Love and Life

May 27, 2008

So it seems I’ve become one of those blogs who doesn’t post for months, as tends to happen.  I think this started out too narrow-focused, is the problem.  So with that in mind, I shall write something completely different, and describe in vague, general terms, what’s been going on with me.

I am in love.  I have been for several months, and it feels like I will be for the rest of my life.  And I’m not the kind of person to say this lightly.  She is everything that I could ask for and more.  She makes me be everything that I want to be.  And I have never felt the way I do with her before.

I’ve been too happy in general, lately, to come up with good topics for this.  Or to bother writing.  But, oh, how she makes me feel…

I wnat to be more poetic.  I love poetry, but nothing I can think of does her justice.  But she appreciates my clumsy attempts to capture her essence in words.  One day, I will do so in music.  I don’t know where to begin, though.  She deserves a song like no other.  I will compose it for her.

Life is… this is the unsolvable thing about life.  It’s completely chaotic, yet ordered.  It’s planned spontaniety.  It’s random patterns.  It’s impossible possibilities.  Which side came first, I don’t know, but the end result is the same.  I don’t know if this makes any sense to anyone, or if I’m communicating this well, but it makes sense to me.

We’re nothing and everything.  We’re love.  We eixist.

And I still can’t get over that.

Logic and Religion 2

March 25, 2008

If you have been following this blog lately, you’ll know that I recently got into a debate with one Elmantheman on the subject of Logic and Religion, in which my aforementioned fellow blogger decided to make up a quote to attribute to me (perhaps he felt his arguement wasn’t strong enough for him to argue honestly). As of this typing, he has yet to delete it from his site. If there’s one thing to learn from all this, it’s that there are, sadly, some people who simply will not listen to logic and rational discourse. The reason for this hearkens back to my first post: foundations. If one bases their entire system of logic off of a single book, it would stand to reason that they would conflict with someone who bases their logic off, well, logic. I have, as I said before, nothing against religion in and of itself. So why, then, did I argue so vehemently against elmantheman’s views? He did insult me, my love, and everyone who is not a ‘True Christian’ by his standards, but there was something more than that. His way of thinking makes absolutely no sense. It makes no sense to base your entire system of beliefs solely upon one book. Especially when the rationale behind it is that the book itself says that you should believe it. Now, of course, I would be fine if this way of thinking did not affect me. If it did not hurt anyone. But the fact is, a lack of logical thinking, such as that which is caused by fundamental religious thinking, can and does hurt people. In his previous misquotation of me, Elmantheman said,

“…And the Holy Bible says that people will get more evil because of the lack of teachings. You yourself can observe that as far as religion is concerned, the earth was never out of it, but then again, listen to the teachings and you won’t wonder why people become more crazy and evil.” [strikethrough his]

Now, let’s try to ignore the horrible, horrible sentance structure here, and try to figure out what he was trying to say. He seems to claim that Bible says people are evil due to lack of teachings. Then, he appears to say that people become ‘crazy and evil’ because of the Bible’s teachings. Or religion in general. An interesting thought. Let’s examine that thesis, shall we? In more comprehensible terms, of course. Throughout human history, the minds of mankind have been warped by organized religion, and religion has caused untold amounts of suffering through the ages. The obvious example that springs to mind is the crusades. Then, of course, the holocaust and World War 2, easily one of, if not the most pointless war in human history. There are current examples of needless suffering caused by religion as well, most notably in two areas of the world; the conflict in the middle east, and in India.

You know what? I was going to write an entire essay on this, but I don’t have the energy to research it all. And you know why? Because it’s too damn obvious. If anyone cares, read for yourself on these topics. The point is, conflicts were, and are started for no good reason, other than pointless religious reasons. And why do these people do this? It’s because people believe that their beliefs are the only thing that could possibly be right.

Note the wording there. Everyone, by definition, believes that their beliefs are the correct ones, or at the very least the ones that work the best. And most of these people get along fine with those of different faiths or values. That’s because they acknowledge that theirs aren’t the only set of values. Now, the reason I have nothing against the religious per se, is that even though I don’t agree with what they believe, I realize that there is a possibility (however minute) that they may be right. It is when people don’t stop to consider the other point of view when the harm begins.

When they start to think that they are definitely right, and others are certainly and completely wrong, that’s when harm starts to come from religion. Which was why I took issue from this argument in the first place. I say this to everyone, and anyone who will listen: you are most likely not right. You are most likely wrong in many things. I am most like likely wrong in many things. You can not know what, if anything, gods, if there are any, want. What you think is right may not be right. What you think is wrong may not be wrong. Everyone, just get the fuck over yourselves.

One thing I do know is that thinking one is superior only leads to hatred. And than can never be a good thing if we want to live in a peaceful world.

Logic and Religion

February 28, 2008

This post is different from the rest of my bolg as it is a part of an arguement in which I have found myself entangled.  It origionated from my girlfriend’s blog, The Emerald City, as a Christian had posted a somewhat intolerant comment on her post detailing her personal religious views.  It eventually culminated in me essentially asking him to prove the accuracy of Christianity without using bible verses.  He failed miserably with that challenge.  His responce to me is here:

What follows is my reply to his post.  Be forwarned, it is extremely long, and repeats a lot of the same things.  I had no choice, however, as his post was extremely long and repetitive.

To begin with, you misquoted me.  I never said .”..And the Holy Bible says that people will get more evil because of the lack of teachings. You yourself can observe that as far as religion is concerned, the earth was never out of it, but then again, listen to the teachings and you won’t wonder why people become more crazy and evil.”  I do not know where you got this from.  It is most definately not the sort of syntax or phrasing I would use.  In fact, the voice sounds a lot like you.  I am forced to think you intentionally put words in my mouth.  If so, I would politely ask that you do not do so in the future, as this is libel.

So, that unplesentness aside, to quote something you said,

“Am I committing sin just for being born as a gay or homosexual individual? Does the bible really condemn gay or homosexual people? Or is just the sinful acts committed?”

So to summerize the first part of your post, you believe that it is not the state of being attracted to the same gender that is a sin, but a homosexual act.  I admit, this is not a contradiction.  I do not know how one could live like this, but it is your choice, so I will comment no further on the matter.

“I will give more verses which I always remember when the integrity of the Holy Bible is being questioned.”

So let me get this straight; when you start disbelieving in the Bible, you read verses of the Bible which make you believe in it again?  A verse which says you are a fool if you don’t believe in the Bible?  Right… I’m going to ignore the holes in your logic there for the moment, painful as they may be.

And I will remind you that I am not debating with you the existance of a god.  I fully accept that there may be one.  Which leads nicely into your next point:

“Some say they believe that there is a God, a good one, but you cannot see the concept of their God from their deeds, but the opposite of good, they are liars too.”

I know for a fact, Elmantheman, that you do not know Scaramouche personally.  I do.  And I love her.  You also do not know me.  Now, you are calling her, me, and by extention, everyone who does not believe in your specific god evil and a liar.  Do you understand why some of us may resent that?  You do not know our actions.  You can not call us evil.  And you certianly can not say that us saying what we truly believe is lying.  I do not believe what you believe.  But I do not claim that you are lying when you state your beliefs, because they are your beliefs.  And I certainly do not call you evil, not knowing you, and not knowing your actions.

“Can’t you see how useful and very truthful the Holy Bible is? It gives exact description of the subject. I do not even need to reflect on the verse by writing. But because you asked, then, I will try to write more of what I learned from it, but I cannot disregard my reference, the verses from the Holy Bible.”

No, I can not see how useful and truthful the Bible is.  I know you believe it to be truthful, however, and I respect that.  However, naming a subject and then finding a bible verse that vaguely talks about it does not imply truthfulness.  You must understand that although you believe it to be true, I do not.

“Imagine, people changed their views about God into something different! They now thought that immorality is a good thing because changing their perception becomes their license to do what their hearts desire to do. If it did not come from them, most likely, it came from their teachers, even friends who practice such immorality. They do not need God, they think that they are actually a god to themselves.”

Now, by very definition no one thinks that immorality is a good thing.  Others may have a different system of morality than you, however.  My own blog has a couple posts on the subject of my system of morality  I do believe that we should mostly be able to do what our hearts should do, however, there are exceptions.  For example, I believe hurting another is immoral.  And I do not believe I am a god.  Far from it.  My system of morality, however, derives from only one axiom.  Hurting another is immoral.

“And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.”

Again, using your verse this time, you imply that I and all other non-christians are liars and evil.  Can you see why we find you intolerant?  I do not ‘strangthen the hands of evildoers’.  And I certianly have never commited, and will never commit adultery.

“Some people are open to talk about these things, indeed, they are even proud to say and accept that they pollute their own bodies.”

I do not ‘pollute’ my own body.  I would not personally take drugs.  However, I would not say that this is inherently wrong either.  If one takes drugs it is their own choice to pollute their body.  They are hurting no one but themselves.  Again, I say you do not know me.

“Notice the above verses? God can see that a fool really believes in his heart that there is no God. No matter how hard he tries to hide that belief, God can see his heart. And no matter how obvious their foolishness, the more they profess that they are wise. The more they commit sin, the more they deny God who created them.”

Now, here’s the catch with that: you are not arguing with an Athiest here.  I never once said I believe there is no god.  I never said that I completely deny the possibility that there is a god.  And I can not deny the possibility that it may be your god.  However, there are many, many other possibilities that I can not deny either.  There are several other major religions in the world.  Although you are convinced of the truth of yours, all of them seem equally likely to me.  What makes Christianity uniquely true?  Your bible?  Other religions have sacred texts as well.  And I will say also that there is a possibility that none of them are right.  Maybe there is no god.  Maybe there are several gods.  Maybe the truth is something no human has thought of.  You have so far given me no reason to believe in your specific religion, and your specific Bible.

“Even logic and plain analysis will dictate or will tell us that some people love to get drunk, they just do not admit that they are after drinking a lot. Some people deny that they are immoral because they believe that orgies makes them happy and they love doing it with other people who loves doing it with them too, especially, it is their belief, and will ask you to mind your own business!”

Orgies?  That came out of nowhere.  But yes.  I would ask you to mind your own business.  Because if you choose not to partake in such endeavors, this issue does not affect you.  This is an example of why many people get annoyed with Christians.  It does not affect you, and we resent you trying to control that.  If it does not hurt anyone, and everyone involved consents to it, then there is nothing inherently wrong with it.  If you do not believe in the morality of it, that is fine.  Then don’t participate in it.  Accept, however, that other people may have different systems of morality.

“Do you really deny what is truly happening on the earth that we are living now? Do you still believe that using the verses in the Holy Bible are illogical and irrelevant?”

Deny what is happening on Earth?  Many things are happening on Earth.  I do not deny any of them.  If, however, you mean all the pointless wars that are going on today, I do not believe that the cause of all this is a lack of morality as you define it.  I would argue that a lot of the world’s problems are caused by intolerance.  And yes, I believe that using verses from the Bible is illogical and irrelevant when you are arguing with someone who does not believe in the Bible.

“The Holy Bible teaches us how we should behave towards different people with an emphasis on not to discriminate.”

If you truly believe this, then why do you discriminate against non-Christians, calling us liars and evil?

You claim “The Holy Bible teaches about logic too.”  And you follow that with a verse on obediance.  Obviously this is a question of definition, as you and I clearly see logic as completely different things.  To me, logic is critical thinking; applying thought to your own observations and drawing your own conclusions.  Starting with simple axioms and using only those axioms and nothing else to draw non-contradictory conclusions.  In short, logic is about as far as you can get from blind obedience.  And no, non-Christians do not use the Bible as a reference for anything.  Because we’re not Christians.

That’s it with that section.  You follow this with more talk about distinguishing homosexual acts from being gay, a point which I already conceded.

“Haven’t you noticed that it is a real man, heterosexual man who is being admonished here? That is, due to sexual immorality and perversion, he might have changed his preference from a woman to a man. Even women who changed her sexual preference from man to woman because of sexual immorality and perversion?”

I very much doubt that one can voluntarily change their sexual perference.  If it were possible to willfully change one’s orientation, due to “sexual immorality and perversion” or otherwise, would you not have done it already if you believe homosexual acts to be immoral.

“Even nature teaches as that a heterosexual man will not even think of having sex with a man too! I saw once, a man, was asked about this and he had goosebumps and his cheeks got red, he even looked very squeamish. That’s how a heterosexual woman feels too, what more of homosexual man and woman? Why did these things happen? Why was there a change of preference for a partner?”

I deny the premise of your questions, because you have not shown me that it is possible for one to change their orientation at will.

“If you think the Holy Bible discriminates or condemns gay people as a person, then I will not wonder why you talk like that and insinuate that I would have a change of heart and mind on my understanding of the Holy Bible. Why would we disregard or will not consider the Holy Bible in an argument? As a person, what can you contribute to an argument? Is it your experience or is it your own knowledge? But then again, 6d60, you don’t even have a concrete evidence of your existence here in the internet. But we do not argue if you are real or not. It is the teaching that is important. Did it make you less a better person, or did it make you a better person?”

You seem to ask questions, elmantheman, that you consider to be rhetorical, but which are not rhetorical to me in the slightest.  I would disregard the Bible in an argument because I do not believe in it.  Plain and simple.  Yes, as a person I can contribute my own knowledge and experience.  But more than that, I can contribute logic.  Something that you have completely failed to use in your post so far.  And by logic, of course, I mean my definition of using established axioms and critically thinking to draw a conclusion.  Not your definition of blind obedience.  The reason your arguments have failed with me is because I do not take to be axiomatic what you take to be axiomatic.  That is, the bible.  Until you convince me of the truthfulness of the Bible, you can not use the Bible in a logical argument with me.  And it is for this same reason that you can not use the Bible in your arguments that the Bible is true, because in order for me to accept this argument, I would have to take as axiomatic the very thing that you are trying to prove.

I hope that clears things up a bit.  Do you understand now why I asked you to refrain from using bible verses in your post?  Now, on to the rest of it.

“Let me just remind you that as a Christian, we believe too that only a man and woman should marry, not both man having the same gender nor both woman. But what about us, gays? We also have feelings like yours but then again, we feel them towards the same sex. It is never a question in the Bible if a gay is person or not. The Bible gives a sense of direction for us. We are people too. We can never change what we feel, we were born this way. But one thing is for sure, be it a man, a woman, or a gay, we are all given the freedom but as Christians, we are taught not to use it given the freedom to lust on the same sex or even to the opposite sex? Of course not!”

Oh, how little you know me.  I do not believe that only a man and a woman should be able to marry.  I believe that if they love each other it should not matter.  But, of course, your belief is your own, and if your religion wants to keep marriage the way you currently define it, that is your right.  However, you have no control over anyone else.

“One of the privilege of a Christian is to know the Truth, because it will set us free from the eyes of the hypocrites and even the myths that comes along in believing them. If you take time to read my blog, you will learn how the impossible becomes possible for those who love God and His teachings. Probably you do not know God’s teachings and Gospel.”

I know you believe that you know the one and only truth-with-a-captial-t.  That’s fine.  However, I am many things, but I am not a hypocrite.  My beliefs and my actions are entirely consistent with each other.  And again, how little you know me.  I would not be magically converted just by reading your blog or the gosples.  Because I do not believe in the Bible to begin with.  However, I am not going to read the entire Bible or your entire blog just to prove you wrong, because, frankly, I find them both extremely long-winded and boring.

Alright, you contradict yourself completely in these next two paragraphs.  You claim “I am not commenting to convert anyone of you in that post to be Christians.”  Then you go on to say “They were able to distinguish what belief needs correcting and what belief has a basis. So what if I use a bible verse?”  You say Scaramouche’s belief “needs correcting.”  How can you say that this is not trying to convert her?  You say that you are not discriminatory, elmantheman, but you are.  Her beliefs do not need correcting.  Accept her beliefs for what they are.  They work for her, as she pointed out.  You do not have to agree with them.  Just accept that she believes it.

“So what if I use a bible verse? Can you prove that the verses are wrong,”

No, I can not prove that the bible is wrong.  I could prove it logically inconsistant, but that’s not the same thing.  No, I can not prove that all of the bible is wrong.  But nor can you prove that all of the bible is right.  And the burden of proof right now lies with you.  I don’t care if you believe the bible is right.  But if you wish to argue using a bible verse, you must first prove to me that it is right.

“…when in fact nature even teaches us and testifies, even the good values in us, if ever you have one, that those are facts.”

Really?  That’s not my experience.  How does nature teach that the bible is fact?  If you can actually show this to me, you might have an actual argument.

“I learned that by taking a firm stand and having the Holy Bible as a basis is better than arguing without any.”

I do argue with a basis, sir.  It’s called logic.

“The Holy Bible is enough to learn how to make sense by using biblical logic and analysis. The logic for you still remains incomplete without God’s wisdom for man.”

As I said before, I would not call what you use ‘logic’.  I would argue, however, that my definition is complete, and is a useful tool for understanding the world.  Unlike yours, which is all based off of a single axiom that many people do not agree with.  And unlike you, if I learn something new about the world, I can change my axioms, my basic beliefs from which my entire logic, and therefore system of beliefs, derives.  This will reflect in a better understanding of the world around me.  You, however, are stuck with your Bible.  Your one foundation for all of your beliefs.  And when the world changes, when the world learns, you don’t.  You stay the same.  And you do not learn.  You can not learn.

Oh, and then we come to your misquote of me.  Something which I never said.  I had almost forgotten about it.  You even have the nerve to lead into it by telling me that I said it.

“Actually you have been accusing that the teachings in the Holy Bible are the reason why we have this kind of world populated by crazy and evil people. That is the main reason why the Holy Bible should be used to answer your accusations.”

I have never made such a claim.  I wonder why you would say I did, knowing full well that I would read this.  Or perhaps you thought that I would not read it.  That I would see the start of your post, see how long it is, then give up and just ignore you.  Well I’ll admit I almost did.  And then I saw this slander, this misquotation.

So of course I’m going to ignore your rambling reply to the words you placed in my mouth, and move on to your reply to something I actually said.

You claim my request to not include scripture in your reply was “very rediculous.”  Perhaps you “real Christians”, by which I am forced to assume to believe means ‘you and anyone who agrees with everything you say’, can not separate the Bible from logic and reasoning, since your entire sense of reasoning seems to be based upon it.

Conversely, however, it is also very rediculous to attempt to talk to a non-christian, because when you talk to a non-christian, you can not connect the Holy Bible with logic and reason.  Because to me they are two very separate things indeed.  So you see, it was not a rediculous request for me to ask you to argue without using scripture.  It was to save you all of your efforts to come up with arguments that would mean nothing to me.

You go on to claim:

“The Holy Bible actually can show to you the real score of the world we live in full detail and accuracy of words to describe it. What is secular morality by the way? According to the Internet, it is based upon the principle that happiness is the chief end and aim of mankind.”

First of all, “According to the Internet?”  You cite the internet as a source?  Umm, do you mind if I asked where on the Internet?  The internet is a big place.  It’s an entire medium.  That’s like saying ‘according to books’, or ‘people say that…”.  But citations aside, I reject the definition.  I would define secular morality as “any system of morality that is not based upon a religion”.  That’s right, any.  This includes many systems of morality, not just one.  I just meant do not base your moral arguments upon religion, as it would fall upon deaf ears.  By the way, “The Holy Bible actually can show to you the real score of the world we live in full detail and accuracy of words to describe it”?  What exactly do you mean by that.  It makes absolutely no sense.  I mean, I know the meanings of each individual word, but they do not go together to form a coherent idea.

You go on to ask what happiness is.  An interesting philosophical question in and of itself, but since this is now irrelevent to the argument at hand, I shall ignore that paragraph.

“Do you really want me to agree with you and tell you that we know what love is on the earth we live in?”

Again with the putting words in my mouth.  Although at least this time it was indirectly.  I never said anything of the kind.  And how did we get to talking about love, anyway?  This has nothing to do with anything.  Love is a very mysterious thing, and the mystery of it is actually one of the reasons I think there may be some sort of god or spiritual force out there.

Oh, I’m sorry to go out of order, but I just noticed this question, “What can you offer me that makes sense when you die?”

First off, I never claimed to offer anything that would.  Secondly, you don’t even seem to be offering me anything that makes sense to me when I’m alive.  Let alone death, which is another matter entirely.

“The earth that you kept on holding on will vanish sooner or later, even some scientists say so.”

Hmm… again, you cite a vague, general source.  “Some scientists”.  Wow, that’s just oozing with credibility.  But sarcasm aside, no, the Earth is not due to ‘vanish’ at any time.  It will, however, be rendered uninhabitably hot in about a billion years or so by the sun’s slow expansion.  Perhaps that is what you meant.  Admitedly it is a stretch of definition, but it’s not like you haven’t done that before.  And who says I’m ‘holding on to the Earth’?

“Nevertheless, let me tell you how the Holy Bible agrees with you too on how you feel and what you have been doing.”

I am going to ignore this next part for a few reasons.  You do not know how I feel or what I have been doing, and as such, you can not possibly tell me how the Holy Bible ‘agrees with me’ on it.  Never mind how an inanimate book that was written thousands of years ago can ‘agree’ with me on anything.  Especially since I disagree with the book in so many ways.

“You may want to know how the Holy Bible defines what kind of world are the Christians like me, and even you share.”

Not perticularly, no.  Out of curiosity, is there any reason why the word ‘you’ is a link?

“As a Christian, we learned that we cannot set aside the Holy Bible. We say, “evil,we have enough of you! Sin, we are no longer your slaves!”

Again with the first person plural.  You change pronouns in the middle of your sentence.  Unless you mean ‘we’ as in the singular royal ‘we’.  Fancy yourself a king, do you?

And, blah blah blah, God gave his son, blah, blah, blah.

And that’s the end of that.

Now, I am really growing weary of this argument, so I really do not care if you reply to this or not.  If you do, I would insist that you not use bible verses in your proofs, otherwise I shall ignore it completely.  Oh, and don’t think I’ll just sit idlely by if you attempt to slander my name again, because I won’t.


February 27, 2008

So how does one write about everything?  This blog was origionally meant to be a philosophical sort of peice on eventually everything that’s worth writing about.  And maybe it still will be.  That’s the thing about everything, though; everything is so overwhelming.  I mean, there’s so much of it.

Here’s what happens: I see everything; the way the world is, how everything is, and of course, I want to change it.  Who wouldn’t?  How does one go about changing the world?  One with no power, and very little influence.  Fortunately, in this information age we’re living in, one can cry out in the internet in the form of a blog.  One tiny voice in the darkness.  Sure, not many people may hear at first, but who knows?

Oh, don’t think I’m dilusional.  I know I’m not actually changing anything with this thing.  I’ve barely even started with this.  And I know very few people read this right now.  As I said before, though, the purpose of this bolg is more for me, really, to get my thoughts in order.  Because I do eventually want to change the world for the better.  The key word there, however, is eventually.

See, this is the thing right now; and it’s been happening for decades: everyone says they want to change things, but very few do much about it.  Most people are pretty much complacent with everything.  And I know, right now I’m just joining that mass of voices, that mass that cries out loudly, and yet remains motionless.  But the reason I don’t move is because I don’t have a plan yet.  Yet I plan on making a plan.  For everything in this world is not okay, as much as I like to remain an optimist.  Good parts of it are extremely fucked up, actually.  And of course, even the parts that aren’t as much could still use some fixing.

How is this going to happen?  Really, it could not be simpler in concept.  As I said before, this is the information age.  Communication has never been simpler, more direct.  It is possible for anyone to reach nearly everyone in the world using just a computer.  And if a group of people big enough agree on something?  Well, the possibilities are endless.  The people of this world are just starting to come together; just now starting to realize that all of us are the same people, the same group.  All it needs, I think, is something, something to draw it together just that much more.

The world needs something, someone to unite around.  It’s been too long without that.  Maybe it’s possible that that can happen soon.  Within our lifetimes.  And the world could see changes previous generations have only dreamed of.  It seems fantastic, impossible.  But then again, maybe it isn’t.  As a wise man once said, “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.”  The world needs someone like John Lennon again.  Maybe that would change some things.  And if enough things change, everything can change.

The Universe

February 10, 2008

The universe is big.  Also very old.  Current estimates are about 13.7 billion years.  The question is, of course, what happened all those billions of years ago?  The leading theory is that it started from a big bang, but still no one knows how all the matter and energy for the big bang got there in the first place.  Did it just appear out of nowhere?  That makes as much sense as any other explanation.

The universe is a crazy place.  It has some crazy laws that humans have only recently determined.  Quantum mechanics, for example.  When a photon has two possible paths, the path it takes isn’t determined until it’s observed.  So until someone detects it, it went down both paths and none at the same time.  It’s almost like, there’s random to the universe, but the universe doesn’t like things being random, so it’s just like, “I’ll wait to see if I actually need to determine which way this photon went.  Right now it doesn’t matter.”  The universe is lazy, really.  But who could blame it; it has a lot of work to do.  You, know, making sure the forces work at the same strength, keeping the speed of light constant; that sort of thing.

Speaking of which, the fundemental forces: what’s up with that?  So there are four, right?  Gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.  But for some reason, gravity is a lot weaker than the other three.  Like, a lot weaker.  For example, take a small magnent, and lift another magnent with it: the magnetism of that one small magnent just overcame the gravitational force of the entire Earth!

And another thing: physics right now is, and has been for a while, at a bit of a standstill.  There are two leading theories of the universe: Relitivity and Quantum Mechanics.  Basically quantum mechanics explains the behaviour of atoms and subatomic particles, and relitivity explains everything bigger than that.  And of course, the two theories can’t be reconciled with each other.  So people are making up new theories to try to explain this.  Some of these theories involve extra demensions in order to work.

Okay, think about that for a second: we’re famillar with three dimensions in everyday life.  Okay, four if you want to include time, but some of the string theories out there call for ten or even more dimensions of space.  That’s seven more than we’re aware of!  For that to work, the dimesions would have to be curled up on themselves, so small that only subatomic particles can move through them.  It’s like those old video games where when you walk off one side of the screen, you appear on the other side.  It’d be like that.  One superstring theory I read calls for the existance of an extra temporal dimesion!  That’s right, two dimensions of time.  Don’t ask me how that works.

I for one, think these theories are kind of ineligant.  Why add extra dimensions if you can’t even detect them?  We have no idea if those exist at the moment.  The musician in me, however, likes the idea of the universe being made out of tiny strings that vibrate at different frequencies to make up everything.  I’ll have some more on some of this stuff later.  The crazy thing about the universe right now, though, really, is that we think we know so much about it, but any day now, some new theory could come along to blow all this out of the water.  It’s happened many times before.


February 10, 2008

Hi, 6d60 here.  So, I haven’t been posting much in this thing lately.  Probably because I think it’s become a bit too much of a chore.  So I’ve decided something: to take a cue from other blogs and do some posts more in a stream of consciousness form, as opposed to having a definate topic to begin with.  That way we’ll see what evolves.  To be sure, I will still do some posts in the old form, but I think I’m setting my own standards for this a bit too high.  So I’ll see what comes of it.

These kind of posts will have random thoughts and bits of semi-coherent philisophical wisdom.  For example: I’ll just see what happens.  This has been my philosophy of life as of late.  Because sometimes, all you can do is just see what happens.  Although a lot of the time it’s a long wait.  Hmm, so here’s a question: why haven’t I been posting much?  Other than the chore aspect of it, as I mentioned.

Well, it seems, as of right now, my bolg has split up into three vains; morality, politics, religion, and random musings.  So, hey, that’s what I can do!  I’ll tell you of the current progress of my thinking in those vains.  Morality: haven’t thought about that much lately, to be honest.  I was going to do one on the nature of good and evil- oh, that’s another thing: I want to make this blog about some slightly more concrete topics, for example, a piece on good and evil in the DND world, and how it relates to the real world (or not, as the case may be).

Politics: I wanted to do a few things on this: one, I had recently read V for Vendetta, and so sometime soon I shall do a commentary on that, focusing on the issue of anarchy VS authoritarianism.  As well, as I think I mentioned before, my state of political opinion is in a bit of a flux at the moment.  Actually, it might be interesting to write about that, even if I don’t have a clear-cut opinion on it at the moment.  Who knows, it might actually help me decide something.  Hmm, or I could do a piece on the approaching US election.

Religion: wow, now that’s an interesting one.  I still am of the opinion that love is a sort of religion of mine, and I suppose I’m starting to see some spiritual aspects of life, but I am still an agnostic at heart.  Maybe an optimistic agnostic though.  I’ll write some more on that soon, I think.  There’s also, a few debates I could have with myself over the existance of a few supernatural elements: psychic powers, spirits, things like that.

And don’t think I haven’t forgotten about my life, universe, everything series.  I’m actually halfway through the second part in that.  I got distracted.  Actually I may finish it today or tomorrow.  That falls under the musings catagory, obviously.

Alright, well that accomplished more than I thought it would, actually.  I have ideas and am somewhat inspired.  I believe I will go finish that universe post.


January 26, 2008

Hello, and welcome to the first post in a three-part series.  If you can already guess the other two, 3 points.  Life, as I’ve said before, is an amazing thing that I am extremely grateful that I have.  Especially since I don’t know what the alternative involves.  Life is a beautiful thing.  How did it start, though?  We still don’t know.  Some people would say it started from a god, but I am inclined to believe that if the universe started from a god, it probably just started it all those billions of years ago and didn’t intervene much, if at all, after that.  But more on that in the next post.  So life arose through chemical reactions that just chanced to form a molecule that could replicate itself, and the rest is evolution.

Now, many people don’t quite understand evolution, especially those creationists who fervantly deny it.  But creationists are silly.  Besides, the ideas of the universe being created is not mutually exclusive with evolution.  It’s only when you want to take literally a 2000-year-old book that contradicts facts that are now obvious that you run into problems.  We have no idea how life began, but we know how it changed.  When you have random changes in life, such as what happens when it reproduces, the stronger mutations survive to reproduce.  You give it several billion years, and all the complexities of life arise.

That is one of the most amazing things about life; you start with something extremely simple, and over time, due to completely natural laws– not even laws, due to logic; strong survive, weak die– it grows complex and intricate.  And if you keep life for the four billion or so years its been on Earth, you get things as complex as a whale, or an oak, or an eagle, or a human.  Which brings me to another marvel of life: intelligence.

I am a sentient, self aware being.  I can think.  How is this possible?  How am I doing this?  I am capable of abstract thought; I can think; I can think about thinking.  And I can communicate what I’m thinking.  This is incredible.  I often am deep in thought, only to suddely snap back to reality and realize I exist.  I am alive in this body.  This is very strange.  Thought is such a mystery, really.  What causes thought?  No one knows; the inner workings of the mind are extremely mysterious.

There are, of course, theories, as there is for everything.  But does the entire process of sentient thought arise solely from bioelectric chemical reactions in the brain?  How does a bunch of neurons clumped together form a person.  I am inclined to believe that there is something more at work here.  But what?  And how does it work?  I doubt thought can ever be fully explained, really.

Oh, life is a spectacular state of being.  So many mysteries to contemplate.  So many things to experience, to think about.  Which was, really, one of the purposes of this blog to begin with.  Well actually, I had begun hoping I would think up some answers.  I’m starting to doubt I’ll come up with many.  But it’s just as well, really.


January 15, 2008

Okay, I realize that I said my next post would be again on the subject of politics, only I’ve been reading up on some theories as of late, and have changed my views.  I want to get my views semi-coherent before I make a post on the subject.  I’ve changed my views about a few things lately.  It’s been a while since my last post.  Things have happened; life is busy.  But I’m not going to make an excuse every time I don’t post for a while.  This blog is updated haphazardly.

One thing I’ve changed my views on is I’m not quite what you’d call an agnostic anymore.  It’s hard to say what I am religiously because it doesn’t really have a term.  I suppose you could say I’m somewhat of a spiritualist.  So what brought about this sudden change of convictions?  It was experience, pure and simple.  A few days ago, I experienced something profound.  It is nearly indescribable to one who has not experianced such a thing, suffice to say it was powerful.  And I know I am not just crazy, because my girlfriend experienced it with me.

I love her.  There is something powerful in love.  Something strong, and also completely unscientific.  It defies explanation.  And this is why I know there is something else to the universe.  Before, I wasn’t sure.  Now I know.  I felt, that night, a connection, an energy between us.  And more than that, I could see it, in my mind’s eye.  An aura of white light surrounded her, and a connection, like rope of light joining her heart and mine.  If this is the point where you say I’m crazy, I don’t care.  I know what I felt.  What we felt.  It was a feeling in my heart like it was expanding, and pure pleasure, like I’ve never felt before.  It was love, plain and simple.  It was magic.  And I could not explain it for the life of me.

So, having a scientific mind, I do what I do when I can’t explain something: make a new theory.  There has to be some force at work here.  So I call it now what my girlfriend calls it.  The Divine.  I have no idea as to the nature of it, but divine seems to describe it.  There was something magical going on there night, and there is something magical to love.  If you haven’t experienced it yet, I hope you do, for it is amazing.  And it threw out everything I thought I knew, or rather, thought I didn’t know about the universe.  In that now I know.

There is something.  There is a divine force.  There is love.  There are auras of energy.  We saw them.  And I mean literally, my girlfriend saw one around me.  I saw it too, altough it was faint.  And there is a sort of telepathy.  How it all works, I have no idea.  I doubt I ever will.  But the mystery is part of the magic.  I’m not expecting anyone to believe any of this.  I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything, any religion.  I don’t even know what religion I am now.  It doesn’t have a name, and it has only two followers.  But maybe I can give people hope, if I tell them, I know there is something out there.  And it is wonderful.  And there is love.  And it is wonderful.


December 31, 2007

So on my last post on the subject of politics, I didn’t really get much into actual politics, so much as explain why democracy doesn’t work.  So this one will be more about my actual stance on the subject.  When it comes to actual political philosophy, I am hesitant to define mine in a word, as each word in politics carries with it so many different connotations, and there are several variations of each political philosophy.  If I had to describe my view in one word, however, I’d call myself a libertarian.  But as I said, definitions in politics carry many different connotations.

So now let me attempt to explain my position.  I believe in freedom, and I already established that pure democracy is not freedom.  If you have read my posts on morality, you’ll know that I believe rstrictions upon freedom to be, in most cases, immoral.  But that’s just what a democratically elected government does; places restrictions upon the actions of citizens who did not agree to being governed.  Our only choice, as a collective people, is on what kind of restrictions are imposed against our will.  Both traditionally-defined government types, left-wing and right-wing are guilty of this.  So presented here are my criticisms on both the left and right wings.

First the right wing, as it’s easiest to criticise.  Concervatism is in favour of lower taxes, which I support, as no government has the right to take my money from me.  Okay, granted there are some things that make tax a nessisary evil, which I will discuss later, but tax should still be as little as possible.  This is where the similarities I have with concervatism end, however.

Concervatism wishes to uphold traditional values through law, in a society where values are constantly changing.  Who is the government to decide which values are right, and which are wrong?  They have no right to decide people’s rights on controversial issues such as abortion and marriage.  People should be allowed to decide for themselves what is right, as long as they don’t hurt anyone.  Granted, abortion may be said to hurt people, depending on your definition of person.  I’ll give my views on the subject later, however.  The bottom line is, the religiously values of most of mainstream concervatism do not apply to everyone, and the government has no right to force them upon anyone.

On the other end of the political spectrum, socialism has none of the same problems as conservatism.  It mostly upholds the basic human right to freedom.  I agree with socialism there.  What I don’t agree with, however, is social services.  They cost money, which comes from taxes that citizens didn’t agree to pay.  Granted the things they do are usually good, but shouldn’t people have the right to choose which, if any, services they wish to pay for?  The government has no place in such things, and is extremely inefficient at it, due to beuraucracy.  People would be better helped by more private charities than the government.  The left wing government also interferes with the economy, compromising the freedom of the free market.  I shall explain why this is a bad thing in a later post.

The bottom line is, both concervatism and socialism don’t work.  I am a libertarian because it combines the things that work from both views.  It takes the low taxes and lack of economic intervention of the right wing, and combines it with the freedom and lack of interference in personal lives of the left wing.  It is a philosophy derived from freedom.  In my next post, I shall explain more about my interpretation of libertarianism.


December 26, 2007

Now, as I mentioned in my Death post, I did not consider religious possibilities.  I will do so now.  Now, suppose that there is at least one god, and this god cares about what people do in life, rewarding or punishing them in death in accordance with their actions.  Am I in the least bit afraid of this possibility, and that I might go to a hell?  No.  And this is why:

If there is a god, and it is good, it would not let good people suffer in a hell.  I refer to hypothetical gods with the pronoun it, by the way, because a being as powerful as what is tradionally described as a god would be above such things as masculinity or femininity.  If there is a god who is good, it would by definition not let good people suffer in hell.  I consider myself to be a fairly good person, or at least I try my best.  Ergo, if a god would send me to hell, it is not good.

There are some religions that state that if you do not believe in a god, and specifically the god they describe, you are punished in the afterlife.  But to me, this idea is simply inconsistant with the idea of a good god.  If the god is good, it will not care if you believed in it or not so long as you have lead a good life.  And if there is a god who punishes those who do not believe something for which there is insufficient evidence, well, I am forced to conclude that such a god would be evil.  And if there’s an evil god, we’re all pretty much screwed anyway.

So although I believe it to be very unlikely that it exists, if there is a hell, and I went to it, I wouldn’t mind.  Because I would not like the kind of god who would send me to one anyway.  Hell is a very silly idea, really.  In my opinion, is seems only created to scare people into belief.  Which is useful if you happen to be running a theocracy.  I, however, refuse to be scared by such things.  Especially when, as I said, the whole idea seems artificial and unlikely to me.  Frankly, the worst hell of all to me would be that of nonexistance.  Because even the bleakest existance is better than no existance at all.  But the good thing about that is, if I don’t exist, I won’t know it.

Hm, well I still have time, I think I’ll consider another religious afterlife I left out.  The concept of nirvana, that is, escaping the cycle of reincarnation, assuming there indeed such a thing.  To me, this doesn’t sound like such a great idea.  I quite enjoy the cycle of reincarnation.  If nirvana means becoming one with everything, I really don’t want to do that.  Maybe I’m missing something here, but if I’m one with everything, and everything’s one, then everything is me, correct?  So does that mean there is no me, or there is no anything else?  I don’t really like either possibility.  If everyone is one, then everyone is the same person, so there is no one else.  Does anyone else find that extremely lonely and depressing?

So there you have it, my opinions on hell, and nirvana thrown in just for fun.  I think my next post will be in the politics vein again, I’m tired of this religion stuff.