. There is only response.<br />
<br />
This is all for now. I hope it has been enlightening. If you have any comments or complaints, please let me know, I will be happy to address them.<br />
<br />
Aufiderzein,<br />
Josh<br />
<br />
*I have been asked some good questions below, which allowed me to focus on some key points further. So by all means continue reading. I commented in some good points that I do not have in the main body.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057489232693452063.post-83165798778385707272013-04-21T15:26:00.002-07:002013-08-14T22:31:49.106-07:00Guns.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaJ5QCSeJPulpTt8oohCFyFmdUmxA9IB1eZsc7GMdwcR0JOWS7639Q8ZdlffcFVli5gwU6tabJHboEoalYCfZBowT_iaiRgMUjv6ifcKaCH0DruEHARC_1J1cJ4RpNlV9e77e305MGsdqN/s1600/banner_img_1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaJ5QCSeJPulpTt8oohCFyFmdUmxA9IB1eZsc7GMdwcR0JOWS7639Q8ZdlffcFVli5gwU6tabJHboEoalYCfZBowT_iaiRgMUjv6ifcKaCH0DruEHARC_1J1cJ4RpNlV9e77e305MGsdqN/s1600/banner_img_1.png" height="232" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The subject of guns is sensitive. Extremely sensitive. Whoever presented the maxim, "religion and politics should not be a topic of conversation at work", forgot to add guns in there. Saying anything negative or positive about guns in any public place is almost hazardous. Rednecks from lands undefined will magically show up with every intent to "beat sense into you" at the mere utterance of distaste toward guns. While in contrast, those in opposition are likely to skip to commencing fisty cuffs for anything in favor. So despite the maxims exclusion, it seems people are better off removing the topic from "the list of things that are safe to talk about".<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
According to the Gallup Polls, America is quite nearly split in half in regards to gun laws. Those opposing stricter gun laws and those in favor. It is easy to want to jump to the stereotypical conclusion that Republicans are against the stricter laws and Democrats are in favor. This may actually be a true assumption. However, what is <b>not</b> true, is stating that <i>all</i> Liberals are in favor of stricter laws, and <i>all</i> Conservatives are not. This is an unfair assumption, especially to those affiliating with a party due to other policies that some individuals find more pressing.<br />
<br />
What's worse about people who express this "jumping the gun" behavior, is that many do not understand or care to understand why they oppose or agree. They have jumped on some culturally indoctrined bandwagon which demands that a good Conservative must love guns and a good Liberal must not. The heads of these political parties have caught on and now resorted to treating their favoring masses as fanatics, and the masses respond by <i>being fanatics! </i>They swoon, and scream, and express their devotion without any care for policy. They become so integrated into their party that they no longer care what it actually <i>means </i>to be a part of the party. They become bias to the point of harmful negligence and overlook every contradiction on their side, while devotedly pointing out the mistakes on the other. I call this harmful, because people of this capacity would favor nearly any action from their prefered party, without consideration for the consequences, beneficial or not. They are pre-devoted to anything their prefered party presents. They are likewise to be pre-conflicting to the opposing parties policies. They don't care why someone is apart of the other party, just that they are, and they believe that those in the other party must love and support all the things they hate about the other party (which is everything, despite the fact that they haven't a clue what the opposing party's policies are).<br />
<br />
This perception is outrageously unfair, potentially harmful, and at the least untrue. It is with a childish fervor that these masses of fanatics depart from their senses to make way for a game of "all or nothing" in which you cannot propose to like some policies from one party and some policies from another. The very grounds on which I claim preservation of human dignity, that not just some, but most humans are of a capacity to take care of themselves, start to crumble under such bigotry. Fortunately, not everyone is such a fanatic, and more people are taking a stance in the political middle ground. There seems to be a growing number of people who practice thinking for themselves, but as those many <i>ad hominem </i>gun related memes you've seen on facebook suggest, there are still many who do not.<br />
<br />
So, what about guns? What is my assessment? Well first, I certainly think they should be legal, much like I think drugs should be legal. I think that making it illegal to use them is an insult to human judgement. Inadvertently stating that people on a whole are incapable making thought-out decisions on their own or lack the capacity to restrain themselves from causing harm, both of which are utter nonsense. Lets use drugs as an example since I brought it up. Say, cocaine was legal, would someone that could be considered a good parent tell their children that it's alright to snort a line. Even if we had an age requirement, would they say it's okay as long as you're 21. Definitely not. Lets move it up a notch. There is mountain of household cleaners in nearly every house, all of which are extremely dangerous and poisonous, however, they are perfectly legal to purchase. Considering this, is it okay for someone to tell their kids, or anyone else for that matter, that its okay to drink bleach? Of course not. Would good parents tell their children that it's okay to use bleach to poison someone else? Again, of course not. Now, lets replace the bleach with a gun. Even if it was sold at the gas station, most people have enough moral awareness to know that killing someone is bad. This does not exclude the possibility of someone who doesn't know, but this is not the norm.<br />
<br />
People who can relate or empathize to victims of horrendous crimes demand something to be done about gun violence. It may be a prudent thing to do, but people responding to tragedy do not have the capacity for objectivity. This means they would push for any change without concern of the overall consequence. In this way, many victims and empathetics are very much like political zealots. That is <b>not</b> to say that their behavior is, in any way, impractical. People respond to extreme acts by being extreme themselves. It's a perfectly normal response. This, however, does not remove the tag of being unreasonable, which is also a normal response.<br />
<br />
That said, unlike household cleaners and drugs, guns were made with the exclusive intent of killing. Whether for food or war, this is their function. The adaptation of the sport of marksmen has giving guns a somewhat benign existence. Likewise, the appreciation for fine engineering and mechanical physics, which I have in great abundance, has added positive reflection on guns. But guns should have some regulation.<br />
<br />
Although I disagree with him on many issues, I cannot help but think of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes when on the subject of gun regulations. Hobbes proposes a theory, called the social contract theory, that all people are at war against all others. Kind of a worldwide last man standing. He states that to maintain some level of peace, we have all agreed to an implied contract to restrain ourselves from inflicting the harm, that we surely wish to inflict, on others. This is full of holes that I will cover in a later post, but I wanted to bring it up because of an example he uses in his book "Leviathan". When trying to make his point that we all feel everyone has the drive harm everyone else, he uses the fact that most people lock their doors. If people did not believe people wanted to take advantage, then why lock doors? He takes it a step further by referencing that people often lock away their valuables from those they presumably trust. And now you get the basic idea.<br />
<br />
I certainly do not believe that everyone is scheming and waiting for the opportunity to harm me. These are the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic. However, there is a sliver of truth in it. We can reasonably say that sometimes there <b>is </b>someone who comes along hoping to inflict some sort of harm, whether it be assault or burglary. And even with the extremely low chance that this harmful infliction could happen, it is widely viewed and recorded that preventative measures, such as locking the doors, are prudent. Now if we try applying this to guns, we can easily rule out that everyone with a gun is scheming to shoot everyone else. We can almost as easily determine that nearly everyone who has a gun does not wish to have to shoot anyone. That being said, it does not mean that there is no one who wishes to shoot someone with a gun. Again, the chances of this is extremely low, but, just like locking the doors, there should be some preventative measures.<br />
<br />
I definitely think that some levels of screening are appropriate, and that only those who are in fear of failing such screenings will truly propose opposition to this. Just as society demands that an individual who wishes to drive a car must pass a particular competency related test to determine whether or not he/she is responsible enough to be allow to legally operate such a potential life threatening hazard, we should also demand they do so to be permitted to use a gun.<br />
<br />
Here I would like to make it clear that I am not fond of traditional thinking. Just because some old dead guys made rules, does not mean that the rules are morally correct. I have never understood the social claim that our ancestors were infallible simply because <i>they are our ancestors. </i>This is how dogmatic thinking is born. This is what allows people to stop thinking for themselves, a behavior which is supported with thoughts like "some people smarter than I am, have already figured this out". Truth is on many levels our children are of an intellect greater than theirs, yet many continue to praise them as some perfect source of knowledge. Not that I don't think our forefathers brilliant, because they rightfully were, just that we should not blindly take everything they have said as gospel. What we should do, and I think our forefathers actions suggest they agree, is to critically examine what they have taught, and make the necessary changes, dismissals, or advancements to their rules and teachings. Basically, we should recognize and account for their good intentions, but that does not mean we should become apathetic when trying to determine whether or not their teachings were, in fact, good. Now that I have expressed on some level my distaste for the usage of statements like "our forefathers said....", and "if it was good enough for our forefathers...", I would like to bring up the second amendment.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; text-align: start;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Under a critical eye it is a very morally sound right, but even if it was not, it is still substantial as a law. A good example of when morality and law is in conflict, would be drug use. Federally it's illegal to smoke marijuana, but there is nothing immoral about doing so. This does not mean that the law doesn't carry the weight, because it certainly does, and many people try to use the second amendment as supporting argument. Much of the time, however, they tend to only pay particular interest to parts of the amendment, which is "the right to bear arms". Most of which believe they should be able to bear arms without regulation Unfortunately for these people, that is not what the amendment says. The right is <b>not</b><i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>unlimited, and has always required regulation. In regards to the regulations, the greater the risk, just as with vehicles, there most certainly should be stricter regulations. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
My hope is to provoke a reasonable response. If you feel like you fit into any of these groups of extremist I have talked about, know that this is not an attack. The hope is for clarity, not condemnation. This is an attempt to allow people on both sides of the gun conflict to gaze upon a harmonic solution. An attempt to allow both sides to come to the conclusion, that despite some things, neither side is wholly right, but what is truly right, lies somewhere in between.<br />
<br />
This is a massive topic, and there is likely something I have left out, but I am going to stop here.<br />
<br />
I hope it was enjoyable and educational.<br />
<br />
Until next time<br />
<br />
-Josh<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057489232693452063.post-14809976270190914662013-04-19T13:09:00.001-07:002013-08-09T12:17:21.563-07:00Subjects of Interest<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCknmwTAcqvcD5tW-CI-Cd41pV2zCUVU8S6tkCvKTEF80UW5mkzojUl_Qxa7BbgbX7M2oq8i2yOUifW5chzF4o4ReSnUlHr5wRBatovAy2lDNKmubLFfiJFWyMIYhnmioSxvnH7dIs6GWb/s1600/Header+image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCknmwTAcqvcD5tW-CI-Cd41pV2zCUVU8S6tkCvKTEF80UW5mkzojUl_Qxa7BbgbX7M2oq8i2yOUifW5chzF4o4ReSnUlHr5wRBatovAy2lDNKmubLFfiJFWyMIYhnmioSxvnH7dIs6GWb/s1600/Header+image.jpg" height="160" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Just a little insight into what I'm planning:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: start;">
My hope is to attack many issues with this blog. Many are benign but many are controversial. I will try to be as objective as a subjective entity can attempt, and hopefully explain all points of view accurately. I will also give my own views and assessments on each subject with enough weight and evidence that it is hopefully unarguable. This is not, however, with hope of not being scrutinized. So, by all means, send your complaints. If there is fault, I will be happy to appeal. Being reasonable means, being able to accept logical criticism as well as being able to evolve one's thinking when new knowledge and evidence is revealed. If I feel your scrutiny or criticism is inaccurate, then I will produce a rebuttal. Argumentation, debating, and critical conversation are some of the best tools for discovering and understanding truth. </div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
I'm certain I will be able to come up with more issues to write about, but the list I have at the moment is as follows (probably not in this order and quite possibly more than once depending on the subject and its complexity).</div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
</div>
<ol>
<li>Gun Control</li>
<li>Abortion</li>
<li>Human Rights (social)</li>
<li>Consciousness</li>
<li>Morality/Ethics</li>
<li>Scientific Experiment vs Animal Rights</li>
<li>Education</li>
<li>Food Processing and Farming</li>
<li>Religion</li>
<li>Evolution</li>
</ol>
I can already think of many more, but ten seems like a good start. Plus, considering many, like the subjects of Religion, Evolution, Education, and maybe a couple others, there will be multiple post per subject.<br />
<div style="text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
I hope to have the next post written soon.</div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
Cheers</div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
-Josh</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057489232693452063.post-89290974098320672452013-04-15T22:43:00.000-07:002014-05-12T09:47:21.659-07:00Robots!!!<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdzTPxQ9RH0Irkg12eeDAjUBN9JoC0FBAmfmJXqqDWpf-x6s9c-UGyvfFtMy-v1bz9_V9QvATXxsyQYRDpbVaghIQYouMN3gvlcKPjlOtyAeKRiCEXCwE4RIw3NMkGuicS_a4x8vD7JIwy/s1600/Robots-banner-robots-1111664_800_100.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdzTPxQ9RH0Irkg12eeDAjUBN9JoC0FBAmfmJXqqDWpf-x6s9c-UGyvfFtMy-v1bz9_V9QvATXxsyQYRDpbVaghIQYouMN3gvlcKPjlOtyAeKRiCEXCwE4RIw3NMkGuicS_a4x8vD7JIwy/s1600/Robots-banner-robots-1111664_800_100.jpg" height="80" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yep, the first post is about robots, and for a huge reason. I've viewed many articles and streamed many videos with information regarding to robots of today, and of the future. Of the many are those that make notice of the decreasing mental capacity of humans who have fully immersed their lives with some device or another. An easy example, which most people can relate to, is losing the ability to recall phone numbers thanks to the contact feature on cell phones. Another, less popular example, is the loss of understanding one's position due to the use of navigational systems. I could note other negative effects of robots such as the loss of countless jobs due to the production of robot employed factories, but I would like to keep the subject focused on the consequences developed, or those that may be developed, in the brain through mankind's ever more intimate relationship with technology, and ultimately, robots.<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I would first like to point out that I LOVE ROBOTS! What self respecting nerd doesn't? And I do not intend to focus solely on their negative impressions. Rather, I am going to try and pose some possible outcomes, as well as determine if our reasoning, does infact, have a future. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The focus of this blog is to either subject a particular or general variable such as views, practices, developments, laws, ideas, and so on to reason, or promote the practice of reason and logic. It seems prudent then, that the first post clarify whether or not the use of reason will continue to be a necessary function for humans in the future. For those of you who dislike suspense, I think the answer is yes, we will continue to use reason. Not that I cannot dream up situations where we do not, but I would not have started a blog about reason had I felt it would become obsolete. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Back on point. Tools wrought by technology have accelerated and advanced many human functions. Need to lift something heavy? Use a lever or a pulley. Need to communicate with a friend at a distance? Use smoke signals, or a flare, or just use a handheld device to convert your voice into radio waves which travel soundlessly, at nearly the speed of light, to another device which deciphers the radio waves back into your voice for the recipient to hear. Need to do advanced calculations? Have too few fingers? Use an abacus or a calculator. Tools are amazing. They help us free up thoughts, energy, and time. With our freed up thoughts, energy, and time, we think of ways to advance tools we already have, or develop new tools to make other tasks easier. And so, as technology advances, so do humans. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The not so important side effect is that we become dependant on tools, and without them become crippled in many respects. As we develop, our focus on some thing or things enhance, but other actions become so ignored the parts of the body responsible for those actions shrink, wither, or decay. This becomes scary, and extremely important, when the body part that is not being used is the brain. But alas, we have them. I already mentioned the damage cell phones have done to our memory. But even further, the access to sites such as google, has diminished, on some level, the need to obtain and store knowledge. We now have supercomputers capable of answering any question presented in any form as well as calculate which questions need to be asked. We have reached an age where we have all knowing, super computing robots. And even if the information acquired required human intervention, which it does in some respects (i.e. They access information on the web, which is ultimately uploaded or coded in from humans), they will only be at the mercy of our discovery and input until we create dependable vessels for mobility. This is excluding some potential "self" forming, which may determine some way to hack into the infrastructure (much like in the movie Eagle Eye). Ones mobility is acquired, discovery and input will no longer solely require human intervention. But this is only one possibility, and likely to happen only in sci-fi specials. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Regardless of all this, we will continue on, advancing, like we always do. And robots, such as that, may be an inevitability, despite my claims. What is most plausible is that we find ourselves in a position to decide whether we intend a somewhat homologous master servant relationship, or something like a complete human machine integration. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I would definitely vote the latter, and it doesn't seem a long shot either. Developers are coming up with more and more ways for us just receive information on command. Soon there with be computers worn like glasses which may very well remove the handheld phone altogether. Eventually, humans will evolve to have a mentality that would forgo the taboo of inserting a device into the body or brain (this does not imply that some people today do not, just that on a whole, people won't mind). This would most likely allow brain-to-brain communication as well as being fully synced up with the web. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The reason I dislike the former is because I have seen too many robot apocalypse movies with outcomes that usually seem all too plausible. Plus, I feel the point of technology is the advancement of humans, and the production of android esk entities is in a way separating technology from human. Ultimately ending our advancement as they take on the lead as the most advance entities. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Regardless of what happens, for humans to continue existing, reason will definitely be required. Lets refer to the use of the intuitive understanding of basic physics. If, for instance, a large object is falling from a building directly at Bob (Our new hypothetical friend). Bob notices the object, and to avoid it, must have the desire to avoid it as well as the means to understand how to avoid it. He cannot simply take out his phone and look up on google, "why and how to avoid falling objects". Also, if he did not understand "why he should avoid the object" to begin with, then he would not have the capacity to look it up in the first place. SO, either Bob can use reason to understand the situation and move in the correct way to achieve safety or, dun dun dunn, Bob will die. (Yes die. I like Bob too, but I call the shots, and if he's stupid enough to just stand there, he dies.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What I'm trying to do is, show that despite our dependency on tools, we will require reason for as long as we value the things that humans value, "reason" among them. Our insatiable desire for understanding and exploration seems a great enough deterrent to any promotion of an existence without reason. Maybe one day, however, we will have such a great understanding of the human brain that we could develop tools that would then take place as the brain. Allowing the ability to learn anything instantly, calculate instantly and perfectly, perform perfect recall, yet maintaining the mysterious (in this day and age), parts that allow our humanity. This still would not remove the use, value, or need of reason. A purposeful life is necessary, and values, "reason" among them as I previously mention, give us that purpose. Reason given added importance due to its necessity in the function of determining value. If we are brilliant enough to confidently and accurately tinker with the brain, I doubt we would lack the capacity to ensure that we maintain our ability to reason less we damn ourselves to such a value ridden depression. No, I rather think we would go to great lengths to salvage such a priceless ability. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, there you have it. My first post. It was a bit lengthy, but despite that, I hope it was enjoyable to read. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Until next time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
-Josh</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17877097397923012517noreply@blogger.com0