The notion of persecution is often perverted by the persecutors, religions demonstrate this all too well. Most contain commands to deny and even kill anything that opposes the claims made by their leaders, this gives the persecutors (religious followers) the feeling of being persecuted by the ones who stand up to their persecution.
Religious leaders depend on this perpetual persecution complex, the followers must believe they are always the victims even if they are the vast majority. One result of this complex is what we see in Indiana, a step to establishing a theocracy by encouraging the followers to discriminate and convince them that anyone opposed to this is persecuting them in the same thought.
The perpetual persecution complex of the christians has been responsible for untold horrors and the production of some of our greatest threats to peace and prosperity. However showing the follower what their beliefs have perpetuated will only trigger cognitive dissonance, which fuels theSo persecution complex.
This is why we must work to prevent the indoctrination before it can establish this perpetual false victimhood in their minds, often something as simple as teaching critical thinking will inevitably result in too many unanswered questions from the leaders. The inability to answer questions with anything resembling sanity or fact is their weakness, all religions.
So get their leaders and parents talking, let them show their kids just how stupid religion has made them, let their kids see how insane their beliefs truly are. The christian rulers don't want them reading the bible, so post actual excerpts from that book regularly, it is the greatest too against itself, just focus on the crap they like to ignore.
Showing posts with label reality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reality. Show all posts
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Unchanging Gods Are Impossible
Lately I have been noticing irony more than ever, like my blog post about popularity being bad is unpopular, and the irony of how religion purports that unchanging is a good thing while changing to suit the whims of it's leaders.
This idea of unchanging, something that is never improved, being some sort of quality of perfection is so blatantly wrong it makes me wonder if any humans are worth keeping around when I hear religious people say "I have this book that has not changed for hundreds of years." Physics experts will confirm that everything is in a constant state of change in the universe, even the laws we created to describe it.
I can just picture many morons still trying to say that any perfect being must be unchanging, which is literally impossible. The simple act of existing is, in itself, change. One must pass through time to exist, and time is the fundamental force of change.
For something to exist outside of time it must not exist at all, because for any particles to exist they must be in a constant state of change, or movement. Movement of any sort is change, so for something to be active it must change.
Thought is absolute change, so to think of creating something you have to change. Every idea must develop from nothing, and settle into an ever improving form. That is unavoidable, nothing that thinks can avoid change.
Exertion of will is also change, it is the manifestation of change. So for a god to do anything it must change, and thus we know that the "unchanging god" claims are all lies, we can dismiss these even if they present evidence.
Essentially, nothing can remain unchanging and exist or act, not in this universe or any other.
This idea of unchanging, something that is never improved, being some sort of quality of perfection is so blatantly wrong it makes me wonder if any humans are worth keeping around when I hear religious people say "I have this book that has not changed for hundreds of years." Physics experts will confirm that everything is in a constant state of change in the universe, even the laws we created to describe it.
I can just picture many morons still trying to say that any perfect being must be unchanging, which is literally impossible. The simple act of existing is, in itself, change. One must pass through time to exist, and time is the fundamental force of change.
For something to exist outside of time it must not exist at all, because for any particles to exist they must be in a constant state of change, or movement. Movement of any sort is change, so for something to be active it must change.
Thought is absolute change, so to think of creating something you have to change. Every idea must develop from nothing, and settle into an ever improving form. That is unavoidable, nothing that thinks can avoid change.
Exertion of will is also change, it is the manifestation of change. So for a god to do anything it must change, and thus we know that the "unchanging god" claims are all lies, we can dismiss these even if they present evidence.
Essentially, nothing can remain unchanging and exist or act, not in this universe or any other.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
The Good Religion - Witches, More Correctly, Wicca
"Everybody loves kittes." This statement, while inane and wishful thinking, is completely false because it is tautology. Yet almost all religious claims are this statement, only the wording changes.
This is one of the the absolute proofs that religion is inherently wrong, an actual "gotcha" point which could be made against any religion. But not religious claims are dangerous, many can be inane or inconsequential, one such example are the Wiccan claims.
For that matter, let's look at the Wiccan claims exclusively for this post just because I need one decent religion mentioned in my blog. Wiccan believe in something like "and it harm none, do what thou wilt."
This phrase, thus one law, is much like the Golden rule, but unlike other religions, this is actually part of every Wiccan teaching and anything that opposes it is never considered true to Wiccan beliefs. Wicca is only one of the many pagan religions, and one that has a pretty solid doctrine.
The difference between a Wiccan saying "that's not Wiccan" and Christians saying "that's not Christian" is that the entire Wiccan doctrine is "and it harm none, do what thou wilt." Christians have a doctrine that contradicts itself and requires interpretation, while the Wiccan doctrine is pretty clear and easy to remember, the wording often changes but it's always clear.
Comparing Wiccan to Islam is no contest, the Quran is just badly written poetry with no inherent meaning other than "kill everyone who opposes this book." Wicca would never kill you for dismissing their claims, or even for opposing them.
There's the rule they live by in action, the modern Wicca have never been recorded doing anything as horrible as any of the other religions, and many of them love science more than us atheists. Most Wicca do not even claim any god as fact or adopt a deistic view of the universe, this makes them pretty damned cool.
A Wicca would never deny reality in place of their fanciful stories and mythology, and they will not get angry when you point out that their stories are mythology. This is because of their mindset, a pretty awesome and empowering idea that our lives are gifts given, and to squander this life or cause harm to others is to invite disaster.
Ironically they are so very close to reality with this idea that no sane person could ever deny it as fact. We pollute our planet and destroy the other animals, Wicca believe we are all connected, even the other animals.
Still more beliefs that fit reality, Wicca believe that our actions impact the entire world, if you deny that this is true then you are a danger to everything. The result is that most Wicca are very Earth friendly, doing everything they can to help everything, even people of other religions who treat Wicca with death and torture.
To forgive is divine, according to one religion that believes in eternal punishment, Wicca actually live by this and often allow slights to go without much more than an apology, often not even that is needed for them for forgive. Their only flaw is that they often forget as well, which invites more abuse, allowing the offender another opportunity to bring them harm.
Now the crux of it, I can safely state with all honesty that no Wicca will oppose anything I have written about them in this article, though some may say that what I wrote about the other religions is bad. This demonstrates why Wicca, and many other pagan religions, are safe from my anti-theistic wrath, they actually want peace on Earth now.
There is a "although" in here, in the past the religions that Wicca used to build their modern doctrine were not so nice, many were warmongering savages just like the Abrahamic religions. The difference is that they removed all that from their doctrine and even adopted a new name for themselves, based on an old word meaning "witch."
It is this drastic change in their beliefs that made them superior to the other religions, and the fact that they don't deny their dark and horrible past. Like scientists, they learned from their mistakes and corrected their behavior, and their doctrine, something the Abrahamic religions fail to do even after 100+ years of atrocities committed because of their doctrine.
So I say this to my atheists, mock the Wiccan doctrine for laughs, know that at they won't be shooting or beheading us for it, most often they will laugh with us as we laugh with them for jokes at our expense. This is what a good delusion looks like, oh wait, the final blow to Abrahamic religions, Wicca are not delusional.
This is one of the the absolute proofs that religion is inherently wrong, an actual "gotcha" point which could be made against any religion. But not religious claims are dangerous, many can be inane or inconsequential, one such example are the Wiccan claims.
For that matter, let's look at the Wiccan claims exclusively for this post just because I need one decent religion mentioned in my blog. Wiccan believe in something like "and it harm none, do what thou wilt."
This phrase, thus one law, is much like the Golden rule, but unlike other religions, this is actually part of every Wiccan teaching and anything that opposes it is never considered true to Wiccan beliefs. Wicca is only one of the many pagan religions, and one that has a pretty solid doctrine.
The difference between a Wiccan saying "that's not Wiccan" and Christians saying "that's not Christian" is that the entire Wiccan doctrine is "and it harm none, do what thou wilt." Christians have a doctrine that contradicts itself and requires interpretation, while the Wiccan doctrine is pretty clear and easy to remember, the wording often changes but it's always clear.
Comparing Wiccan to Islam is no contest, the Quran is just badly written poetry with no inherent meaning other than "kill everyone who opposes this book." Wicca would never kill you for dismissing their claims, or even for opposing them.
There's the rule they live by in action, the modern Wicca have never been recorded doing anything as horrible as any of the other religions, and many of them love science more than us atheists. Most Wicca do not even claim any god as fact or adopt a deistic view of the universe, this makes them pretty damned cool.
A Wicca would never deny reality in place of their fanciful stories and mythology, and they will not get angry when you point out that their stories are mythology. This is because of their mindset, a pretty awesome and empowering idea that our lives are gifts given, and to squander this life or cause harm to others is to invite disaster.
Ironically they are so very close to reality with this idea that no sane person could ever deny it as fact. We pollute our planet and destroy the other animals, Wicca believe we are all connected, even the other animals.
Still more beliefs that fit reality, Wicca believe that our actions impact the entire world, if you deny that this is true then you are a danger to everything. The result is that most Wicca are very Earth friendly, doing everything they can to help everything, even people of other religions who treat Wicca with death and torture.
To forgive is divine, according to one religion that believes in eternal punishment, Wicca actually live by this and often allow slights to go without much more than an apology, often not even that is needed for them for forgive. Their only flaw is that they often forget as well, which invites more abuse, allowing the offender another opportunity to bring them harm.
Now the crux of it, I can safely state with all honesty that no Wicca will oppose anything I have written about them in this article, though some may say that what I wrote about the other religions is bad. This demonstrates why Wicca, and many other pagan religions, are safe from my anti-theistic wrath, they actually want peace on Earth now.
There is a "although" in here, in the past the religions that Wicca used to build their modern doctrine were not so nice, many were warmongering savages just like the Abrahamic religions. The difference is that they removed all that from their doctrine and even adopted a new name for themselves, based on an old word meaning "witch."
It is this drastic change in their beliefs that made them superior to the other religions, and the fact that they don't deny their dark and horrible past. Like scientists, they learned from their mistakes and corrected their behavior, and their doctrine, something the Abrahamic religions fail to do even after 100+ years of atrocities committed because of their doctrine.
So I say this to my atheists, mock the Wiccan doctrine for laughs, know that at they won't be shooting or beheading us for it, most often they will laugh with us as we laugh with them for jokes at our expense. This is what a good delusion looks like, oh wait, the final blow to Abrahamic religions, Wicca are not delusional.
Friday, January 9, 2015
The Fallacies and Follies of Religion
The reality of a situation often escapes our senses, a fact that religious people only mention when trying to support the result of this fact. The ironies of religion are so numerous that one could spend decades listing, I wish to detail a few of them here.
The first one is the age of the universe, often religious people claim it's a few thousand years, and act as if this is a really long time. Even when Christians admit the Genesis account is made up they often say a day for the god could be "a thousand years," again thinking this is a long time.
They also fail to grasp what eternity means, citing that their god's idea of paradise is worshiping it "for all eternity." To understand what eternity is though, you must also understand what time actually is.
Time is an effect or force of existing, so it only applies to that which exists in a universe or reality like ours, outside of this time will be very different. However, the definition of eternity will apply to realities that do not even have a force of time.
Consider for a moment what that implies, reality defines time but time does not define eternity, in the same way that humans define math but math does not define infinity. So to grasp what eternity means to a being who is under the influence of our reality we must use what we call imagination, and once you understand the nature of time you realize how frightening eternity is.
Existing forever would destroy the sanity of a time bound mind, especially if that existence only includes one repetitive and mindless task. In essence, even in a paradise we would eventually beg to no longer exist.
It is said that by 2030 we will have conquered death, an unheard of claim until we applied scientific knowledge to it. This means we will have the option of living forever, for eternity, until this reality ceases to be.
But most will last maybe 500 years then switch off, allowing oblivion to claim them, if only out of boredom. Our minds are incapable of existing forever by nature of being bound to time, specifically linear time.
Consider this analogy: to a domestic feline 20 years, one fifth the lifespan of a human today, is an eternity. Yesterday 100 years to a human is an eternity, our observation of time is relative and so we cannot fathom eternal in any way, so to claim we know something is eternal is to lie.
An entire industry is dedicated to the fact that we cannot trust what we see, hear, or even feel. Our brains have this rather useful habit of trying to make sense of the world around us, but because of this we can fool it by presenting it with something which is nonsensical.
Religious leaders have historically used this same habit to sell their snake oil, because even concepts are affected by this habit. So how do you determine which is fact and illusion?
Religious people just go by what feels good, in other words, they fall for the illusion without ever questioning it. Enter the greatest tool invented by humans, science.
Science offers us a method of testing something to determine if it is fact or illusion, we can even use this in our everyday lives. The tests results are the key, should too many results differ then we know it's illusion.
The part often ignored by religious people is that the results must not differ, the claims are inconsequential to this. Touch a table and your hand cannot pass through, you don't truly know it's solid until you witness many hands being stopped as well, that is the scientific method.
The result is the same no matter who tests it, not matter who sees the results, no matter what the claim ever was, you can verify the results. If one person claims their hand passed through but did not do the test publicly you can reasonably ignore their claim, they did not present the results for public scrutiny.
Religious leaders are claiming their hands passed through the table while never showing anyone that they even tried the test. Religious followers often call this faith, but religious faith is only delusion.
Some pagan religions do leave their findings for public scrutiny and many will even change their beliefs to match reality, but none of their modern doctrine call for indoctrination, war, or death to those who oppose them. This is the best of both worlds, and one which can be tolerated, the alternative is to live as the Amish, apart from the rest of the world.
Denying humans are apes, the most heinous of fallacious dismissals of all. The deluded people will deny that we are apes because of the arrogance, if we admit we are animals then we must recognize that all other animals are our equals.
Often they say we would act like animals if we were yet they call for needless wars and torturing of their own, other animals don't, so how are we really better than the other animals, the beasts who only kill for necessity and instinctual drives, or us who have the ability to behave rationally but instead promote and spread violence and fear simply for the sake of violence and fear.
Another aspect of animals that we deny is unconditional love, anyone who cares for a domestic animal can tell you that humans know nothing of how to give love unconditionally. Unconditional means precisely that, not a single condition is required to be doted on in love, neither behavior, appearance, nor reciprocal love is required if the love is unconditional.
Religious people demand there always be conditions to love, either you must love them back, or the imaginary friends they call gods. Many even require you not "be" a certain way, like homosexual or black.
No cat I have ever met has had conditions to their love, even abused domestic animals will show love for the abuser, there is no condition to their love. But to demand that we love something or be tortured forever is conditional love, no matter how you try to justify it.
It appears I have some regular readers now, I would like to extend a quick thank you. You are the reason I have begun writing more lately, may logic and reason continue to guide your lives.
The first one is the age of the universe, often religious people claim it's a few thousand years, and act as if this is a really long time. Even when Christians admit the Genesis account is made up they often say a day for the god could be "a thousand years," again thinking this is a long time.
They also fail to grasp what eternity means, citing that their god's idea of paradise is worshiping it "for all eternity." To understand what eternity is though, you must also understand what time actually is.
Time is an effect or force of existing, so it only applies to that which exists in a universe or reality like ours, outside of this time will be very different. However, the definition of eternity will apply to realities that do not even have a force of time.
Consider for a moment what that implies, reality defines time but time does not define eternity, in the same way that humans define math but math does not define infinity. So to grasp what eternity means to a being who is under the influence of our reality we must use what we call imagination, and once you understand the nature of time you realize how frightening eternity is.
Existing forever would destroy the sanity of a time bound mind, especially if that existence only includes one repetitive and mindless task. In essence, even in a paradise we would eventually beg to no longer exist.
It is said that by 2030 we will have conquered death, an unheard of claim until we applied scientific knowledge to it. This means we will have the option of living forever, for eternity, until this reality ceases to be.
But most will last maybe 500 years then switch off, allowing oblivion to claim them, if only out of boredom. Our minds are incapable of existing forever by nature of being bound to time, specifically linear time.
Consider this analogy: to a domestic feline 20 years, one fifth the lifespan of a human today, is an eternity. Yesterday 100 years to a human is an eternity, our observation of time is relative and so we cannot fathom eternal in any way, so to claim we know something is eternal is to lie.
An entire industry is dedicated to the fact that we cannot trust what we see, hear, or even feel. Our brains have this rather useful habit of trying to make sense of the world around us, but because of this we can fool it by presenting it with something which is nonsensical.
Religious leaders have historically used this same habit to sell their snake oil, because even concepts are affected by this habit. So how do you determine which is fact and illusion?
Religious people just go by what feels good, in other words, they fall for the illusion without ever questioning it. Enter the greatest tool invented by humans, science.
Science offers us a method of testing something to determine if it is fact or illusion, we can even use this in our everyday lives. The tests results are the key, should too many results differ then we know it's illusion.
The part often ignored by religious people is that the results must not differ, the claims are inconsequential to this. Touch a table and your hand cannot pass through, you don't truly know it's solid until you witness many hands being stopped as well, that is the scientific method.
The result is the same no matter who tests it, not matter who sees the results, no matter what the claim ever was, you can verify the results. If one person claims their hand passed through but did not do the test publicly you can reasonably ignore their claim, they did not present the results for public scrutiny.
Religious leaders are claiming their hands passed through the table while never showing anyone that they even tried the test. Religious followers often call this faith, but religious faith is only delusion.
Some pagan religions do leave their findings for public scrutiny and many will even change their beliefs to match reality, but none of their modern doctrine call for indoctrination, war, or death to those who oppose them. This is the best of both worlds, and one which can be tolerated, the alternative is to live as the Amish, apart from the rest of the world.
Denying humans are apes, the most heinous of fallacious dismissals of all. The deluded people will deny that we are apes because of the arrogance, if we admit we are animals then we must recognize that all other animals are our equals.
Often they say we would act like animals if we were yet they call for needless wars and torturing of their own, other animals don't, so how are we really better than the other animals, the beasts who only kill for necessity and instinctual drives, or us who have the ability to behave rationally but instead promote and spread violence and fear simply for the sake of violence and fear.
Another aspect of animals that we deny is unconditional love, anyone who cares for a domestic animal can tell you that humans know nothing of how to give love unconditionally. Unconditional means precisely that, not a single condition is required to be doted on in love, neither behavior, appearance, nor reciprocal love is required if the love is unconditional.
Religious people demand there always be conditions to love, either you must love them back, or the imaginary friends they call gods. Many even require you not "be" a certain way, like homosexual or black.
No cat I have ever met has had conditions to their love, even abused domestic animals will show love for the abuser, there is no condition to their love. But to demand that we love something or be tortured forever is conditional love, no matter how you try to justify it.
It appears I have some regular readers now, I would like to extend a quick thank you. You are the reason I have begun writing more lately, may logic and reason continue to guide your lives.
Friday, December 26, 2014
The Question Of Verifications - The Rules Of Facts
One of our biggest problems, as a species, is our lack of verifying information and resources. This habit was not a natural one, and has no genetic traits to cause it, it is something we learned.
You can easily guess how we were taught this, so let's look at what I mean in more detail. Often there is a news story, or talk show "expert," which mentions some finding or discovery that has little to no evidence involved.
Another common story us the misrepresentation of the facts, when a mistake is made they ignore the correction and just run with it as some sort of miracle or mystery. Ultimately these stories ruin the wonder and beauty of the world by keeling people from asking more questions about it.
The reason this is done by media is to placate the masses, to prevent them from asking the questions allows the media to, essentially, control what people think and thus engineer their personalities and behaviors. Rather beneficial to those who are running things, as conspiratorial as this sounds, we know this has been happening for a while now.
Now the part about engineering society this way may sound farfetched to those unfamiliar with psychology and neurology. What we know and remember defines how we respond to stimuli, these are what influence the neural pathways in the difference engine portions of our brain, in other words, the personality.
When information is handed to us without any any external stimuli, it becomes a null pathway, meaning your brain will produce less emotion and use less logic when a similar bit of information or memory is presented. Essentially, you ignore it.
Until an emotional response is tied to information it is dead weight, preventing us from exploring it further, preventing us from growing and experiencing the world. We require actually experiencing the information to begin to ask questions again, thus tragedy rarely evoked an emotional response until it affected us directly.
This is also why science requires lab time when studying any subject, you must experience the tests and experiments to associate emotional responses that permit, and encourage, further exploration. Leading us back to the topic at hand, why so many people in the USA are so complacent and unwilling to even verify the sources, much less the actual evidence.
By quelling our curiosity in this manner, people will recite "studies" or "cases" they hear about in media without realizing they are either misrepresenting the data, or lacking most of the important information. This creates a black hole of knowledge as they condition their children to do the same simply by not accepting when the child just happens to have more information than they do.
Today children are exposed to an excess of information, and, in a trail by fire fashion, they are forced to learn how to verify sources, information, even tests and experiments. Skills their parents see as dangerous or evil, so the kids pretend to be like the parents until they move out.
This is the great effect of the Information Age, our youth are measurably more intelligent than all of us before them, and only because they learn this one ability and use it without hesitation. The benefit is that us older folks have a bright future as our children thrust us into the future, the drawback is that it's scary in spite of how much fun it is.
So my challenge to all adults today, let your kids learn and explore the world, then let those kids teach you. I have learned a lot by observing the behavior of children in the last decade, and what I have witnessed fills me with hope for our future, which I will be able to see because those same kids are now solving the problems my generation refused to even acknowledge.
You can easily guess how we were taught this, so let's look at what I mean in more detail. Often there is a news story, or talk show "expert," which mentions some finding or discovery that has little to no evidence involved.
Another common story us the misrepresentation of the facts, when a mistake is made they ignore the correction and just run with it as some sort of miracle or mystery. Ultimately these stories ruin the wonder and beauty of the world by keeling people from asking more questions about it.
The reason this is done by media is to placate the masses, to prevent them from asking the questions allows the media to, essentially, control what people think and thus engineer their personalities and behaviors. Rather beneficial to those who are running things, as conspiratorial as this sounds, we know this has been happening for a while now.
Now the part about engineering society this way may sound farfetched to those unfamiliar with psychology and neurology. What we know and remember defines how we respond to stimuli, these are what influence the neural pathways in the difference engine portions of our brain, in other words, the personality.
When information is handed to us without any any external stimuli, it becomes a null pathway, meaning your brain will produce less emotion and use less logic when a similar bit of information or memory is presented. Essentially, you ignore it.
Until an emotional response is tied to information it is dead weight, preventing us from exploring it further, preventing us from growing and experiencing the world. We require actually experiencing the information to begin to ask questions again, thus tragedy rarely evoked an emotional response until it affected us directly.
This is also why science requires lab time when studying any subject, you must experience the tests and experiments to associate emotional responses that permit, and encourage, further exploration. Leading us back to the topic at hand, why so many people in the USA are so complacent and unwilling to even verify the sources, much less the actual evidence.
By quelling our curiosity in this manner, people will recite "studies" or "cases" they hear about in media without realizing they are either misrepresenting the data, or lacking most of the important information. This creates a black hole of knowledge as they condition their children to do the same simply by not accepting when the child just happens to have more information than they do.
Today children are exposed to an excess of information, and, in a trail by fire fashion, they are forced to learn how to verify sources, information, even tests and experiments. Skills their parents see as dangerous or evil, so the kids pretend to be like the parents until they move out.
This is the great effect of the Information Age, our youth are measurably more intelligent than all of us before them, and only because they learn this one ability and use it without hesitation. The benefit is that us older folks have a bright future as our children thrust us into the future, the drawback is that it's scary in spite of how much fun it is.
So my challenge to all adults today, let your kids learn and explore the world, then let those kids teach you. I have learned a lot by observing the behavior of children in the last decade, and what I have witnessed fills me with hope for our future, which I will be able to see because those same kids are now solving the problems my generation refused to even acknowledge.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Evolution and Why There Are Still Things
Can we stop with the whole "why are there no monkeys turning into humans" and "why are there still monkeys" arguments? Please, it is pathetic now. These kind of arguments only demonstrate a complete lack of education and tell us that you are not interested in facts.
The first one, if any species ever evolved more human traits it would still not be a homosapien, it would be a completely different species from us. This is also assuming that our set of traits is always beneficial for all species in all environs, and that is laughable at best.
Evolution has no direction, none, humans are not the goal. Our particular set of traits contain a lot of vestigial traits and many flaws. It is only by our intelligence that we have over come these flaws before we were driven extinct, and then many still plague us. The real advantage we have is the combination of traits, all our individual traits appear in other species in varying degrees.
Your first hurdle with the argument of why nothing else evolves into humans is that you have to demonstrate evolution is directional. The whale demonstrates how lacking in direction evolution is, so you have a lot of work to do before you can convince anyone you have a point.
The second one is so ignorant I feel pity for those who ask why there are still monkeys. This argument is the same as asking why you have aunts, uncles, cousins, and distant relatives. Yes, monkeys are very distant relatives, chimps are closer, and other apes are practically the same family.
This leads me to the third idiotic argument, sorry religious nuts, we are apes. We are animals, because our traits are what we use to define such things. Evolution has nothing to do with us being apes or animals, this is just basic biology.
The first one, if any species ever evolved more human traits it would still not be a homosapien, it would be a completely different species from us. This is also assuming that our set of traits is always beneficial for all species in all environs, and that is laughable at best.
Evolution has no direction, none, humans are not the goal. Our particular set of traits contain a lot of vestigial traits and many flaws. It is only by our intelligence that we have over come these flaws before we were driven extinct, and then many still plague us. The real advantage we have is the combination of traits, all our individual traits appear in other species in varying degrees.
Your first hurdle with the argument of why nothing else evolves into humans is that you have to demonstrate evolution is directional. The whale demonstrates how lacking in direction evolution is, so you have a lot of work to do before you can convince anyone you have a point.
The second one is so ignorant I feel pity for those who ask why there are still monkeys. This argument is the same as asking why you have aunts, uncles, cousins, and distant relatives. Yes, monkeys are very distant relatives, chimps are closer, and other apes are practically the same family.
This leads me to the third idiotic argument, sorry religious nuts, we are apes. We are animals, because our traits are what we use to define such things. Evolution has nothing to do with us being apes or animals, this is just basic biology.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Mocking Religion Is Important
The answer to why we must mock religion is one I have touched on but never really answered directly. The answer is very simple, any ideology elevated above mockery becomes a tyranny.
Though ideology must never be above mockery, nothing is ever truly above mockery. Ridicule is the exception, ideology which is demonstrably harmful should be ridiculed, but other aspects of life should be off limits. Rule of thumb here, if it cannot be chosen then it's off limits unless it is demonstrably harmful.
The reason harmful ideologies must be ridiculed is to make them no longer acceptable, thus making them no longer harmful. Religion, as a whole, has been demonstrably harmful and is chosen. Prayer being an excellent example of the harm it causes to society.
Prayer has nothing to do with helping and everything to do with ego. People who pray are saying they are happy not actually doing anything but want everyone to think they are, so they announce that they are praying for someone who is suffering to draw attention to themselves, distracting from the person who is truly suffering.
We see this effect in medical doctors as well, the ideology has been acceptable for so long even the atheist doctors are willing to say platitudes in place of actually helping the patient, Virginia Mason and Harborview in Seattle do this quite a lot. Often prayer is used in place of real help resulting in the death of an innocent person, while the ones praying are allowed to continue to draw attention to themselves instead of being punished for their crimes.
Another event this problem often arises is when it takes very little to help, like say retweeting something on Twitter. Instead of tapping the retweet like they should, they just have to say "my prayers are with them." This makes it all about them and distracts from the actual problem. Some tweeps have actually gotten angry when I would point out how selfish they are being for saying such things.
To protect society from this selfishness and complacency, we mock prayer and religion, and ridicule the stupidity religion forces it's followers to embrace. Once it is no longer acceptable to harm others, or allow injustices to happen, because of religion, we will stop ridiculing and move on.
Now, before you get angry with any atheist who ridicules your religious nonsense, know this, we were once as stupid as you, and when we stopped being willfully ignorant we were ridiculed for wanting to learn, often abused for not accepting your myths, and distrusted for being more honest than any religious person has ever been. If you think silly pictures of your myths with phrases that show the idiotic ideas you believe are hurtful, at least we don't usually mock individuals until they display their stupidity.
We aren't attacking you, we are just telling the truth now.
Though ideology must never be above mockery, nothing is ever truly above mockery. Ridicule is the exception, ideology which is demonstrably harmful should be ridiculed, but other aspects of life should be off limits. Rule of thumb here, if it cannot be chosen then it's off limits unless it is demonstrably harmful.
The reason harmful ideologies must be ridiculed is to make them no longer acceptable, thus making them no longer harmful. Religion, as a whole, has been demonstrably harmful and is chosen. Prayer being an excellent example of the harm it causes to society.
Prayer has nothing to do with helping and everything to do with ego. People who pray are saying they are happy not actually doing anything but want everyone to think they are, so they announce that they are praying for someone who is suffering to draw attention to themselves, distracting from the person who is truly suffering.
We see this effect in medical doctors as well, the ideology has been acceptable for so long even the atheist doctors are willing to say platitudes in place of actually helping the patient, Virginia Mason and Harborview in Seattle do this quite a lot. Often prayer is used in place of real help resulting in the death of an innocent person, while the ones praying are allowed to continue to draw attention to themselves instead of being punished for their crimes.
Another event this problem often arises is when it takes very little to help, like say retweeting something on Twitter. Instead of tapping the retweet like they should, they just have to say "my prayers are with them." This makes it all about them and distracts from the actual problem. Some tweeps have actually gotten angry when I would point out how selfish they are being for saying such things.
To protect society from this selfishness and complacency, we mock prayer and religion, and ridicule the stupidity religion forces it's followers to embrace. Once it is no longer acceptable to harm others, or allow injustices to happen, because of religion, we will stop ridiculing and move on.
Now, before you get angry with any atheist who ridicules your religious nonsense, know this, we were once as stupid as you, and when we stopped being willfully ignorant we were ridiculed for wanting to learn, often abused for not accepting your myths, and distrusted for being more honest than any religious person has ever been. If you think silly pictures of your myths with phrases that show the idiotic ideas you believe are hurtful, at least we don't usually mock individuals until they display their stupidity.
We aren't attacking you, we are just telling the truth now.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Of Apes and Men
Even when I was young, I never understood why being related to a chimpanzee, or admitting we are apes, is such a difficult thing for religious people to do. It truly puzzles me. First, we have to be animals, there are only two other options to that one and minerals don't have imaginations.
Actually, I do understand the reason, what I don't understand is why they cannot .... grow up.
When we think of other species of animals, we often characterize and stereotype them to make them more comparable to our own species. This helps us to relate to them, one of the ways we see empathy helping our species learn to live with similar species in symbiotic relationships.
By stereotyping the species, we are able to identify those more like us, though it does have one flaw, which I am about to demonstrate why it's a flaw. So many have this stereotype of the "monkey throwing poo," or some other seemingly grotesque act.
Of course, these people are forced to ignore the fact that human children do, in fact, throw poo. Or even paint the walls with it, are very young ages. Watching a toddler explore the world around them, it's hard ignore just how similar we are to our distant cousins.
The denial of our similarities is a very complex subject, one that requires we look at many aspects of the human mind itself. The simplistic explanation is that every species has a segregation instinct, to distance themselves from those who they are not genetically compatible with for reproduction.
One of our beneficial traits is also a responsibility in itself, the ability to ignore, or even alter, our instinctual behaviors. It is the trait that not only allows us to advance our understanding of the universe, it is also why denying that we are apes is insulting to our species.
Very few species ever have the trait that allows them to control their instinctual behaviors like we do, it is a badge that should be worn with pride, and utilized as much as possible. But these people who want to deny our genetic lineage just because of a survival trait that's only suppose to prevent us from trying to breed with them are not using this rare trait our species have, they are, in fact, acting like apes more than anyone else.
It's rather ironic, the people who deny that humans are apes are behaving just like apes by doing so. So the next time someone denies our relatives in common with the chimpanzee or deny that we are not apes, ask them why they keep acting more like an ape than a human.
Actually, I do understand the reason, what I don't understand is why they cannot .... grow up.
When we think of other species of animals, we often characterize and stereotype them to make them more comparable to our own species. This helps us to relate to them, one of the ways we see empathy helping our species learn to live with similar species in symbiotic relationships.
By stereotyping the species, we are able to identify those more like us, though it does have one flaw, which I am about to demonstrate why it's a flaw. So many have this stereotype of the "monkey throwing poo," or some other seemingly grotesque act.
Of course, these people are forced to ignore the fact that human children do, in fact, throw poo. Or even paint the walls with it, are very young ages. Watching a toddler explore the world around them, it's hard ignore just how similar we are to our distant cousins.
The denial of our similarities is a very complex subject, one that requires we look at many aspects of the human mind itself. The simplistic explanation is that every species has a segregation instinct, to distance themselves from those who they are not genetically compatible with for reproduction.
One of our beneficial traits is also a responsibility in itself, the ability to ignore, or even alter, our instinctual behaviors. It is the trait that not only allows us to advance our understanding of the universe, it is also why denying that we are apes is insulting to our species.
Very few species ever have the trait that allows them to control their instinctual behaviors like we do, it is a badge that should be worn with pride, and utilized as much as possible. But these people who want to deny our genetic lineage just because of a survival trait that's only suppose to prevent us from trying to breed with them are not using this rare trait our species have, they are, in fact, acting like apes more than anyone else.
It's rather ironic, the people who deny that humans are apes are behaving just like apes by doing so. So the next time someone denies our relatives in common with the chimpanzee or deny that we are not apes, ask them why they keep acting more like an ape than a human.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Mouth - Closed or Open?
In the shelters there was a saying "a closed mouth never gets fed." The saying applies to many needs, in a sane society. The problem is that society is far from sane. This leads to the bigger problem, how does one define sanity?
A psychologist will define sanity as being a state where you are capable of rational thought. A psychiatrist will define sanity was whatever they want it to be. A medical doctor will call whatever they can charge the most for as being sane. Religious people though, they define sanity as agreeing with what they say. So far, only the psychologist has a viable, and logical, definition of the word.
So rational thought is what defines a sane society, however, most societies are incapable of rational thought. Let's look specifically at one of the least sane societies in the world, the society in the United States of America. In this society a majority of people still believe that the theory of evolution is some made up story, while asserting that their myths of creation are fact. There are many reasons this, on it's own, makes the society insane.
Another point in this is that the society in the USA cannot understand that biological organisms, what humans are, cannot be "normal" by any definition of the word, even medically. No aspect of life, as a whole, can not in any way be limited to anything resembling a "normal." Typical, or even average, can and does exist for life, but no definition of "normal" can be applied to anything alive. This particular point is one of the most common insanities in the human species.
There are finer points, and many of those, we could get into, but then we'll stray too far from this topic. The end result is that society is often less sane than the individuals making it up. It also results in the majority often being less sane than any minority group within said society. This is precisely why the USA is not purely a Democracy, mob rule or anarchy is not a viable method of governing the populace. However, the problem is that when the majority of those in power are as insane as the society, that insanity is fueled, never corrected.
So then the responsibility for helping to correct the insanity of society falls onto the minority groups, like LGBTI and atheists. However, our voices are small. So we must keep yelling and screaming to get even a small improvement in this society. Thus, our mouths must remain open at all times, we cannot be silent for even on minute of the day, lest people forget to listen to us.
But how can I know that we are more sane than the rest of society? Being a minority in any society is more difficult than going with the flow, we have to rationalize our every thought, running those thoughts through a gambit of "what if" and "should I" scenarios. The result is that our thoughts are based not on emotions, not on what some hoodoo holy man tells us, they are based on solid information, logic, and rational ideas. It's being in the minority that forces us to do that.
But what if the minority group becomes the majority group? Well then we have to question not only others in that group, but ourselves. This is why the majority, at this time, is insane. They do not question each other, and often refuse to even allow their ideas to be challenged by anyone. This is not rational. So even in such a case, some groups will remain rational as the majority, atheists are a prime example of this.
Now I must elaborate on that particular point, lest I get incoherent screams from people with no more logic than one's opinion on what to wear for that day. As a rule, atheists must challenge everything, even our own perceptions. This rule is inherent with being a skeptic or any form of doubt, and that's the one common trait of all atheists, we have doubts. We doubt everything, even what science has discovered. We question everyone, even our own perceptions of reality. We cannot be content with any answer either, if a better one comes along that is support by solid logic and verifiable information we will change our minds.
The problem is that there are many posers, though some are unwitting. They will jump onto a bandwagon that opposes the majority, or better, the bandwagon that opposes authority. They will cling to this label, as if being a minority group gives them some power or strength, of course that is until the guns are aimed at them, then they run off scared. But being an atheist does not mean we oppose authority, nor that we oppose all majorities, it simply means we do not believe in any gods, and by-proxy we do not believe in anything without verifiable evidence.
So the next time you see a minority group talking, try to pay attention, to listen to what is said. It's more likely they are the sane ones, and the majority are not sane.
A psychologist will define sanity as being a state where you are capable of rational thought. A psychiatrist will define sanity was whatever they want it to be. A medical doctor will call whatever they can charge the most for as being sane. Religious people though, they define sanity as agreeing with what they say. So far, only the psychologist has a viable, and logical, definition of the word.
So rational thought is what defines a sane society, however, most societies are incapable of rational thought. Let's look specifically at one of the least sane societies in the world, the society in the United States of America. In this society a majority of people still believe that the theory of evolution is some made up story, while asserting that their myths of creation are fact. There are many reasons this, on it's own, makes the society insane.
Another point in this is that the society in the USA cannot understand that biological organisms, what humans are, cannot be "normal" by any definition of the word, even medically. No aspect of life, as a whole, can not in any way be limited to anything resembling a "normal." Typical, or even average, can and does exist for life, but no definition of "normal" can be applied to anything alive. This particular point is one of the most common insanities in the human species.
There are finer points, and many of those, we could get into, but then we'll stray too far from this topic. The end result is that society is often less sane than the individuals making it up. It also results in the majority often being less sane than any minority group within said society. This is precisely why the USA is not purely a Democracy, mob rule or anarchy is not a viable method of governing the populace. However, the problem is that when the majority of those in power are as insane as the society, that insanity is fueled, never corrected.
So then the responsibility for helping to correct the insanity of society falls onto the minority groups, like LGBTI and atheists. However, our voices are small. So we must keep yelling and screaming to get even a small improvement in this society. Thus, our mouths must remain open at all times, we cannot be silent for even on minute of the day, lest people forget to listen to us.
But how can I know that we are more sane than the rest of society? Being a minority in any society is more difficult than going with the flow, we have to rationalize our every thought, running those thoughts through a gambit of "what if" and "should I" scenarios. The result is that our thoughts are based not on emotions, not on what some hoodoo holy man tells us, they are based on solid information, logic, and rational ideas. It's being in the minority that forces us to do that.
But what if the minority group becomes the majority group? Well then we have to question not only others in that group, but ourselves. This is why the majority, at this time, is insane. They do not question each other, and often refuse to even allow their ideas to be challenged by anyone. This is not rational. So even in such a case, some groups will remain rational as the majority, atheists are a prime example of this.
Now I must elaborate on that particular point, lest I get incoherent screams from people with no more logic than one's opinion on what to wear for that day. As a rule, atheists must challenge everything, even our own perceptions. This rule is inherent with being a skeptic or any form of doubt, and that's the one common trait of all atheists, we have doubts. We doubt everything, even what science has discovered. We question everyone, even our own perceptions of reality. We cannot be content with any answer either, if a better one comes along that is support by solid logic and verifiable information we will change our minds.
The problem is that there are many posers, though some are unwitting. They will jump onto a bandwagon that opposes the majority, or better, the bandwagon that opposes authority. They will cling to this label, as if being a minority group gives them some power or strength, of course that is until the guns are aimed at them, then they run off scared. But being an atheist does not mean we oppose authority, nor that we oppose all majorities, it simply means we do not believe in any gods, and by-proxy we do not believe in anything without verifiable evidence.
So the next time you see a minority group talking, try to pay attention, to listen to what is said. It's more likely they are the sane ones, and the majority are not sane.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Climate Change - A Debate That Misses The Point
I have heard the argument from both sides, I have also looked into the information as much as I can stand, climatology is a really boring subject to me. But so far only the real scientists have said anything that makes any real sense based on everything I have come to understand.
But what do the scientists say? They admit to not knowing the answer, of course, that's the most common answer you will get from a good scientist. When confronted by both sides of this particular debate, climatologists have given one consistent answer: let us finish the work before you do change anything.
Which is actually the best advice in almost any aspect of your life. You need all the facts about something before you can make an informed decision, even with all the facts you can still make the wrong decision but the facts decrease the chances of that decision causing more harm. So why the push from both sides for different actions? Well, money. Specifically people who want to dip their hands into your taxes and take however much they can grab.
If you know me, you know I love capitalism, but admit we do need social programs to keep society moving forward. So why should I care about companies trying to turn a profit? It's not the profit, it's how. Predatory policies that force you to purchase from specific companies is not capitalism, that is closer to communism. This is exactly what the lobbyists are supporting, attempting to make one company's products look like the best idea then outlaw all the competition.
This holds true for both sides though. The telltale sign is the lobbying itself, the quick soundbites that attempt to paint the opposition in a more horrible light without presenting any solid facts on the issue. So yes, again it's how our government works that is the real problem. The facts in this particular case are still showing no causal links, none, that can shed light on the matter.
Yes, we know that carbon can create a greenhouse effect, but life is made of carbon as well. Methane can also create a greenhouse effect, but this is a byproduct of life. As temperatures rise, many such gases also increase as a result of the rise in temperature, making it difficult to draw any solid causal links, you can't tell which is the horse, and which is the cart. This is just the beginning of the problems with both sides of the debate.
Trends, this is statistical information, are not set in stone, they are predictions, and rarely hold true. At best, a trend is used as a starting point for other predictions based on the numerical values of similar circumstances. This does not make their results fact, ever, at all, in any way. They are educated guesses at best. The entire debate started when these trends did not match the reality, which any scientist will tell you is pretty much expected to happen.
That basically means that the side screaming doom and gloom have based everything on something that was expected to be incorrect by the very people who actually do the scientific research. This is where it gets really messy though, because those opposing these people are just as wrong, and just as dangerous. If we act now, without knowing all the facts, we could actually cause a bigger problem, even cause our own extinction. So premature action can destroy us, that's one part missed often.
But action in the reverse is just as bad. For decades we have been working to keep our air clean, and sanely reducing our waste. As a species we have been looking into new technologies and possibilities, knowing our population will, inherently, produce waste we needed to balance our waste so that it would match that of a much smaller, more realistic, population than we actually have. Countermanding all that work would return us to the Dark Age level of sanitation and cleanliness, but on a more massive scale that would destroy us.
So what is the best solution? Business as usual. Neither side need be listened too, both are wrong, both are extremists crying for attention, an advantage for their pet products, and often just because their lives are so boring they have nothing better to do. Yes, companies across the globe have always been looking for better ways to do things, sometimes it's because they think it's what's right, other times because the right thing does improve the bottom line, but rarely do they do the right thing because the government told them to do it.
So yes, keep working toward a better future, but the direction we have been moving is the best for everyone still, we have no facts stating otherwise. Next time someone shows you one of those charts, on either side, ask them a very basic question: Are you a climatologist? If the answer is "no," then tell them their information is invalid.
But what do the scientists say? They admit to not knowing the answer, of course, that's the most common answer you will get from a good scientist. When confronted by both sides of this particular debate, climatologists have given one consistent answer: let us finish the work before you do change anything.
Which is actually the best advice in almost any aspect of your life. You need all the facts about something before you can make an informed decision, even with all the facts you can still make the wrong decision but the facts decrease the chances of that decision causing more harm. So why the push from both sides for different actions? Well, money. Specifically people who want to dip their hands into your taxes and take however much they can grab.
If you know me, you know I love capitalism, but admit we do need social programs to keep society moving forward. So why should I care about companies trying to turn a profit? It's not the profit, it's how. Predatory policies that force you to purchase from specific companies is not capitalism, that is closer to communism. This is exactly what the lobbyists are supporting, attempting to make one company's products look like the best idea then outlaw all the competition.
This holds true for both sides though. The telltale sign is the lobbying itself, the quick soundbites that attempt to paint the opposition in a more horrible light without presenting any solid facts on the issue. So yes, again it's how our government works that is the real problem. The facts in this particular case are still showing no causal links, none, that can shed light on the matter.
Yes, we know that carbon can create a greenhouse effect, but life is made of carbon as well. Methane can also create a greenhouse effect, but this is a byproduct of life. As temperatures rise, many such gases also increase as a result of the rise in temperature, making it difficult to draw any solid causal links, you can't tell which is the horse, and which is the cart. This is just the beginning of the problems with both sides of the debate.
Trends, this is statistical information, are not set in stone, they are predictions, and rarely hold true. At best, a trend is used as a starting point for other predictions based on the numerical values of similar circumstances. This does not make their results fact, ever, at all, in any way. They are educated guesses at best. The entire debate started when these trends did not match the reality, which any scientist will tell you is pretty much expected to happen.
That basically means that the side screaming doom and gloom have based everything on something that was expected to be incorrect by the very people who actually do the scientific research. This is where it gets really messy though, because those opposing these people are just as wrong, and just as dangerous. If we act now, without knowing all the facts, we could actually cause a bigger problem, even cause our own extinction. So premature action can destroy us, that's one part missed often.
But action in the reverse is just as bad. For decades we have been working to keep our air clean, and sanely reducing our waste. As a species we have been looking into new technologies and possibilities, knowing our population will, inherently, produce waste we needed to balance our waste so that it would match that of a much smaller, more realistic, population than we actually have. Countermanding all that work would return us to the Dark Age level of sanitation and cleanliness, but on a more massive scale that would destroy us.
So what is the best solution? Business as usual. Neither side need be listened too, both are wrong, both are extremists crying for attention, an advantage for their pet products, and often just because their lives are so boring they have nothing better to do. Yes, companies across the globe have always been looking for better ways to do things, sometimes it's because they think it's what's right, other times because the right thing does improve the bottom line, but rarely do they do the right thing because the government told them to do it.
So yes, keep working toward a better future, but the direction we have been moving is the best for everyone still, we have no facts stating otherwise. Next time someone shows you one of those charts, on either side, ask them a very basic question: Are you a climatologist? If the answer is "no," then tell them their information is invalid.
Information - Why the Free Information Has Increased It's Value
This era is often called the Information Age, a time when information became free, and at our fingertips. I have spent the last decade reading scientific papers, often donated by scientists who love to see someone fascinated in their area of expertise. I have watched lectures, of varying levels of education, for free on various sites. I have discussed this information with others, scientists in the fields and those studying them. All because I have the most insatiable sense of curiosity.
My primary focus has been on biochemistry, medicine, and neurology. This has brought me into neighboring fields of study to help supplement the information. I finally took a break then looked back on everything I had learned, refreshing my memory, basically. Suddenly it dawned on me, I had just learned enough to earn master's degrees in at least three fields of scientific research, and it didn't cost thousands of dollars. Far from it, most of it was completely free, often just for the asking.
First, what drew me to the fields was my strong background in chemistry, and a fascination with how chemicals interact with each other. When I learned that complex organisms were really walking chemistry labs, my curiosity got the better of me, I dove in head first. Picturing the chemical interactions within the human body became a way to relax, tracing the rout of a single carbon atom through all the chemical reactions while it travels into and out of the various cells. That sense of knowing something set my mind at ease during hard times.
But that's not the meat of this post, what I am illustrating is just how much more valuable information is today than ever before. Sort of the inverse of supply and demand constructs. One would think that the huge influx of free information, with all the excess junk also mixed in, the value of the information would fall to nothing. The junk is, luckily, not the reason for it increasing in value.
The reason it has increased in value is the same reason many lobby groups in the USA are trying to censor and control the flow of information, people can learn more than those who pay for it. This creates a huge imbalance of information in the real world, one which has upset many of those with higher educations to the point of decrying the internet as a whole. The phrase "where'd you hear that? Off the internet" is meant as a slur against those of us not stupid enough to pay for what we can get for free.
When I go to a doctor I have to pretend to be stupid, actually, the moment you betray even a small amount of knowledge in something, the rage that fills their mannerisms is plain to see. They genuinely hate you just for knowing even one thing that they spent thousands of dollars to learn. Professionals cannot tolerate any competition, nor do they like having their elitist clubs threatened by something they cannot control. So in spite of the fact that I know more about what's going on that most doctors, I play like I am ignorant so that I can get what I need from them, a second opinion and the proper medication legally.
I made the mistake of letting my general care doctor learn of just a small amount of what I knew, my diagnosis was accurate, her diagnosis made out of anger was not. Another doctor even said she was wrong, and stated my diagnosis was correct, even though I did not let him know it was my diagnosis. So the information I have learned is more valuable than the information they have learned, only because I learned it out of curiosity, for almost no cost, while they spent thousands in the hopes of making millions for that same information.
This does not mean you should take everything you read online as fact, far from it. You must sift through a lot of junk sometimes, forming connections online with various professionals can help, many of the ones who frequent the internet social sites are always too happy to talk about what they know. Scientists, real ones, who frequent social sites are also very happy to show off the papers they write that have passed peer review, meaning they are as close to factual as you can get at the time. That pesky peer review method, where everyone and their mother tries to destroy your hard work through any means possible, but more papers are withstanding this barrage every day.
That is he key to if a source is valid, the scientific method has produced an explosion of solid information that is often shared freely by those who utilize it. So don't be shy, learn what you can. Open up the links to scientific research, talk to the scientific communities, discuss and ask questions. Seek the lectures shared by universities, for free, on media sites. Most importantly, fuel your curiosity. Start letting the elitists know that they are no longer necessary, they can be replaced if they don't shape up, if they don't start treating everyone right.
My primary focus has been on biochemistry, medicine, and neurology. This has brought me into neighboring fields of study to help supplement the information. I finally took a break then looked back on everything I had learned, refreshing my memory, basically. Suddenly it dawned on me, I had just learned enough to earn master's degrees in at least three fields of scientific research, and it didn't cost thousands of dollars. Far from it, most of it was completely free, often just for the asking.
First, what drew me to the fields was my strong background in chemistry, and a fascination with how chemicals interact with each other. When I learned that complex organisms were really walking chemistry labs, my curiosity got the better of me, I dove in head first. Picturing the chemical interactions within the human body became a way to relax, tracing the rout of a single carbon atom through all the chemical reactions while it travels into and out of the various cells. That sense of knowing something set my mind at ease during hard times.
But that's not the meat of this post, what I am illustrating is just how much more valuable information is today than ever before. Sort of the inverse of supply and demand constructs. One would think that the huge influx of free information, with all the excess junk also mixed in, the value of the information would fall to nothing. The junk is, luckily, not the reason for it increasing in value.
The reason it has increased in value is the same reason many lobby groups in the USA are trying to censor and control the flow of information, people can learn more than those who pay for it. This creates a huge imbalance of information in the real world, one which has upset many of those with higher educations to the point of decrying the internet as a whole. The phrase "where'd you hear that? Off the internet" is meant as a slur against those of us not stupid enough to pay for what we can get for free.
When I go to a doctor I have to pretend to be stupid, actually, the moment you betray even a small amount of knowledge in something, the rage that fills their mannerisms is plain to see. They genuinely hate you just for knowing even one thing that they spent thousands of dollars to learn. Professionals cannot tolerate any competition, nor do they like having their elitist clubs threatened by something they cannot control. So in spite of the fact that I know more about what's going on that most doctors, I play like I am ignorant so that I can get what I need from them, a second opinion and the proper medication legally.
I made the mistake of letting my general care doctor learn of just a small amount of what I knew, my diagnosis was accurate, her diagnosis made out of anger was not. Another doctor even said she was wrong, and stated my diagnosis was correct, even though I did not let him know it was my diagnosis. So the information I have learned is more valuable than the information they have learned, only because I learned it out of curiosity, for almost no cost, while they spent thousands in the hopes of making millions for that same information.
This does not mean you should take everything you read online as fact, far from it. You must sift through a lot of junk sometimes, forming connections online with various professionals can help, many of the ones who frequent the internet social sites are always too happy to talk about what they know. Scientists, real ones, who frequent social sites are also very happy to show off the papers they write that have passed peer review, meaning they are as close to factual as you can get at the time. That pesky peer review method, where everyone and their mother tries to destroy your hard work through any means possible, but more papers are withstanding this barrage every day.
That is he key to if a source is valid, the scientific method has produced an explosion of solid information that is often shared freely by those who utilize it. So don't be shy, learn what you can. Open up the links to scientific research, talk to the scientific communities, discuss and ask questions. Seek the lectures shared by universities, for free, on media sites. Most importantly, fuel your curiosity. Start letting the elitists know that they are no longer necessary, they can be replaced if they don't shape up, if they don't start treating everyone right.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
A Fond Farewell - The Dangers Of Smoking
At least this post could be, any of my posts could be my last, technically. That is part of what makes life both interesting, and scary, the thrill of not knowing what the future holds. However, that future becomes less and less of a mystery the more we learn about how the human body works, which tends to make life more scary and less interesting.
This is a flaw of modern medical science I had not considered, until just tonight. For the last week I have noticed symptoms that are common in throat cancer, and strep throat. Right now it is a toss up between the two, considering I live in a big city, going shopping is taking a huge risk with your health, you will come into contact with people who have all sorts of illnesses and not even know it. However, I have a very bad habit of smoking, and thus the throat cancer is also as likely as the other. This is what started me to thinking about my future, so suddenly, and what the implications of cancer would be.
It would be dishonest to say I am not genuinely scared about this, the awe and wonder, the splendor of life itself, has suddenly been overshadowed by the fear that I may have caused my life to be cut very short. Being only 39 years, I should have at least another 50 years of life, had I not been so stupid. I have mixed feelings about making this mistake, as you know I do not think we should regret anything we do in life, even our mistakes make up who we are, but this time I am beginning to feel regret about this one.
But let's look at this more in depth, to understand why I feel regret I had to think more on the decision that was such a huge mistake. What did I learn from it, oddly the addiction to nicotine is the one and only reason I did not try any really hard drugs, even so far as to avoid prescription pain medications whenever possible out of fear of becoming addicted to them. There are many pains I have never told my doctor about, because I know they will just prescribe pain medications for them anyway.
Okay, so that is one good outcome of the decision, but that can't be all, that can not in any way be the only good thing to come of it. Nicotine is suppose to have a benefit, and effect that's desirable, it's suppose to calm you, right? Well, yeah, sure, the same way sucking on a pacifier would calm you, and that's it. There is no real calming effect to smoking. The calming effect of nicotine is so mild that it is unnoticeable, the smoking itself has a much bigger calming effect, but that could be achieved by sucking on anything, really.
So then perhaps being an example of what not to do, well yeah, that's great, for the people who learn from your mistake. For you, being an example of what not to do has no benefit, none at all, because there are many more just like you, who made the same mistake as you, and none of you will stand out, or be remembered for that mistake. This is not a good outcome of your mistake, if anything it's beneficial for other people, but has no benefit to you, because the benefit to other people is when you become nothing more than another statistic.
Is smoking a part of my personality? Not really. It is one decision that would have had no impact on my personality at all. I learned little from it, had little change in influence because of it, and my social interactions would have never been impacted either way. It has the same impact on my personality as what I ate for lunch last year, during the Spring equinox did. I have found one decision, one choice, in my entire life that I can, and should, regret.
I still do not recant my assertion that you should not regret your decisions, but you should really consider why you made those decisions and consider if making a different one would impact who you are before you regret them. If the decision would not effect your personality, if you would learn nothing from it, if it would have only harmed you, then you should regret it. However, if a decision did result in something that would change your personality or teach you a valuable lesson, you should not regret it no matter how bad you think the outcome was.
I regret smoking, it would have been better and I would still be the same person if I had never started this bad habit. There is no benefit, there is nothing to learn from it, there is only danger, risk of a horrible life and death, that is all smoking has to offer. Yet, I still do not believe it should be made illegal, actually no drugs should be made illegal, because that actually does encourage people to do it more than making it readily available. We need education more than anything, I will always call education the cure-all for everything, because it really is the only thing that has demonstrated a flawless track record in decreasing problems in our species.
This is a flaw of modern medical science I had not considered, until just tonight. For the last week I have noticed symptoms that are common in throat cancer, and strep throat. Right now it is a toss up between the two, considering I live in a big city, going shopping is taking a huge risk with your health, you will come into contact with people who have all sorts of illnesses and not even know it. However, I have a very bad habit of smoking, and thus the throat cancer is also as likely as the other. This is what started me to thinking about my future, so suddenly, and what the implications of cancer would be.
It would be dishonest to say I am not genuinely scared about this, the awe and wonder, the splendor of life itself, has suddenly been overshadowed by the fear that I may have caused my life to be cut very short. Being only 39 years, I should have at least another 50 years of life, had I not been so stupid. I have mixed feelings about making this mistake, as you know I do not think we should regret anything we do in life, even our mistakes make up who we are, but this time I am beginning to feel regret about this one.
But let's look at this more in depth, to understand why I feel regret I had to think more on the decision that was such a huge mistake. What did I learn from it, oddly the addiction to nicotine is the one and only reason I did not try any really hard drugs, even so far as to avoid prescription pain medications whenever possible out of fear of becoming addicted to them. There are many pains I have never told my doctor about, because I know they will just prescribe pain medications for them anyway.
Okay, so that is one good outcome of the decision, but that can't be all, that can not in any way be the only good thing to come of it. Nicotine is suppose to have a benefit, and effect that's desirable, it's suppose to calm you, right? Well, yeah, sure, the same way sucking on a pacifier would calm you, and that's it. There is no real calming effect to smoking. The calming effect of nicotine is so mild that it is unnoticeable, the smoking itself has a much bigger calming effect, but that could be achieved by sucking on anything, really.
So then perhaps being an example of what not to do, well yeah, that's great, for the people who learn from your mistake. For you, being an example of what not to do has no benefit, none at all, because there are many more just like you, who made the same mistake as you, and none of you will stand out, or be remembered for that mistake. This is not a good outcome of your mistake, if anything it's beneficial for other people, but has no benefit to you, because the benefit to other people is when you become nothing more than another statistic.
Is smoking a part of my personality? Not really. It is one decision that would have had no impact on my personality at all. I learned little from it, had little change in influence because of it, and my social interactions would have never been impacted either way. It has the same impact on my personality as what I ate for lunch last year, during the Spring equinox did. I have found one decision, one choice, in my entire life that I can, and should, regret.
I still do not recant my assertion that you should not regret your decisions, but you should really consider why you made those decisions and consider if making a different one would impact who you are before you regret them. If the decision would not effect your personality, if you would learn nothing from it, if it would have only harmed you, then you should regret it. However, if a decision did result in something that would change your personality or teach you a valuable lesson, you should not regret it no matter how bad you think the outcome was.
I regret smoking, it would have been better and I would still be the same person if I had never started this bad habit. There is no benefit, there is nothing to learn from it, there is only danger, risk of a horrible life and death, that is all smoking has to offer. Yet, I still do not believe it should be made illegal, actually no drugs should be made illegal, because that actually does encourage people to do it more than making it readily available. We need education more than anything, I will always call education the cure-all for everything, because it really is the only thing that has demonstrated a flawless track record in decreasing problems in our species.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
The Best Time To Live - Nostalgia Is A Lie
We, as a species, have a habit of lying to ourselves, a lot. We often regale each other with stories of times past, painting them in this memorable light of perfection, as if we really enjoyed that moment more than now. But it's all a lie, really, a lie we tell ourselves. Being an emotional species we have a tendency to recall the extremes more than other things, like extreme happiness, fear, sadness, or even anger. But our minds focus more on what makes us happy, what makes us want to live, basically.
On it's own, this lie is not harmful, it keeps us going, we try to repeat those feelings of joy and enjoyment. But in the long run it can be very detrimental, if we insist on living in the past times we felt this way, we may lose the drive to move forward. We see this problem very clearly in those who reminisce about things they don't even recall, times they didn't even live.
Renaissance fans are probably the most notorious, they paint this era as perfect and rosy. Yet that era was full of disease, everyone was dirty, and you were lucky if your own food didn't kill you. People killed each other in the streets, law was only for those who could afford it, and pests were your pets. People knew almost nothing, other than who not to piss off in their neighborhood. Most children were abandoned or orphaned at young ages. People were not kind to each other in any meaningful way.
There are people who think the 1980s were so great too, simple lives, with no care in the world. I grew up in the '80s, trust me, it sucked, it sucked so much I do not miss anything in my childhood. People were still pretty violent, and rude to each other. The music was just random noise set to a beat with random words for lyrics. Art was bland and often monochromatic. Computers were still bulky machines that were just glorified calculators. Illnesses plagued us, even the common cold could kill you. Also, people denied most of the scientific understanding we had then, which was still very little compared to the best time to have lived.
The 1990s were not much better, we did get a handle on violence. Video games offered us better entertainment. Movies improved, so did the music, but the art was still horrible. Slang became very strange, the word "like" was abuse more than any other word in the English language. Medicine did improve a lot, but still had some major problems, diagnosing conditions was less than adequate. Technology finally matured, we got connected, began filling this new world with every bit of information we could find. But it was still far from great.
The 2000s are the best, right now, here, today, this very second. However, that will change, next year will be the best, then the next year, then the next year. Our species is always improving, that's a given, it's the fundamental drive for all living organisms. So yesterday will never be the best time to live, because today is always the best time to live. In 2050, when I am old and growing tired of living, I will look back on this and smile, because even when I am tired of living I will still know that I am in the best time to live.
Oddly, this is the thought that keeps me going, keeps me working to live in spite of the problems I face. Who knows, maybe tomorrow someone will find a way to make my problems better, that's the greatest thing about tomorrow, you never know what will happen. So if you ever hear anyone say they wish they had lived in some past era, point out all the great things we have today, here's a list we have this very moment that should make you feel proud to be alive today:
1. This is the most peaceful time in all human history, ever, in all ways. Sure, we have room for improvement, some locales are having problems, but over the face of the Earth, humans are kinder to each other now than any time before. This is a trend that has been going on for as long as we have been paying attention, people want to work for peace.
2. Information is free, and almost complete. We have access to the answer for almost any question you have about almost anything you could ever need, at the touch of a button or screen, in an instant. Technology is constantly improving, being updated, modernized. People are always adding what they know to this great pool of information that the technology records for us, from videos to maps, science to opinions, everything ever known.
3. Survival is not a struggle anymore, for most of us. Our medicine, our science, has made survival almost too easy. We don't have to toil in the fields all day just to eat, don't have to hunt our own food. If we are hurt we can get medical aid to help us heal, when we need a friend for support we can text or call them at any time. We have enough time to enjoy lives, to play games, read books, explore our world without the pressures of nature hounding us.
4. Illness does not mean a death sentence. In times past ailments would often mean death, you had no way to defend against them. Today we have vaccinations to prepare us against the worst, and medical technology to make sure a broken bone heals properly, and doesn't get infected. We have access to these everywhere too, though some people are restricted access by their governments, we're working on that problem. But it's there, it's possible to survive things which would destroy you.
5. You will never vanish, there will always be a record of your existence. In the past billions of humans have been completely forgotten, never shall we know what they knew, felt, or thought. But today everything about you gets recorded, you are here forever, this world shall not forget you exist so long as it keeps spinning. That is the closest thing to immortality you can have, no memory of you will be forgotten completely, ever. A thousand years from now something you post online may become the most important thing that saves humanity from destruction, and you will be there for it, because you will be remembered.
On it's own, this lie is not harmful, it keeps us going, we try to repeat those feelings of joy and enjoyment. But in the long run it can be very detrimental, if we insist on living in the past times we felt this way, we may lose the drive to move forward. We see this problem very clearly in those who reminisce about things they don't even recall, times they didn't even live.
Renaissance fans are probably the most notorious, they paint this era as perfect and rosy. Yet that era was full of disease, everyone was dirty, and you were lucky if your own food didn't kill you. People killed each other in the streets, law was only for those who could afford it, and pests were your pets. People knew almost nothing, other than who not to piss off in their neighborhood. Most children were abandoned or orphaned at young ages. People were not kind to each other in any meaningful way.
There are people who think the 1980s were so great too, simple lives, with no care in the world. I grew up in the '80s, trust me, it sucked, it sucked so much I do not miss anything in my childhood. People were still pretty violent, and rude to each other. The music was just random noise set to a beat with random words for lyrics. Art was bland and often monochromatic. Computers were still bulky machines that were just glorified calculators. Illnesses plagued us, even the common cold could kill you. Also, people denied most of the scientific understanding we had then, which was still very little compared to the best time to have lived.
The 1990s were not much better, we did get a handle on violence. Video games offered us better entertainment. Movies improved, so did the music, but the art was still horrible. Slang became very strange, the word "like" was abuse more than any other word in the English language. Medicine did improve a lot, but still had some major problems, diagnosing conditions was less than adequate. Technology finally matured, we got connected, began filling this new world with every bit of information we could find. But it was still far from great.
The 2000s are the best, right now, here, today, this very second. However, that will change, next year will be the best, then the next year, then the next year. Our species is always improving, that's a given, it's the fundamental drive for all living organisms. So yesterday will never be the best time to live, because today is always the best time to live. In 2050, when I am old and growing tired of living, I will look back on this and smile, because even when I am tired of living I will still know that I am in the best time to live.
Oddly, this is the thought that keeps me going, keeps me working to live in spite of the problems I face. Who knows, maybe tomorrow someone will find a way to make my problems better, that's the greatest thing about tomorrow, you never know what will happen. So if you ever hear anyone say they wish they had lived in some past era, point out all the great things we have today, here's a list we have this very moment that should make you feel proud to be alive today:
1. This is the most peaceful time in all human history, ever, in all ways. Sure, we have room for improvement, some locales are having problems, but over the face of the Earth, humans are kinder to each other now than any time before. This is a trend that has been going on for as long as we have been paying attention, people want to work for peace.
2. Information is free, and almost complete. We have access to the answer for almost any question you have about almost anything you could ever need, at the touch of a button or screen, in an instant. Technology is constantly improving, being updated, modernized. People are always adding what they know to this great pool of information that the technology records for us, from videos to maps, science to opinions, everything ever known.
3. Survival is not a struggle anymore, for most of us. Our medicine, our science, has made survival almost too easy. We don't have to toil in the fields all day just to eat, don't have to hunt our own food. If we are hurt we can get medical aid to help us heal, when we need a friend for support we can text or call them at any time. We have enough time to enjoy lives, to play games, read books, explore our world without the pressures of nature hounding us.
4. Illness does not mean a death sentence. In times past ailments would often mean death, you had no way to defend against them. Today we have vaccinations to prepare us against the worst, and medical technology to make sure a broken bone heals properly, and doesn't get infected. We have access to these everywhere too, though some people are restricted access by their governments, we're working on that problem. But it's there, it's possible to survive things which would destroy you.
5. You will never vanish, there will always be a record of your existence. In the past billions of humans have been completely forgotten, never shall we know what they knew, felt, or thought. But today everything about you gets recorded, you are here forever, this world shall not forget you exist so long as it keeps spinning. That is the closest thing to immortality you can have, no memory of you will be forgotten completely, ever. A thousand years from now something you post online may become the most important thing that saves humanity from destruction, and you will be there for it, because you will be remembered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)