Well, I never stopped thinking, but I'm taking some meds that make my brain not seem to work as well. Here's where I'm at though.
I finally settled the whole existence thing for myself a while back, so here it is.
I KNOW I exist because I CHOOSE to BELIEVE I exist. So long as I belive it, it is my own little subjective truth which I can cling to and laugh at anyone who denies that I do, whether it be me or someone else denying it. (Though usually me). The idea is similar to the old atheist/theist fight. Just because you deny me doesn't make me not exist, and just because you believe I do, does also not mean I do exist. It may somehow matter in your mind, but to me, it is only my own choice to believe.
Why do I emphasize choice? Because I do not think I have a true rational, indisputable position. I choose it, even though I can poke holes in my existence all day. So long as I stick to my chosen belief, nothing can weaken it..
I'll think about how to get out what this means down the line later.
I sent this concept along to Stephen Law(A very patient fella with a beginner like me). He has a blog I highly recommend. He's pretty focused on Atheism, but whatever.
If anyone knows if the book about all the great ideas of the 20th century in philosophy is worth the 20 bucks, let me know.
Oh, and welcome back. :D
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Socialism, Obama, TEA, and squirrels
I have a few questions.
If I declare something to be true about you that I cannot prove, isn't this called libel? No really, I don't know.
A TEA party has been formed in my area. They terrify and intrigue me at the same time. Based purely upon their adverts, I can't help but wonder if those who attend aren't actively fomenting rebellion. Oh well, it's not illegal, right?
What would be so bad about a socialist agenda? If taxes become 90%, can't people be satisfied with the 10% of money which can be purely spent on luxuries? I said this to someone, they said I sounded like Marx. Having never read Marx, I dunno. I'd sort of like to be able to receive free health care. On that note, free housing, food, transportation, education, perhaps some minimal entertainment... sounds good to me. Why don't we focus on overcoming the weaknesses within this idea and see if they can't be overcome? Wouldn't these things I've named lessen if not eliminate many of our social problems?
I think the squirrels are right. It's all about the nuts, man. It's all about the nuts.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
And now for something completely different...
I posed this question on sciforums.com, a forum I frequent. Is freedom of enough value to justify suffering?
Case in point: waterboarding of suspected terrorists.
I have a right to be free from terrorism within the US(supposedly). My government seeks to protect my rights as a citizen by performing a non-deadly non-permanently damaging torture to evoke answers from recalcitrant detainees who are known to be willing to die to kill me.
But torture is wrong!
Is it? If a man told you someone was going to harm your family, and you thought he knew who, would you refrain from ANY means to get the information you wanted? Or is it more acceptable to allow harm to come to your family, as long as you haven't "stooped to his level"?
I'm sorry, but the government, as it stands, is required to protect its citizens at whatever cost. If a christian group started blowing things up in the US, would you want them treated differently? How about the fact that these people "declared war" on the US, making them enemy combatants? I say they should count themselves lucky to not have faced worse torture. To be honest, had the governemnt never revealed the existence of the detainees, would their fates have mattered to anyone?
I'm not even going to go into the madness of potentially prosecuting the ex-government for things the current government disapproves of. Smacks a bit of delegalizing one's opposition if you asked me.
Case in point: waterboarding of suspected terrorists.
I have a right to be free from terrorism within the US(supposedly). My government seeks to protect my rights as a citizen by performing a non-deadly non-permanently damaging torture to evoke answers from recalcitrant detainees who are known to be willing to die to kill me.
But torture is wrong!
Is it? If a man told you someone was going to harm your family, and you thought he knew who, would you refrain from ANY means to get the information you wanted? Or is it more acceptable to allow harm to come to your family, as long as you haven't "stooped to his level"?
I'm sorry, but the government, as it stands, is required to protect its citizens at whatever cost. If a christian group started blowing things up in the US, would you want them treated differently? How about the fact that these people "declared war" on the US, making them enemy combatants? I say they should count themselves lucky to not have faced worse torture. To be honest, had the governemnt never revealed the existence of the detainees, would their fates have mattered to anyone?
I'm not even going to go into the madness of potentially prosecuting the ex-government for things the current government disapproves of. Smacks a bit of delegalizing one's opposition if you asked me.
Fundamentalists are fundamentalists I guess...
Ever talk to a die-hard fundamentalist christian? If you live in the west, or in the US, the answer is probably yes. No matter what you say, no matter how cogent your argument, you are not going to shake them from what they believe.
I have found that such ways of thinking exist in other aspects of life as well. Ask a biologist probing questions about evolution, you will probably be insulted and told to go study. Ask questions about the possibility of non-einsteinian physics occuring inside our universe but outside of our ability to witness them to an astronomer or physicist, more often than not they will ignore you as a fool.
Why is this? Wouldn't it be more effective to cogently answer such questions? Are such questions threatening to the scientific community's beliefs? I know that when I ask a question and I'm told something to the effect of,"because I said so" or,"because that's the way it is" I immediately think back to our friendly fundamentalist christian who is looked down on for being closed-minded.
"Go read your bible" "God said so"
"Go read a textbook" "The evidence all points to..."
How different are these things?
Before you go into "evidence" I'd like to invite you to a game. I call it the evidence game. You tell me what makes a given set of evidence acceptable in all circumstances. Please begin with proving history as true through evidence, and let's start with... I dunno... how about Babylon? Should be easy enough.
Not how "they" know, but how YOU know, would be preferable, but if you only know because you "believe" "them", then how "they" know will have to suffice, won't it?
On a side note, I'm not trying to promote either side, but point out that such closed-mindedness is not only moronic, but somewhat frightening when it comes to scientific pursuits. Shouldn't all sides be considered? If something can't be disproven, should we consider it such because we don't like it?
I have found that such ways of thinking exist in other aspects of life as well. Ask a biologist probing questions about evolution, you will probably be insulted and told to go study. Ask questions about the possibility of non-einsteinian physics occuring inside our universe but outside of our ability to witness them to an astronomer or physicist, more often than not they will ignore you as a fool.
Why is this? Wouldn't it be more effective to cogently answer such questions? Are such questions threatening to the scientific community's beliefs? I know that when I ask a question and I'm told something to the effect of,"because I said so" or,"because that's the way it is" I immediately think back to our friendly fundamentalist christian who is looked down on for being closed-minded.
"Go read your bible" "God said so"
"Go read a textbook" "The evidence all points to..."
How different are these things?
Before you go into "evidence" I'd like to invite you to a game. I call it the evidence game. You tell me what makes a given set of evidence acceptable in all circumstances. Please begin with proving history as true through evidence, and let's start with... I dunno... how about Babylon? Should be easy enough.
Not how "they" know, but how YOU know, would be preferable, but if you only know because you "believe" "them", then how "they" know will have to suffice, won't it?
On a side note, I'm not trying to promote either side, but point out that such closed-mindedness is not only moronic, but somewhat frightening when it comes to scientific pursuits. Shouldn't all sides be considered? If something can't be disproven, should we consider it such because we don't like it?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Irritation
I want to make the blog more space-efficient. Sadly without any skills as far as html or any other acronym I'm stuck with a premade piece. I think that a brown "frame" to suggest a desk and a larger parchment would be nice, as well as a more proper rendering of my favorite artist's work. If I see a collection of machiavellian quotes then dear Ari will be leaving.
If you are reading this, maybe you should become a follower. You know you want to be on the various black lists made by our friends in the government. So join the fun!
If you are reading this, maybe you should become a follower. You know you want to be on the various black lists made by our friends in the government. So join the fun!
Friday, April 17, 2009
been away for awhile...
So many questions... so little time. My Internet time is limited... again. So, if you have something you want me to address, maybe email me. I'll be back on soon. In the meantime, some things to consider:
1: Saw both Religulous and Expelled. Interesting that I agree with both. Do you?
2: Can you name 5 things that don't require some level of belief?
Later!
1: Saw both Religulous and Expelled. Interesting that I agree with both. Do you?
2: Can you name 5 things that don't require some level of belief?
Later!
Monday, March 30, 2009
another test
Interesting test results...
|
Death... Yay?
My Grandmother's funeral was yesterday. She was 94, and a christian, and therefore my family and I have an apparently unusual outlook on death. There were no tears, and while unsaid, perhaps there was almost a hint of jealousy at her escaping the mortal coil.
It makes me a bit reflective. Everyone seems to have different views of death and what it means. Some believe in a heaven/hell afterlife. Some believe in reincarnation. Some believe you simply cease to be.
Perhaps it's the allure of the idea of immortality which draws so many in to the idea that there is an "afterlife". I know it's irrational, but I choose to believe in the concept. 70-120 years at best just doesn't seem like enough somehow. The less rational atheists that I have discussed this with all think that you "move on". As my own belief in such things is irrational I don't step on this idea of theirs, but it does seem interesting that many believe that a "soul" exists but a "God" does not.
Logically? I'm not sure. There is a law of logic I am well known for failing to use, involving the idea that there is no reason to believe in that which cannot be proven, or something like that. I see no solid reason to believe that anything we experience extends past that last electro-chemical reaction in the brain. Yet, I want there to be an afterlife. I want an "immortal soul". If for no other reason than to get to see what happens after I am gone from here.
It makes me a bit reflective. Everyone seems to have different views of death and what it means. Some believe in a heaven/hell afterlife. Some believe in reincarnation. Some believe you simply cease to be.
Perhaps it's the allure of the idea of immortality which draws so many in to the idea that there is an "afterlife". I know it's irrational, but I choose to believe in the concept. 70-120 years at best just doesn't seem like enough somehow. The less rational atheists that I have discussed this with all think that you "move on". As my own belief in such things is irrational I don't step on this idea of theirs, but it does seem interesting that many believe that a "soul" exists but a "God" does not.
Logically? I'm not sure. There is a law of logic I am well known for failing to use, involving the idea that there is no reason to believe in that which cannot be proven, or something like that. I see no solid reason to believe that anything we experience extends past that last electro-chemical reaction in the brain. Yet, I want there to be an afterlife. I want an "immortal soul". If for no other reason than to get to see what happens after I am gone from here.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Fun with relativism
I don't understand, really. I don't hold that relativism is necessarily the "correct" way of doing things, but I admit that I disagree with sending out our "humanitarian" missionaries to other countries with other cultures, and then complaining when they do something illegal is the wisest of ideas.
Consider: You travel to a distant planet. You get there and are thrown into prison because skeletons are banned and considered weapons. You knew this law existed on that planet. Who is wrong?
They must explain this stuff in college or something. To me the idea of "live and let live" is relativism. Is there something objective, something logical, that gives a sense that a is always wrong and b is always right? If not, then on what does anyone base any of their ideas on anything morally?
Or was the Holocaust and American Slavery justified? To Nazi Germany and the Plantation slave owners it was...
Consider: You travel to a distant planet. You get there and are thrown into prison because skeletons are banned and considered weapons. You knew this law existed on that planet. Who is wrong?
They must explain this stuff in college or something. To me the idea of "live and let live" is relativism. Is there something objective, something logical, that gives a sense that a is always wrong and b is always right? If not, then on what does anyone base any of their ideas on anything morally?
Or was the Holocaust and American Slavery justified? To Nazi Germany and the Plantation slave owners it was...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)