The other problem with Evil

July 15th, 2010

Heavy topic or stroll in the park? Well, I don’t mean the problem that is commonly referenced in theological discussion and debate. You know the one – if a God or gods are all good, then why is there evil and so forth. I mean more the idea of there being evil in the sense that such as discussion means anyway. Evil is one of those words that we throw around a little too freely as a society and as individuals. Used too frequently and it loses meaning and impact.

It is far too simple for us to look to a side of an issue or a situation and call it “evil”. But what do we really mean? Evil is the act of causing harm / destruction and violating law, morality, and social norms in a deliberate and intentional manner. If that is the case, do most of the things we call evil really fit in that category. For example, if a corporation is caught dumping toxins into a river, are they being evil? Surely they are violating some rule or norm, but was that the intention? No, not at all – they are trying to save money and increase their profit margins. It is cheaper to dump the waste rather than clean it properly, so they dump it. It is not an act of evil because the dumping was not committed with the intention of hurting the environment or anyone else. It was done to save a buck and has the side effect of harm. This is similar to mowing your lawn and catching a rock that shoots out of the mower, flies across the road and beats out a neighbors window. This is not evil – you didn’t intend for that to happen.

Now let me be clear here. The corporation in the first example is not evil, but it is also immoral and shortsighted. It is unintentionally causing harm to make more money – this is against the common thought among society and the law. When caught, they are punished and rightly so. What they did was wrong – but it still was not evil.

Now, we know that atheists are often accused of being without morals or acting in an evil manner. The same charge can be made of theists that support individuals that strip others of rights or push some negative stereotype as true. But are either side really evil. Again, the answer is no. Atheists are merely skeptical of the existence of a god and theists are generally just trying to live according to a gods general dictates, even if they don’t really agree. Neither makes for an evil person, just someone that has a different perspective. Calling an atheist evil because they don’t believe in god is ridiculous – someone is not evil simply because you don’t agree with their conclusion to a single proposition. In the same manner, a theist is not evil for following a command or directive without question (nor are they stupid). Again, they just possess a fundamental different outlook on the topic of gods.

And what of those examples that get chucked around in heavy debates between theists and atheists at times. The naming of supposed “evil” people from either camp? Well, that is a slightly different matter altogether. If one can agree that a given individual meets the definition of evil (commonly Hitler for the Theists, Stalin for the Atheists), then the only thing that proves is that some people are just plain evil. They are not evil because of the religion or the lack of it, they are not evil because their mother touched them as a child or their father beat them. Plenty have the same tragic upbringing and they come out (for the most part) stable (though potentially damaged). It is just that some people have that proper combination of nurture and nature to create psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies. Tendencies that in a given situation are acted on in a manner that disclose them as evil. Using an example like Hitler or Stalin as an argument is irrelevant and pointless anyway. None could argue effectively that their religiousness or atheism caused them to act as they did and it is completely disingenuous to try to argue that because they were evil, so too are all theists or atheists.

Anyway, we throw the word evil around a little too freely in most cases. A lion is not evil when it kills to eat, a human is not evil when they consume meat. The word should be reserved for particular cases – most common uses of the term are actually signs that the individual lacks the perspective to understand what is going on from all angles. Look at the situation from their viewpoint and see if it still looks “evil” – you might be surprised.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,
Posted in Atheism and Religion, Philosophy, Rationality | 1 Comment »

G8 / G20: Protesting Insanity

June 27th, 2010

Just so you don’t get this from an unreliable source, Toronto burned to the ground Saturday past (June 26th). Ok, maybe not burned to the ground in the completely literal sense, but Saturday was an interesting (read that as terrifying ) one if you were a resident of Toronto proper. For those confused, Saturday was one of the days of the G8 / G20 summits being held here in Canada this year. The horror downtown was not, however, caused by the leaders of these nations or their cadre of assistants. No, the terrorizing is sourced from the protestors that have laid siege to the downtown sections of the city. Attacking and robbing stores, destroying police and civilian vehicles, breaking hundreds of windows and damaging property both public and private.

You can find plenty of details on the CBC website or any of the other major Canadian networks. I will post a few links for the curious:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/27/g20-toronto-protest.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/26/g20-saturday-protests.html

Look for more if you like – they are interesting reads if only to hear a news agency use the phrase “Melee” while referring to Canada. Canada is not a nation that one tends to associate with images of violence, so you can imagine that it is somewhat shocking to the fine people of our nation.

Now, before some of you get picky about how I am referring to the protestors, know that I do not assume to blame all the protestors for the actions that unfolded on Saturday. Rather, I am well aware that it is more a smaller group of people within the main body of protestors that are carrying out these acts of wanton destruction and violence. Yet, the “non-violent” protestors do appear to give comfort and protection to the violent ones at times, rendering onto them guilt via way of aiding a criminal. Beyond that, the “peaceful” protestors make no attempt to distance themselves from those that are there not to protest, but to incite and engage in violent acts. “Come on, Azmodan! Give them a break! How are they supposed to know which ones will do the violence?” You mean, other than the fact that many of these same people go to each summit held and commit the same violence? Well, beyond that, let me give you a hint. If they are wearing masks or otherwise covering their faces and / or they appear to be carrying objects that seem out of place (long sticks of wood), they are probably planning some violence.

I do have a general comment about the protests themselves. People follow these G8 / G20 summit meetings. They save up money, plan to show up in advance, setup signs, and so forth. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, the strength of a democratic nation is the ability to visibly dissent from the majority and complaint about something. Perfectly reasonable and perfectly legal. That is, this is what one says to the peaceful protests comprised of individuals grouped together to oppose some item, action, practice, or otherwise that the entity they are protesting is involved in. These protests at the G8 / G20 summits are none of these things. Let me list the reasons why I say this:

1. There is no cohesion to the protestors. The protest is an amalgamation of various issues, orders, threats and demands, none of which are the same.

2. Few if any of the signs make any sense. Protesting the use of “the blood of immigrants” in the Tar Sands of Alberta is one I saw, which is absolutely meaningless to anyone that understands what the Tar Sands are and how they are mined. I’ve seen signs about Obama Care, Lizard People, and all manners of conspiracy theories.

3. The protest messages are so fragmented that no one really pays them much heed. If one person is screaming about the gulf oil and another next to him is concerned about Natives, both messages tend to drown the other out.

4. The agency that is protested is often not responsible for the item being protested. The Canadian government is not responsible for the Tar Sands, so why protest at the G8 / G20 summit?

5. The violence throws the whole idea into a state of disrepute. Rather than the peaceful demonstration to highlight some plight, we get a carnival of idiocy. In fact, it has gotten to the point that locals in a town or city where the summit is held boards their belongings up lest the protestors destroy everything they have. In addition, when you hear that the summits are to occur soon, you basically know that the location is in for a storm of pure useless shit.

That last one is interesting. One of the summits here in Canada some years ago was held in nowhere, Ontario. The place was isolated, relatively speaking, and the accommodations were packed with the leaders and their entourages. The location had little property to destroy and few materials to steal. Guess what? Very little protests were held. Strange – almost like the protests are held for the violence and criminal opportunities and not to actually protest something. Must be just my mean, skeptical mind.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Vatican and Back Again

June 15th, 2010

I seem to be on a little roll of late. :)

This little piece is not brand new, but new enough for mention here. On May 31, 2010, it was reported that the Vatican is planning a sort of “out-reach” program (not to be confused with their Choir Boy Reach Around program) to atheists in the near future. This is open to any and all atheists, to come and debate the churches top theologians. Open to any atheist that does not have a public dossier, that is. No, I am not making that up – I couldn’t make that kind of stuff up.

The Vatican is planning a new initiative to reach out to atheists and agnostics in an attempt to improve the church’s relationship with non-believers. Pope Benedict XVI has ordered officials to create a new foundation where atheists will be encouraged to meet and debate with some of the Catholic Church’s top theologians.

The Vatican hopes to stage a series of debates in Paris next year. But militant non-believers hoping for a chance to set senior church figures straight about the existence of God are set to be disappointed: the church has warned that atheists with high public profiles such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens will not be invited.

The “Courtyard of the Gentiles”, as the foundation is known, is being set up by the Pontifical Council for Culture, the influential Vatican department that is charged with fostering better relations with non-Catholics. It was founded by Pope John Paul II in 1982 to spearhead his attempts to create a better dialogue with other cultures and faith, including those with no religion at all.

Entire Article is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-reaches-out-to-atheists-ndash-but-not-you-richard-dawkins-1987518.html

So yeah, apparently they don’t want to debate any atheist that has a public image or is known to be “militant” about religion. Basically, they want some soft-ball types, the ones that feel compelled to treat religion, even though they don’t believe themselves, with kid gloves and respect bordering on pampering (or is that pandering?). Pope Sidious has been lukewarm to anything resembling approachability and accountability and this is just the latest in a long line of lame schemes.

The militant part is what sort of irks me. Militant … how? Because we don’t lick the boots of the church and tell it that it’s so swell? Grow up. If someone comes to my door and peddles their religion to me  or someone takes the opportunity to (like a co-worker of mine did) mention god at every opportunity, by the use we see here, aren’t they militant? If they can be vocal about belief, then I can be vocal about the opposite. Yet, because we were relatively silent for so long, it is treated as if we are pushy, loud and obnoxious simply because we are now verbally disagreeing when someone flings out a belief or two. Please. Militant is Latin for “to serve as a soldier”. Might make sense if atheists were a cohesive group … with soldiers and directives and leaders we all followed and so forth. Hell, there are not even central “tenants” to atheism. One atheist can have vastly different reasons and reasoning than another.

As I said, this is just the newest lame scheme by the Catholics. It’d be almost cute, if it weren’t so utterly backward.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Recommended Podcast

June 11th, 2010

I am making a slightly different type of post here today, a recommendation as opposed to the usual material. The recommendation is for a podcast that I enjoy immensely and whole-heartedly recommend to anyone interested in skepticism, reason, and scientific rationality.

The podcast is called Skeptoid. It’s produced by Brian Dunning and resides at http://skeptoid.com/. This podcast tackles a wide variety of the woo woo, pseudo-science, paranormal claims, and other such subjects. He tackles them fairly, describing the claims of the subject in a clear and rational manner and then uses their own information and facts, plus data derived from legitimate studies and reputable science, to deconstruct those claims. In cases, he has pointed out the subject as clearly false and other times, he has merely pointed out that there is insufficient information to conclude that the claims made are valid or not. He is even-handed with whom he doles out criticism to, resisting the urge or desire to make out some topic as sacred or true because he wants them to be.

The show is always entertaining as well, a definite boon to anyone giving it a listen. Examples and criticism are not given in a stodgy or stuffy manner. His examples are clear and informative. Also, he takes pains not to criticise someone with ad hominem, giving them the benefit of a doubt if possible. It is only in those cases that the individual must be clearly aware that they are being intentionally deceitful that he will state that they are lying. Some of the better episodes for straight up laughs are his reader feedback podcasts, where he highlights some of the wackier comment people have given him in response to his shows. They are always fun to listen to.

To recommend a given episode or two seems difficult as they are all informative and entertaining. But a couple stand out for me partially due to my own skepticism, my atheism or my family. His episode on the Mercury Hoax regarding vaccines is a strong recommendation (Episode 55, July 15, 2007). I forwarded that very episode to a family member as they were reluctant to get their children all their vaccines for fear of autism. “How to Argue with a Creationist” (Episode 65, September 11, 2007) and “Who Kills More, Religion or Atheism” (Episode 76, November 27, 2007) are good ones for atheists. He made an episode on Tibet (Episode 111, July 29, 2008) exposing some of the myths of the Free Tibet movement and he’s done a piece on High Fructose Corn Syrup (Episode 157, June 9, 2009). These are all excellent episodes, but they all deserve your attention.

Brian also produced a 40 minute lecture video entitled “Here Be Dragons”, available for free on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKdG7yGi0KA), about critical thinking and common logic fallacies. This is a must for anyone taken in by the techniques he describes. He also conducts school presentations about the need for critical thought and skepticism, which is much needed in our schools.

Go there and listen in, you’ll be happy you did. If you like the work and want to help, he accepts donations in support of the show and his work in spreading skepticism to those that need it (like students ).

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Skeptical of the What?

June 4th, 2010

Hello again, readers. Though now that I think of it, I have little idea whether this is actually getting read or not. I shall wallow in self-doubt and anxiousness FOREVER. Or push on like it doesn’t matter as I usually do. Yeah, that one sounds sweet.

Anyway, I have discussed Skepticism in past posts and I will likely be doing so again in the none to distant future. My beef right now is regarding a particular sub-grouping of skeptics. Not fake skeptics or supposed skeptics – similar as to what I stated about atheism or theism, the skeptical “group” is one without any formal membership. You say you are a skeptic and you are, for all intents and purposes. But I can sub-divide the group into categories without prejudice. Not that there is a specific cutoff line that places someone in one category or another; these are more the general bins into which Skeptics can be dropped from time to time. The skeptics I want to discuss are the “Skeptical of the Skeptics” skeptics………man, that sounds retarded, but it is the clearest synopsis of this category.

Let me explain. A skeptic is someone that questions, that inquires, that requires evidence in order to believe something told to them or want to verification that a given claim, statement or assertion is logically and physically valid. As the most basic, it is a probative state. Anyone that probes for details is a skeptic in that light. When we probe, we are generally asking the other party for a little backup for their assertion. They may give reasonable and logical data to support themselves or they may dive into a bin filled with fallacies and nonsense and throw balls of verbal excrement at you. It really is, forgive the pun, a crap-shoot when it comes to which you will get depending on the person. The key point here is that the skeptic is asking for something that is usually reasonable – that is, the request is logical and generally honestly made.

Yet, that is not exactly always the case, now is it? Skepticism, like any verbal form, can be misused by the ignorant or abused by the malicious. It is into this category that we find the “Skeptic Skeptics”. Think about the word use there – a skeptic of the skeptics. This means that this person questions or probes those who question or probe? More specifically, they are questioning the motives of the ones that request support for a given statement, as if there were some deeper and darker reason for the skeptics questions. It is not the question they are impeaching, it is the skeptic themselves in a round about manner.

As an example, take the art of “debunking” a claim made by some party. Someone claims that, say, the government is spraying the population with mind control drugs from planes in an evil bid to …. something. They are never clear about that point. Screw the motive, though, that’s not the focus here. Oh, by the way, yes this is an actual theory (conspiracy theory) – look up “chem-trails” and stare in bewilderment. Someone debunking this data will point to a variety of information that conflicts directly with the claim for the spraying. These can be anything, from physical impossibilities to the reason for the program to potential toxicology. The chemicals would disperse too much, there is no way to deliver a chemical in this manner, the chemical would react with airborne particulates, there is no such thing as mind control drugs, etc, etc, etc. Whatever the counter-argument, from the opposing side will invariably emerge someone that is “skeptical of the skeptics”. They will attack the skeptics openly claiming all sorts of things – they are paid shills for the government, they don’t understand physics themselves, they are in on it, they are being mind-controlled, they are too afraid to speak out, just look around you, who are you working for, etc, etc, etc. Basically, they will question the questioner and in doing so will tend to ad hominem (personal attack) them in the process.

So what’s wrong with this? Shouldn’t we question a skeptics motives? If the situation warrants it, perhaps. A skeptic that throws doubt on a legitimate study regarding tobacco that works in the tobacco industry may be suspect, but it really depends on their line of inquiry. If it is an honest search for data, then it does not matter whom he or she works for. Disclosure tends to make this less an issue. “I work for a tobacco company. Was this study double blind with effective controls?” is reasonable. “These researchers had it in for tobacco” is not – the use of a logic fallacy is usually a dead give away.

Being skeptical of the skeptics basically boils down to casting doubt on those that cast doubt on something. I am looking for additional information to support an assertion so I must be trying to cover something up or damage this other person. The charge is generally bogus – I am merely asking for the data that supports the assertion or pointing out that a key piece of evidence given is misinterpreted, mis-attributed, misinformed or just plain incorrect.

“AH HA!” One might scream, “But ‘legitimate’ skeptics will rip other skeptics to shreds and be lauded. How do you explain that?” True, some skeptics will deconstruct another from time to time. You have to look close at the situation to determine if it is fair. For example, we have “skeptics” that question the “true events” surrounding the Holocaust. Their key conclusion is that the whole thing is made up by the Jewish Zionist propaganda machine and perpetrated by the Media as a hoax to create Israel. They cite the Protocols of Zion, some tests conducted by so and so, and their own incredulity to support their position, among many other things. Really? Do I need to say it? What do the three I mentioned there have in common? Each are logic fallacies – appeal to a lie (the Protocols are fake – the Czar made it up), appeal to authority (and not even a good one – they simply call so and so an authority), and appeal to incredulity (if I can’t believe it, it didn’t happen). Are they skeptics? Yup, no throwing them out because they are ….. not so careful with the truth. Are they probing? Yes, to an extent, they are probing. Are they correct? Hell no – they are allowing paranoia, conspiracy theories, wild conjecture, and just plain lies to rule them.

Moreover, these people are invested into their point of view. Most of these “skeptics of the skeptics” are defenders of the very thing the regular skeptic is addressing. It is a dodging tactic – don’t answer the question, just flip it around and curse the other party for their audacity to ask such a thing. Same with the skeptics that push a viewpoint riddled with fallacies and lies – they are defending their point of view and hiding behind the mask of a “seeker of knowledge” to cover them. As an example the holocaust deniers are, generally, individuals that hate “Jews” for any one of a multitude of reasons – I won’t address them here, but a later post will likely do so.

What can one take from this post? The point is that when someone states that they are being skeptical of the skeptics, unless they are extremely careful in their wording, they run the risk of being lumped into the same individuals that the skeptic is addressing. No, we can’t kick them out, but we can state with relative impunity that they are anything but rational.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,
Posted in Fallacies, Logic | Comments Off

GET RIPPED………..OFF!!

May 17th, 2010

File this one under pseudo-science and woo woo, with a side order of scam.

Doubtless that you’ve seen a group of ads crop up on the Internets in the last number of months for some form of apparently exercise related blog. The “ripped” blog, one could call it, details the virtues of some unknown individuals amazing plan that lead him to become “ripped” in a single month. Go there and you see what appears to be a blog with pictures of some guy looking buff and all that. It is not until you read the “blog posts” that you get the idea that this is not what it appears. Hopefully, your inner bullshit-o-meter is going off like a little bastard.

Don’t get me wrong here – there is nothing wrong with the seeking to be “buff” part. That is not what’s wrong with this supposed blog. If it were a regular blog that spoke to the virtues of exercise and how it is good for you, I am all ears. Exercise IS good for you – not so much as a tool to lose weight, but as a means of enhancing overall health, strength, resistance to pain, resistance to common disease, reduction of cardio-vascular risks, and so on. On a side note, I am bluntly serious about the weight part. Remind me to speak to that in another post in detail, but let me just say that exercise can aid weight loss, but it alone generally won’t do squat for your overall weight except over long stretches of time. Most people simply do not have the patience.

This site is not about the exercise or the diet or any of that stupid “proven” stuff. This is about the latest miracle supplement that you can take, at dollars a glass, to get “AUTO-RIPPED”! Yes, the blog drones on and on giving one the sales pitch for a special type of juice from the Acai. Acai is a berry found on tall bushes in South America. The berry is actually quite popular as a local food product in Brazil and other countries. Various companies have been processing the berries into juice and powders (which have a bitter flavor). These processed forms of the plant are sold as supplements in the US and other countries as diet related pills which are claimed to have all kinds of benefits. They are claimed to have 10 to 30 times the amount of antioxidants than blue berries and be far more nutritious than any other fruit on the planet. Acai will reverse aging and force the body to remove weight automatically. It corrects digestive problems and skin trouble and even has cancer fighting powers to boot. And it will help you “GET RIPPED” of course.

Where does one begin? The nutrition aspect is exaggerated to an extent. It is nutritious – but not much more than other dense fruits. And while it is good to get some of your daily calories from fruit and while there is nothing wrong with having the Acai fruit be that fruit, getting all of one’s calories from one source is actually the opposite of nutritious (hint: we’re omnivores for a reason). Aside from that, the claims associated with the fruit are rather ambiguous, aren’t they? Promotes healing, improves energy, increases the body’s rates, etc. These as some of the standard tools of the professional bullshit artist – none of these claims mean ANYTHING. These are used in advertising if you don’t want to get sued. Think beer commercials – what do they claim in them that is demonstrably false and misleading? Nothing – they make visual associations for the most part and let you come to their conclusion. People are seen with the beer – they are drinking, laughing, social, accepted, there is friendship and humor. All good stuff. None of which comes from the beer and none of which you could sue them for false advertising over.

Of course, we have the issue here that they are making claims with this product, but hold the phone. None of these claims are direct from the manufacturer or when they are, they are located somewhere you will find expensive or impossible to sue. Just the way it works, unfortunately.

As for the claims themselves – not one of them have ever been born out in tests. That is, it’s all lies. Clinical studies have found that they are food and as good for you as eating is in general. However, there are no magical detoxification abilities, anti-aging components, weight loss miracles, restorative, anti-cancer, or any other component to this fruit. It is all bunk.

Which brings me to a excellent point – I mentioned the BAG OF TRICKS once in a prior post. Specifically, that collection of red flags that should warn you that something is amiss with a claim. This acai fruit thing is a good demonstration of several. Let’s do this with a list:

1. If it sounds too good to be true, IT IS. Can’t be repeated enough – this is an old type of wisdom (been a saying for a long time), and yet it is often ignored. There is no miracle cure to obesity, no shortcut around dieting, no way to build muscle without……..that dirty four letter word……..work!! Yes, some of you are rolling your eyes right now, but that is the truth. There are those that are obese through no fault of their own, but they are overwhelmingly in the minority. The rest are overweight because they eat too much. Period. I will dig into the weight gain / loss myths in a later blog post.

2. Advertising / Marketing blurbs are not trying to help you. Read the literature for that Blog and the other related stuff – do you get the big smear of marketing all over it. You should, the whole thing makes little mention of the exercise needed to gain muscle mass or tighten body parts. It does highlight this CONVENIENTLY HIGHLIGHTED BLUE TEXT LINK about the acai fruit juice. A link that goes to a sales site – which is repeated continuously throughout the site. This is bunk being pushed on you as soon as you get strapped in and they are counting on you reading that and not competing material before handing over your money or personal data.

3. Massive ad floods are not reliable sources of information. When the ripped blog debuted, it did not appear on one site or ten or 100, but in tens of thousands. All of them pushing people to read the blog (and subsequently purchase the juice). This is a blitz campaign – any search of the fruit will call up piles of supportive sites pushing the same garbage. They flood it so that descent is distant and difficult to find. And by cross-linking to each other, they can climb the search results pages. Acai fruit in google turns up no skeptical sites on the first page and many rarely go past that page when looking for something.

4. Claims have to meet the realism test. CURES AIDS AND CANCER!! REDUCES WEIGHT!!! CREATES MUSCLE!! Hmmm, funny that you never heard of any of those benefits BEFORE the ad campaign. Also funny that these claims are not from one single accredited individual or hospital, nutritionist not related to the ad campaign. All it comes from the ads and the supporting sites. Don’t you think that might be…….problematic?

This is a scam, pure and simple. The fruit has not been found to do anything that they claim. They are just trying to bilk you out of your money. Avoid it – at least for any reason connected to the ads and claims. If you want to eat it for its own sake – go ahead, but it’s rather expensive to bother. Better off with more reasonably priced fruit.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,
Posted in Fallacies, Logic, Psuedo-science, Science and Technology | 1 Comment »

Common Sense Catholics?

May 11th, 2010

Little side note for the laugh value. We’ve all heard the recent round of mud throwing regarding the Catholic church and the sexual assaults by priests. As has been reported in times past, it would seem that the priests are moved to other jurisdictions to avoid prosecution. Scratch that – to avoid any embarrassment to the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. With the Pope seemingly mixed up in this one, that seems about as likely as having me shot-put planet Earth out past Pluto. Be that as it may, doesn’t it all strike you people as odd in a way? All this drama to avoid another form of drama. Wouldn’t it be better to aid any investigation and to denounce someone that is shown to be an abuser?

Look at it this way. Most Catholics are like any christian – they are not particularly hell-bent on the religion, they are merely going with the flow. They don’t like the idea of priests that do this sort of thing and want it to be ferreted out and stopped. So would it be really that bad to be seen to be trying to clean this stuff up? Apparently it is, given that they needed a meeting some years ago to seeming decide if the act was a crime (they decided that it did not warrant investigating, in a way). That is rather asinine. Make it intolerable, investigate any accusations quietly at first with enforcement and if they are found to be committing such acts, oust them as the scum they are and let the law handle them. Seems so simple to me……

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,
Posted in Atheism and Religion | Comments Off

A little on Canards

April 22nd, 2010

I am an atheist – that is, I reject belief in any of the mythical superbeings, demi-god, creators, and other proposed creatures that have plagued mankind for millenia. As any atheist will tell you, that simple declarative carries with it a lot of very odd baggage. Baggage not sourced from the atheist, but from others outside this informal group. These individuals, be they the true believers or the casual theists or even those that believe agnosticism is somehow a separate designation, have foisted many a strange charge against the position of being an atheist over the centuries. Many of us call these peices of baggage “Canards” when we encounter them, and we aren’t talking a small bird species either. A canard is an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading fabrication about a given thing. In more simplistic terms, it is a lie, pure and simple.

The thing about these canards is that they serve as a form of auto-attack, a shorthand argument that requires neither thought nor understanding to repeat. Despite the fact that these canards have been universally and repeatedly debunked by atheists over the ages, they are raised constantly by individuals with an air of smug superiority. As if the individuals that they are arguing with have not heard and dealt with it before, as if this is THE argument that convinces the atheist that they are wrong and that they will hit their knees in astonishment when they hear it. Of course, that never happens. The argument is always flawed, without fail; be it because there is a fallacy within its lines, a deliberate lie, a mis-assumption about human nature, or so on.

One must remember though that these canards, oddly, are not meant for the atheist. Rather, they are for the theists to repeat to each other. That might not seem immediately apparent, but think about how the arguments are spread. Theists do not individually come up with these canards themselves, devoid of contact with other believers – the wording and delivery of the canard to others is too practiced and too similar to just happen to be a coincidence. This is evidenced from the manner in which they are repeated to atheists – there is little innovation in the wording or spirit of the argument. They are obviously repeated, word for word, from another theist (verbally or via literature). This indicates that the arguments are spread among their ranks, but why spread such a thing? Especially given that the arguments are repeatedly defeated when relayed to an atheist?

The definitive answer to that remains unstudied at this time, but I have a hypothesis of my own. It is not terribly well developed, but it is based on my understanding of human nature. Feel free to correct or debunk it – it is not so closely held that I am unwilling or unable to give it up. My hypothesis has to do with psychological coping mechanisms. Theists are generally uncomfortable around atheists. We are often seen as a source of anxiety for them as we represent some form of threat to their faith. It might not be obvious at first, but think about it. They are indoctrinated to believe that there is a higher power that controls their lives, that is the source of good and against a pure form of evil, and that saves them from this evil and other dark forces. Then they encounter an individual that rejects that entire line of reasoning as well as any notion of religious belief. This in itself is important – the atheist rejects the supposed source of “good”, drawing the conclusion that they must accept the “evil” side. Nonsense, of course. An atheist rejects all gods and their pantheons, which includes their imaginary adversaries (Devils, demons, dark gods, and other “evil” powers).

Yet, this is not the entirety of the reason for the anxiety. Digging deeper into human behavior, we also find an interesting disparity that must be obvious to the theist – atheists are regular, functioning human beings. Seems stupid at first glance, but look at that a little closer. We are just normal people, moving through this party we call life, living to live and dying when we die. Atheists are generally good citizens – they don’t murder anymore than other informal groups (actually, crime rates have been found to be generally lower among them), they pay their taxes, they help charities and others when they can, they get good jobs and make good money, they care for their children, and they love their families and their pets. Atheists have no better or worst luck than theists, they beat diseases and disorders at the same rate, they are under-represented in prisons, and they obtain important jobs in critical areas of industry and governments.

To put it bluntly, atheists are living rich lives despite the lack of any gods and show no sign of needing such a being. This is poisonous to religions and religious belief. Everything they are told imply that the life of the atheist is miserable, that our “disconnection” with a god or gods has made us bitter people, devoid of love or joy, endlessly angry and sad at the world around us. Instead of that, they see people that are happy, well adjusted, and enjoying life at the same rate that they do. Atheists are not struck down as evil beings by their god of choice (if that is in their traditions) and destroyed. We are not cursed off the face of the earth or struck with diseases that a theist cannot contract. Atheists are not even hate-filled – discrimination and other hate based attitudes are generally lower among atheists.

This is not what they expect or are told to expect. Instead of being miserable, atheists are like any other human group. That has implications, depending on the theist. Atheists get the benefits of their god anyway? Then why bother with all the prop and ceremony? Atheists are good and live well without the god, in some cases despite its threats to the contrary? Then is it really there, is it really that powerful, or can one tell it to go intercourse itself without penalty? These questions and more are poison to religions and their belief structures because they force one to think rationally about it. So theists have created defenses against such thoughts occurring. Prime among these are the canards they repeat to themselves and each other about atheists and their lives. We are bitter people, we feel empty all the time, we cannot love, we cannot be moral, we cannot be good, we never succeed, we don’t understand religion or gods, and so on. These are developed into arguments that they pass around to reduce the anxiety they feel with regards to us. But they have all made their way to us over time and all have been debunked, rejected, or torn apart argumentatively as a result. These canards might be comforting, but that still does not change what they are – lies.

I will deal with some of these canards here. Might as well – at least I will provide atheists with another source to point at when a theist regurgitates one of them in a discussion.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,
Posted in Atheism and Religion, Fallacies, Logic | Comments Off

God is dead?!

April 12th, 2010

So I know there’s some of you who quite rightly don’t really care much for existentialism – That said I think Nietzsche stands above most. And as such thought it might be worth posting this. Hope it’s interesting :)

For the philosopher Ricoeur, philosophical hope is the binary opposite to anguish, in that it is the only way such a state of being can be countered. Whereas Nietzsche’s statement that “God is dead” is a metaphor that claims civilisation has advanced to the point where the concept of God is no longer relevant to human society. The concept of God is innately connected to the idea of hope, and since Nietzsche rejects God, it stands to reason that he also rejects the idea of hope as a means to balance anguish. As such we can see a similarity in that both Nietzsche and Ricoeur both seem to agree that primary affirmation and hope does not reconcile our anguish, rather upholds it. Nietzsche however, takes the view that affirmation in itself is being, rather than a mode of being.

“What is affirmation in all its power? Nietzsche does not do away with the concept of being. He proposes a new conception of being. Affirmation is being.” (Deleuze 2006)


To make sure I am not guilty of the verbal fallacy of equivocation, I must make clear what is meant by the term ‘hope’ in both a religious or philosophical perspective. Even though the source of hope may differ, its meaning remains the same; in that it is a belief that a positive outcome will occur, regardless of circumstance. For Ricoeur however, hope never entirely evaporates anguish – the two are necessary for each other to propagate, similar to a ying-yang concept of light and dark combining, to create meaning out of nothingness. Nietzsche seems to agree that hope is a perpetuator of anguish, but refers to this as an evil rather than a means to balance it. As we can see from the following quote:

“Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torments of man.” (Friedrich Nietzsche 1986)

This links back to Nietzsche’s assertion that God is dead. In order for man to be free, he must embrace his anguish and become stronger from it – in order to transcend into the Übermensch (Superman). It is hope that holds us back from achieving such a goal, which in Nietzsche’s view should be a transcendence that all people should aspire to. At the core of western religious belief is the notion that there is a better life awaiting one who follows the doctrine of said religion, thus creating hope in spite of whatever unfavourable circumstances people find themselves in, but in doing so; leaves one complacent to accept their anguish, and forever remain in the shadow of religion.

If we take both accounts to be true, they appear to be somewhat paradoxical; if hope is simultaneously the cause and the upholder of anguish, then how can anyone break for of it? The answer, to which Nietzsche would agree – as mentioned above, is that isn’t possible and therefore you shouldn’t try to. It’s no surprise he would take this view however, as in his own life, Nietzsche was no stranger to inescapable anguish; as a long term sufferer of a variety of unpleasant illnesses since his childhood, it is easily understood why he would give up on the idea of hope and seek solace in another way of thinking. Which makes a great deal of sense, as it is fair to assert that in one way or another, anguish is an inescapable aspect of life. Instead of waging a war that can never be won, it is better to lay down arms – and focus on ways in which we can improve ourselves, despite our anguish. There is an irony of course, that many religious doctrines say a similar thing about anguish, pain and suffering as necessary evils, in order for one to become closer to God. But this highlights perfectly what Nietzsche was trying to portray by stating that “God is dead”. The journey one takes whenever one tries to transcend themselves – will lead them to the same place, but the key difference is that the hope that belief in God provides is no longer necessary. All that we need is the will to better ones self, in essence to become our own God.

In reference to Ricoeur, true anguish in the form of ‘The wrath of God’ is a symbolic interpretation of the fruitless attempt to reconcile human suffering to some form of good. As the following extract explains:

“… But unlike absolute knowledge, primary affirmation secretly armed with hope, brings about no reassuring Aufhebung; it does not surmount, but affronts, it does not reconcile, but consoles; this is way anguish will accompany hope to the last day.” (Ricoeur 1965)

This seems to indicate that Ricouer has a problem with the idea of a metaphysical solution/ reflection as a means to escape anguish, by comparing it to Hegel’s concept of absolute knowledge, which he describes as a ‘journeys end’ where such knowledge is found, perhaps much in the same way Nietzsche describes, when one transcends into the Übermensch.

In conclusion, it does seem that what Nietzsche meant by stating ‘God is dead’ is a form of what Ricoeur refers to as true anguish in relation to philosophical hope, in that both conclude that hope is inextricably and unavoidably linked to anguish. However the key difference is that Nietzsche saw affirmation as being in itself, and as such – hope is not necessary to achieve self betterment. This is a powerful sentiment, as it is easy to imagine the benefits of such a perspective, rather than focusing in on what causes us anguish, therefore ending up being trapping ourselves in negativity. We accept its inevitability, and use it to propel us forward, without the constraints of religious dogmatism and restriction.

  • Share/Bookmark

Posted in Philosophy, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

PC Game idea

April 7th, 2010

I have a great idea for a PC game. Enter: An arena of battle robots, all with AI programming. This is not a one-on-one matchup, but a group fight-to-the-death. But something goes horribly wrong with your robot (you are the robot) and it quickly blows through the wall and kills the master who possesses the “kill switch” before he can activate it. The kill switch is then destroyed, and many other ppls before they activate their kill switches. The robot is now free to find it’s way to the robot lab, where it can add capabilities and weapons, some of which are experimental and never intended to actually be used in the arena. Well it just so happens this is also a military base, and not far from the lab is an armory. Now the player has a choice, either ’save the world, destroying the other robots;’ or ‘join the robots to take over the world!’ Another idea to spice things up a bit, is the possibility of taking computer AI modules and putting them in modern tanks, allowing them to become new robots themselves, or to be controlled by you. You could also make new robots at the lab, and either control them yourself (if RTS?) or let them control themselves with AI. From here, the possibilites are nearly endless. In the case of an RTS, one could then begin putting AI modules in the base defenses to make a fortress, fighting off the marines along the way.

Perhaps there were nukes in the armory, which would allow the beginning of zombies and mutants. Anyway, I think it really sounds like a great theme for a game, and I think someone should make it. I just hope it is a classy implementation, not a cheap lame one. Do you have any ideas where to submit this idea? I am skeptical about whether or not anybody with any brains will actually read it if I submit it to a game developer, unless I hear of a better e-mail address than the ones published. And if I submit to too many addresses, it will be marked as spam.

- HalloweenWeed

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries