http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7604293.stm
The Big Bang Experiment. The experiment that was made to fit the hypothesis that the big bang began the universe based on evidence being that things are moving to and away from us. Scientific narcissism, anyone?
So it was "successful" in that it "proved" how the universe started; trillions of tiny particle collisions. Too bad that, depending on which scientist you talk to, there was only one singularity that was the beginning of the universe with not enough room for particle collisions to occur. Or that the big bang was the result of a collapsing universe in another dimension (it is called different things by different scientists, but that is the gist).
Some call it a Pandora's box as the collisions could create minute black holes or dark matter or other things that could destroy the earth and surrounding space. Neat.
I think it is a good thing as it could be used as a source of energy (especially rocket energy and energy for homes/businesses), similar to fusion and fission technologies with a sprinkling of Star Trek's matter-anti-matter collisions or proton/neutron collisions that provide power for their space stations and spacecraft. I believe this experiment is pointless for the initial reasons the scientists gave for it being done, but, in the end, will have different positive results, even though those results may have nothing to do with cosmology, or even space in general.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Human Arrogance - the Scribe of Science and Religion
According to the many religions, the divinity system used created the heavens and earth, with man being above all other species, known or not, his/her/their favored. Why? Why are we the favorite? Why are we better? What makes us better? Why are we the only ones that can sacrifice things to the gods? Why are we the only ones that can please or displease, or worship or not worship? According to the Bible, everything was created for us, humans. We are the only species allowed into heaven. Not anything else on earth nor in the universe otherwise, assuming there is other life. God only preaches to man, no other creature. Why? Are they not special? Are they not created with love, too? Does God not love them?
Of course, I just stated a fine example of human arrogance. How do I know God hasn't spoken to those animals, or that the the divinities are human-like in appearance (on the whole)? How can I assume that creatures don't have their own religions and their own sciences that we haven't been able to observe, understand or just don't see it has such?
I remember thinking, as a child, about the science ants possess. Why ants, you may ask? Well, they were there, climbing on me. It was convenient. We all see them scurrying all over in lines, going to or carrying food back to their little ant hills. How do we know what those ants were thinking when doing that? How do we know their relatively small brains makes them less intelligent than us? What if they just interpret things differently than we do? Scientists have done studies on humans that have different cranium and brain sizes. There isn't an intelligence difference. It's all about the synapses. Ants could have many more synapses in their relatively small brain per mm than we do. For all we know, they are more intelligent than we are. After all, human geniuses are taken to be out of touch with reality, or stupid.
Even if science hasn't consciously confirmed this, science claims we are the center of the universe. How do I come to that conclusion? Every piece of evidence is from our perspective. Let us take the "big bang" as an example. All of the evidence is where all of the other stars and solar systems are moving relative to the earth, to us. If the only evidence we have of the big bang is where things are moving in the universe relative to us, which would make us the nexus of the universe, then how can you not say that we feel that we are the center of the universe?
I bet if there are aliens and we converse with them, if they have other scientific or religious ideas that don't center around us, we will try to "convince" them that is the case, and if they are too strong-willed, well, war will obviously ensue. After all, that has happened so many times with religion and politics. Science is, after all, just another religious and political game, when it comes down to it. Another political-religious war because we are so arrogant to believe that we are the best, the center of the universe, that everything revolves around us, that all behaviors should be measured relative to our own behavioral norms.
We look at things so subjectively, as well as using almost exclusively the forms passed to us from antiquity, that I can not but feel that we are progressing so slowly or, perhaps, so poorly/inefficiently, because we go from only our perspective without trying to discover or create things from a different perspective (naturally, nothing we do can be purely objective, just more so).
Sometimes, when I think about it, I'm surprised we have gotten this far and lasted this long.
Of course, I just stated a fine example of human arrogance. How do I know God hasn't spoken to those animals, or that the the divinities are human-like in appearance (on the whole)? How can I assume that creatures don't have their own religions and their own sciences that we haven't been able to observe, understand or just don't see it has such?
I remember thinking, as a child, about the science ants possess. Why ants, you may ask? Well, they were there, climbing on me. It was convenient. We all see them scurrying all over in lines, going to or carrying food back to their little ant hills. How do we know what those ants were thinking when doing that? How do we know their relatively small brains makes them less intelligent than us? What if they just interpret things differently than we do? Scientists have done studies on humans that have different cranium and brain sizes. There isn't an intelligence difference. It's all about the synapses. Ants could have many more synapses in their relatively small brain per mm than we do. For all we know, they are more intelligent than we are. After all, human geniuses are taken to be out of touch with reality, or stupid.
Even if science hasn't consciously confirmed this, science claims we are the center of the universe. How do I come to that conclusion? Every piece of evidence is from our perspective. Let us take the "big bang" as an example. All of the evidence is where all of the other stars and solar systems are moving relative to the earth, to us. If the only evidence we have of the big bang is where things are moving in the universe relative to us, which would make us the nexus of the universe, then how can you not say that we feel that we are the center of the universe?
I bet if there are aliens and we converse with them, if they have other scientific or religious ideas that don't center around us, we will try to "convince" them that is the case, and if they are too strong-willed, well, war will obviously ensue. After all, that has happened so many times with religion and politics. Science is, after all, just another religious and political game, when it comes down to it. Another political-religious war because we are so arrogant to believe that we are the best, the center of the universe, that everything revolves around us, that all behaviors should be measured relative to our own behavioral norms.
We look at things so subjectively, as well as using almost exclusively the forms passed to us from antiquity, that I can not but feel that we are progressing so slowly or, perhaps, so poorly/inefficiently, because we go from only our perspective without trying to discover or create things from a different perspective (naturally, nothing we do can be purely objective, just more so).
Sometimes, when I think about it, I'm surprised we have gotten this far and lasted this long.
Thoughts on Global Warming
During my ponderous pacing, I have wandered to a somewhat stray thought days after reading a thread on global warming and, more specifically, its origin.
From what I have read on the subject (not a lot, unfortunately), I have yet to come across scientists dismissing the idea that we are warming up because the earth was too cold before. It would seem to me, from my reading, that we just assume that, since we have always lived in somewhat stable weather conditions with only slightly fluctuations due to the cycles of the earth, sun and moon, that that is the way the earth, climate-wise, is supposed to be. Are we really, as a species, so incredibly arrogant that the earth is only supposed to be in such a way so we are comfortable and every other way is wrong?
From what I have read about dinosaur fossil findings, it would appear that, during the time of the dinosaurs, the earth's climate was much more tropical, on the whole, including smaller polar ice caps and ice shelves. There is also evidence of grape vines in Greenland which should be impossible since, according to the scientific community, this is the warmest the earth has ever been...According to the scientific consensus that, through pollution, humans are causing the warm to such a point so that it was similar to prehistoric conditions, then we must have polluted the earth then, too. After all, that is clearly the only possible way for the earth to get to such temperatures. Right scientific community? Not that I'm necessarily against "green" (eye roll) solutions.
I also enjoy how scientists completely disregard their own ideas on how the climate works when all of this global warming stuff was published. The earth, according to climatologists and meteorologists, goes through periods of warming and cooling (planetary average) because it was too warm/cool before, so therefore it must heat up/cool off in order to reach its equilibrium. I wish I could remember where I was going with this.
Anyway, I also find it arrogant of scientists to blame the majority of the cause of the warming globe on human produced pollution. After all, we are the only things that can really affect the environment, right? Right.
Ah, I remember where I was going with this before. Even if scientists are correct on global warming and its consequences, won't the damage the earth's reaching for its status quo put it back to its equilibrium, therefore fixing the problem? Wait, I lost it half way through. Damn.
To be cold and callous, perhaps that, if scientists are correct, the projected destruction will be, in the scheme of things, a positive occurrence. Many people die. Different climates, leaving room to spawn other species and the adaptations of others. Good, right? That is the entire point of survival of the fittest? If something suddenly happened, instead of gradually like this global warming shit, then wouldn't it be good, not bad, to have adapted to such warm conditions instead of everything being wiped out?
I enjoy how scientists are so completely sure that they are correct about global warming when they can't predict local weather a few days in advance, yet are doing so on a global scale years in advance. The variable numbers rises exponentially the larger the square mile you try to predict the weather for. We can't get all of them correct locally, with a relatively small quantity of variables; how do we know that we got it correct for so many? Because out of the millions of computer models made for the direction of the earth's temperatures were going at a certain point is correct? Bah. I think I also forgot to mention we don't know all of the variables that affect the earth nor how to accurately measure the ones we do know of. What is the figure used for the amount of cubic heat the sun permeates per second at 96*67* (latitude and longitude)? Indeed.
Not to mention the same thing that is happening on earth is happening on Mars. Or is that all of that human made pollution, too? All of those exhaust pipes on those land rovers are really messing with the atmosphere on Mars. Man oh man.
To summarize, we predicting something to happen, and causing panic over it, using incomplete information, ignoring other pieces of evidence, being arrogant over the cause of the condition of the earth, being ignorant of how the earth was before our records indicate, not to mention using correlations to show causation. Brilliant.
From what I have read on the subject (not a lot, unfortunately), I have yet to come across scientists dismissing the idea that we are warming up because the earth was too cold before. It would seem to me, from my reading, that we just assume that, since we have always lived in somewhat stable weather conditions with only slightly fluctuations due to the cycles of the earth, sun and moon, that that is the way the earth, climate-wise, is supposed to be. Are we really, as a species, so incredibly arrogant that the earth is only supposed to be in such a way so we are comfortable and every other way is wrong?
From what I have read about dinosaur fossil findings, it would appear that, during the time of the dinosaurs, the earth's climate was much more tropical, on the whole, including smaller polar ice caps and ice shelves. There is also evidence of grape vines in Greenland which should be impossible since, according to the scientific community, this is the warmest the earth has ever been...According to the scientific consensus that, through pollution, humans are causing the warm to such a point so that it was similar to prehistoric conditions, then we must have polluted the earth then, too. After all, that is clearly the only possible way for the earth to get to such temperatures. Right scientific community? Not that I'm necessarily against "green" (eye roll) solutions.
I also enjoy how scientists completely disregard their own ideas on how the climate works when all of this global warming stuff was published. The earth, according to climatologists and meteorologists, goes through periods of warming and cooling (planetary average) because it was too warm/cool before, so therefore it must heat up/cool off in order to reach its equilibrium. I wish I could remember where I was going with this.
Anyway, I also find it arrogant of scientists to blame the majority of the cause of the warming globe on human produced pollution. After all, we are the only things that can really affect the environment, right? Right.
Ah, I remember where I was going with this before. Even if scientists are correct on global warming and its consequences, won't the damage the earth's reaching for its status quo put it back to its equilibrium, therefore fixing the problem? Wait, I lost it half way through. Damn.
To be cold and callous, perhaps that, if scientists are correct, the projected destruction will be, in the scheme of things, a positive occurrence. Many people die. Different climates, leaving room to spawn other species and the adaptations of others. Good, right? That is the entire point of survival of the fittest? If something suddenly happened, instead of gradually like this global warming shit, then wouldn't it be good, not bad, to have adapted to such warm conditions instead of everything being wiped out?
I enjoy how scientists are so completely sure that they are correct about global warming when they can't predict local weather a few days in advance, yet are doing so on a global scale years in advance. The variable numbers rises exponentially the larger the square mile you try to predict the weather for. We can't get all of them correct locally, with a relatively small quantity of variables; how do we know that we got it correct for so many? Because out of the millions of computer models made for the direction of the earth's temperatures were going at a certain point is correct? Bah. I think I also forgot to mention we don't know all of the variables that affect the earth nor how to accurately measure the ones we do know of. What is the figure used for the amount of cubic heat the sun permeates per second at 96*67* (latitude and longitude)? Indeed.
Not to mention the same thing that is happening on earth is happening on Mars. Or is that all of that human made pollution, too? All of those exhaust pipes on those land rovers are really messing with the atmosphere on Mars. Man oh man.
To summarize, we predicting something to happen, and causing panic over it, using incomplete information, ignoring other pieces of evidence, being arrogant over the cause of the condition of the earth, being ignorant of how the earth was before our records indicate, not to mention using correlations to show causation. Brilliant.
Unstoppable Force, Meet Unmovable Object
What does happen when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object? I have thought up several different solutions to this conundrum, most of which do not bode well for the unmovable object in terms of accomplishing its goal of stopping all forces.
1) In such, it is never posited that there is no space around the unmovable object, therefore making it so the unstoppable force can go around, above or below the unmovable object.
2) Combining #1s and 3, if the unstoppable force can get above the unmovable object and if the unmovable object is able to be destroyed, without it moving, then with enough downward force, the unmovable object could be crushed, destroyed, without it moving, not stopping the force.
3) In such, it is never posited that the unmovable object is unbreakable. If the unmovable object is breakable, then what is stopping the unstoppable force from plowing right through the middle of the unmovable object?
4) What about the unstoppable force moving in a different direction than which the unmovable object is located? Since the object is unable to move, then it is, therefore, unable to move into the new path of the unstoppable force.
"What about the unmovable object breaking the unstoppable force?" you may be asking. There are a few problems with this, unfortunately. Firstly, destroying the unstoppable force will create such a great about of friction, destroying its inertia, therefore slowing it down and, effectively, stopping it, depending on the reason of its destruction as well as how thorough the destruction was. If the force was completely destroyed, then it cannot move since it no longer exists. Things that don't exist can't move. Secondly, forces cannot be destroyed, only inhibited from moving.
Naturally, the question itself comes with some major assumptions.
1) Newton's Law of Motion does not exist; the object would have to somehow come to its position, which would require motion, not to mention it becoming its present size, which is also a motion. According to Newton, since it was in motion at some point, it is, therefore, still in motion and can never not be in motion.
2) The makeup of the object is one large macro-subatomic particle (one big neutron). If it is not, then, unless the object is at absolute zero, its atoms would be in constant motion, therefore making the object always in motion. Ties together well with #1.
3) That all of this is happening in a gravity-less vacuum. If this event does not occur in such an environment, then the particles in the air, as well as gravity, will create friction which will eventually slow the inertia of the force down to such a level that it would seem like it has stopped. Of course, taking #1 into account, no force that was in motion can ever be stopped, therefore making the entire question a pointless exercise.
Clearly, the unstoppable force is superior to the unmovable object. That is, of course, if an unmovable object can even exist or that a force that is in motion can be stopped by some kind of other force or object.
1) In such, it is never posited that there is no space around the unmovable object, therefore making it so the unstoppable force can go around, above or below the unmovable object.
2) Combining #1s and 3, if the unstoppable force can get above the unmovable object and if the unmovable object is able to be destroyed, without it moving, then with enough downward force, the unmovable object could be crushed, destroyed, without it moving, not stopping the force.
3) In such, it is never posited that the unmovable object is unbreakable. If the unmovable object is breakable, then what is stopping the unstoppable force from plowing right through the middle of the unmovable object?
4) What about the unstoppable force moving in a different direction than which the unmovable object is located? Since the object is unable to move, then it is, therefore, unable to move into the new path of the unstoppable force.
"What about the unmovable object breaking the unstoppable force?" you may be asking. There are a few problems with this, unfortunately. Firstly, destroying the unstoppable force will create such a great about of friction, destroying its inertia, therefore slowing it down and, effectively, stopping it, depending on the reason of its destruction as well as how thorough the destruction was. If the force was completely destroyed, then it cannot move since it no longer exists. Things that don't exist can't move. Secondly, forces cannot be destroyed, only inhibited from moving.
Naturally, the question itself comes with some major assumptions.
1) Newton's Law of Motion does not exist; the object would have to somehow come to its position, which would require motion, not to mention it becoming its present size, which is also a motion. According to Newton, since it was in motion at some point, it is, therefore, still in motion and can never not be in motion.
2) The makeup of the object is one large macro-subatomic particle (one big neutron). If it is not, then, unless the object is at absolute zero, its atoms would be in constant motion, therefore making the object always in motion. Ties together well with #1.
3) That all of this is happening in a gravity-less vacuum. If this event does not occur in such an environment, then the particles in the air, as well as gravity, will create friction which will eventually slow the inertia of the force down to such a level that it would seem like it has stopped. Of course, taking #1 into account, no force that was in motion can ever be stopped, therefore making the entire question a pointless exercise.
Clearly, the unstoppable force is superior to the unmovable object. That is, of course, if an unmovable object can even exist or that a force that is in motion can be stopped by some kind of other force or object.
Divine Inspiration
The idea that the Bible was divinely inspired seems to be a bit absurd to me.
First of all, how do the Christians know that their God inspired and it wasn't inspired by, say, the Norse gods? Or the Greek gods? Or the Roman gods? Maybe the entire time the Bible was inspired by Zeus but Christians chose to ignore this and, instead, worshiped a Jewish like god?
Secondly, I've come across parts of the Bible (Issaiah 45:7), presented them to a Christian from any denomination, and have them tell me that it was incorrect, mistranslated or was written down, originally, incorrectly. The last of those three shows me that either God makes mistakes in his inspiration or the Bible wasn't truly divinely inspired and, therefore, not flawless. Either of those options points to the Bible being, potentially flawed.
"BUT THEY MADE THE SAME MISTAKES CONSISTENTLY LOL!!!!"
I refer to little children in argument to this statement. Little children, or those with speech impediments, can not correctly pronounce certain letters or form certain syllables. They consistently make the same mistake. Following this logic, all words with certain letters or sounds, should not be real words at all or at least spelled and pronounced differently, since the same mistake was made consistently.
Another problem with the Bible and its...interpretations...is that there isn't any real consensus on what should be taken literally, what should be taken metaphorically and what should be disregarded. As far as I know, nowhere in the Bible is there a key to deciphering which parts should be taken in which way. For all we know, all of the parts of the Bible that talk about God existing, should be taken metaphorically, meaning that God doesn't actually exist. How do we know that isn't so? Because the popes have said so? I don't recall anywhere in the Bible, the always correct and divinely inspired book, to state that popes are always correct in what they say about the Bible and its off shooting beliefs.
On the trail of thought concerning off shot beliefs in Christianity, what is up with the standing, sitting, kneeling procedure? How pointless is that? "ITS TO MAKE YOU SUFFER LIKE JESUS DID" I didn't realize that such...exercises...were akin to getting nails pounded through you or suffocating. If they really wanted to make you suffer, they would just have you kneel the entire time because that's killer on the back. But then again, that's too much like an oral sex position; they have to keep their innocent, no sex image.
Back onto the original track concerning such things, some portions of the Bible had to be edited, cleaned up, because they had to many sexual or violent images. Clearly, with those images present and God gave them to us and it can't be wrong, then maybe we should being watching pornography and there should be lots of violence in video games and on T.V./in movies. How do we know that we haven't fucked the Bible up completely by removing these things. I also seem to remember a verse in the Bible regarding to changing the Bible (pre-Revelations..). Therefore, the person(s) who put in Revelations (and a few other books), should be going to Hell as long with those who believe in those other books, along with those that censored the Bible.
To conclude with the original, I guess, point of this, is the Bible divinely inspired and always correct, or is the Bible divinely inspired but God could make mistakes with it, or is the Bible written by man and, therefore, can be completely flawed? If the first, then how come we can censor, edit and retranslate it while it still maintaining its level of perfection? If the second, is God truly that great? Is the Bible really all it's cracked up to be? How much of it is truly correct? If the third, then, again, how much of it is truly correct? Shouldn't it be, then, taken with a fine grain of salt, at best?
First of all, how do the Christians know that their God inspired and it wasn't inspired by, say, the Norse gods? Or the Greek gods? Or the Roman gods? Maybe the entire time the Bible was inspired by Zeus but Christians chose to ignore this and, instead, worshiped a Jewish like god?
Secondly, I've come across parts of the Bible (Issaiah 45:7), presented them to a Christian from any denomination, and have them tell me that it was incorrect, mistranslated or was written down, originally, incorrectly. The last of those three shows me that either God makes mistakes in his inspiration or the Bible wasn't truly divinely inspired and, therefore, not flawless. Either of those options points to the Bible being, potentially flawed.
"BUT THEY MADE THE SAME MISTAKES CONSISTENTLY LOL!!!!"
I refer to little children in argument to this statement. Little children, or those with speech impediments, can not correctly pronounce certain letters or form certain syllables. They consistently make the same mistake. Following this logic, all words with certain letters or sounds, should not be real words at all or at least spelled and pronounced differently, since the same mistake was made consistently.
Another problem with the Bible and its...interpretations...is that there isn't any real consensus on what should be taken literally, what should be taken metaphorically and what should be disregarded. As far as I know, nowhere in the Bible is there a key to deciphering which parts should be taken in which way. For all we know, all of the parts of the Bible that talk about God existing, should be taken metaphorically, meaning that God doesn't actually exist. How do we know that isn't so? Because the popes have said so? I don't recall anywhere in the Bible, the always correct and divinely inspired book, to state that popes are always correct in what they say about the Bible and its off shooting beliefs.
On the trail of thought concerning off shot beliefs in Christianity, what is up with the standing, sitting, kneeling procedure? How pointless is that? "ITS TO MAKE YOU SUFFER LIKE JESUS DID" I didn't realize that such...exercises...were akin to getting nails pounded through you or suffocating. If they really wanted to make you suffer, they would just have you kneel the entire time because that's killer on the back. But then again, that's too much like an oral sex position; they have to keep their innocent, no sex image.
Back onto the original track concerning such things, some portions of the Bible had to be edited, cleaned up, because they had to many sexual or violent images. Clearly, with those images present and God gave them to us and it can't be wrong, then maybe we should being watching pornography and there should be lots of violence in video games and on T.V./in movies. How do we know that we haven't fucked the Bible up completely by removing these things. I also seem to remember a verse in the Bible regarding to changing the Bible (pre-Revelations..). Therefore, the person(s) who put in Revelations (and a few other books), should be going to Hell as long with those who believe in those other books, along with those that censored the Bible.
To conclude with the original, I guess, point of this, is the Bible divinely inspired and always correct, or is the Bible divinely inspired but God could make mistakes with it, or is the Bible written by man and, therefore, can be completely flawed? If the first, then how come we can censor, edit and retranslate it while it still maintaining its level of perfection? If the second, is God truly that great? Is the Bible really all it's cracked up to be? How much of it is truly correct? If the third, then, again, how much of it is truly correct? Shouldn't it be, then, taken with a fine grain of salt, at best?
Afterlife
I've always been struck dumb by people's insistence of there being something after we die. I often wonder, "why does it matter what's there?" Truly, it doesn't. The only reason you'd "believe" in whatever may be correct after knowing it exists is for purely selfish reasons, reasons that would, if the Christian Judgment Day holds true, bar you from entering anyway.
I think the entire prospect of an afterlife is purely for coercion. After all, the idea of burning for all of eternity is not pleasant, is it? Masochists are, of course, exempt from the prior generalization. Pretty much all religions have a "good" place and a "bad" place to go when you die. Pretty much all religions also feel that if you don't believe in that particular pantheon, then you go to the "bad" place. What an incentive to believe! The possibility that you might go to a "bad" place when you die so you can completely delete your prior opinions of the world, both divine and mortal.
Chances are, if any kind of afterlife exists, you'll go there whether you believe in it or not. So what's the point? To "prove" to an omniscient being, who would know why exactly you "believe" in that afterlife, that you believe in it and that you feel it knows best on how you should spend eternity? Man, you can almost fool an omniscient being. But, of course, it is the thought that counts. It doesn't matter the reasons for it and the resulting things that come from it. Nope. Just the thought. Just convincing yourself that it is true is more than enough. Right? Right.
What is so hard for people about you just lying in the ground and rotting after you die? Why can't there be nothing? Does it make you feel like this life is pointless? If you live somewhere for eternity, that would make this life pointless, anyway. After all, 100 years is almost non-existent when compared with eternity. So who cares? Does the thought of an afterlife give you comfort because the idea of death and rotting in the ground scare you, that you can't handle your own mortality? Did the thought ever occur to you that, before you were born, you were scared to live? That you didn't want to live? Now you don't want to die? Maybe dying won't be so bad, since life sure doesn't seem to be so bad, on the whole.
I think the entire prospect of an afterlife is purely for coercion. After all, the idea of burning for all of eternity is not pleasant, is it? Masochists are, of course, exempt from the prior generalization. Pretty much all religions have a "good" place and a "bad" place to go when you die. Pretty much all religions also feel that if you don't believe in that particular pantheon, then you go to the "bad" place. What an incentive to believe! The possibility that you might go to a "bad" place when you die so you can completely delete your prior opinions of the world, both divine and mortal.
Chances are, if any kind of afterlife exists, you'll go there whether you believe in it or not. So what's the point? To "prove" to an omniscient being, who would know why exactly you "believe" in that afterlife, that you believe in it and that you feel it knows best on how you should spend eternity? Man, you can almost fool an omniscient being. But, of course, it is the thought that counts. It doesn't matter the reasons for it and the resulting things that come from it. Nope. Just the thought. Just convincing yourself that it is true is more than enough. Right? Right.
What is so hard for people about you just lying in the ground and rotting after you die? Why can't there be nothing? Does it make you feel like this life is pointless? If you live somewhere for eternity, that would make this life pointless, anyway. After all, 100 years is almost non-existent when compared with eternity. So who cares? Does the thought of an afterlife give you comfort because the idea of death and rotting in the ground scare you, that you can't handle your own mortality? Did the thought ever occur to you that, before you were born, you were scared to live? That you didn't want to live? Now you don't want to die? Maybe dying won't be so bad, since life sure doesn't seem to be so bad, on the whole.
Why Some Believe
Many times, when people are asked why they believe in God, they answer "so I don't go to Hell" or "So I can go to heaven." I must ask, is that truly believing in God because you feel that it is so, or is that just saving your ass so you don't go to a place where you will be "tortured for eternity?" How a non-corporal entity can be tortured is beyond me, of course, but that's entirely separate.
How many people believe in God either because their parents do, the propaganda thrown about by the government or/and the Church, or because they are scared of the negative consequences of not doing so? If anyone does for those reasons, is that truly believing in God? I doubt that anyone that "believes in God" answered the questions I just asked honestly to yourselves, at any rate. Why would you want to admit it to yourself, that something that gives you solace you only believe in because it gives you solace, not because you believe it to be so?
Sometimes, I think that is purely what religious ceremonies are for; religious ceremonies are purely to convince yourself that you believe and, of course, arm yourself with appropriate verses from your holy book to bolster that. Belief isn't about what is written in a book, not really. Nor is belief what is preached or taught or handed down. Nor is belief saving your ass or a way to hide or relieve your fears. Nor is belief a way to give your life meaning or to give you solace from a tragic event or disturbing line of thought or way to cope with your problems or addictions.
To me, "believing" for those reasons is purely hypocritical, not to mention pathetic. If you're so insecure that you must rely upon something fictitious, why aren't you trying to find your own answers, why aren't you securing yourself in the way you are and that certain events happened or certain decision have been made instead of hiding behind some currently popular divine figure who will more than likely fade out of existence in 2,000 more years, if not less? It happened with the pagan, ancient Greeks (though there is a resurgence, so that clearly must be the correct religion), the pagan Romans, the pagan Celts, the pagan Welsh, the pagan Indians, the pagan Japanese, the pagan Native Americans, the pagan Africans, the mono-theistic Celts, the mono-theistic Romans, the mono-theistic Welsh, the poly-theistic Romans, the poly-theistic Celts, the poly-theistic Greeks, the poly-theistic Japanese, the poly-theistic Indians, the poly-theistic Native Americans, the poly-theistic Africans. Why not pick one of those? Why aren't they correct? Why are they persecuted? Most of those religions have lasted so much longer than Christianity or even Judaism.
What was I talking about?
Oh, right. People found solace in those that they will be saved in those pantheons, but according to the Christians, those are wrong and they are suffering in Hell. How Christians know they won't suffer in one of those hells for believing in the Christian God? How is that saving your ass?
I don't think my train ever got back onto the right track. Incompetent conductors.
How many people believe in God either because their parents do, the propaganda thrown about by the government or/and the Church, or because they are scared of the negative consequences of not doing so? If anyone does for those reasons, is that truly believing in God? I doubt that anyone that "believes in God" answered the questions I just asked honestly to yourselves, at any rate. Why would you want to admit it to yourself, that something that gives you solace you only believe in because it gives you solace, not because you believe it to be so?
Sometimes, I think that is purely what religious ceremonies are for; religious ceremonies are purely to convince yourself that you believe and, of course, arm yourself with appropriate verses from your holy book to bolster that. Belief isn't about what is written in a book, not really. Nor is belief what is preached or taught or handed down. Nor is belief saving your ass or a way to hide or relieve your fears. Nor is belief a way to give your life meaning or to give you solace from a tragic event or disturbing line of thought or way to cope with your problems or addictions.
To me, "believing" for those reasons is purely hypocritical, not to mention pathetic. If you're so insecure that you must rely upon something fictitious, why aren't you trying to find your own answers, why aren't you securing yourself in the way you are and that certain events happened or certain decision have been made instead of hiding behind some currently popular divine figure who will more than likely fade out of existence in 2,000 more years, if not less? It happened with the pagan, ancient Greeks (though there is a resurgence, so that clearly must be the correct religion), the pagan Romans, the pagan Celts, the pagan Welsh, the pagan Indians, the pagan Japanese, the pagan Native Americans, the pagan Africans, the mono-theistic Celts, the mono-theistic Romans, the mono-theistic Welsh, the poly-theistic Romans, the poly-theistic Celts, the poly-theistic Greeks, the poly-theistic Japanese, the poly-theistic Indians, the poly-theistic Native Americans, the poly-theistic Africans. Why not pick one of those? Why aren't they correct? Why are they persecuted? Most of those religions have lasted so much longer than Christianity or even Judaism.
What was I talking about?
Oh, right. People found solace in those that they will be saved in those pantheons, but according to the Christians, those are wrong and they are suffering in Hell. How Christians know they won't suffer in one of those hells for believing in the Christian God? How is that saving your ass?
I don't think my train ever got back onto the right track. Incompetent conductors.
Religious vs. Scientific Cosmology
Naturally, the religious (and since this is the U.S., the only possible religion this could refer to is Catholicism - hopefully someone caught on to the sarcasm) cosmological theory is that God created everything. The assumptions here are that no other divine beings exist outside of God, that nothing created God, that God always existed, that God has infinite power, that God planned this, that God cares, that God made it with a design.
Scientific cosmology is a bit more varied. Variations aside, the most popular and, therefore, "correct" theory is the Big Bang theory. The assumptions here is that we are assuming the universe is not rounded, that there is a center within "seeing" distance of the earth, that this is the first (and only) incarnation of the universe, that the universe hasn't always existed in time as we know it and care to about it as, that God didn't create it, (from Stephen King) that this universe isn't actually a blade of grass in another universe, that this is all real (a la Matrix).
I'd like to postulate a much question than those that science and religion posit; does it matter how we got here?
If science is correct, there is, at this point in "time," no means to stop our absorption back into the single, infinitely dense point that the universe was originally concentrated in.
If religion is correct and the existence of God is proven beyond correlation (correlation is not causation), then people will only believe in God because they are scared. That's not truly belief. That's knowing. God asks us to believe in him, not know he is there. Those that "know" God, sin.
No matter what, it doesn't really matter. Not truly. We can't see into the future, we don't know what's going to happen, we don't know which divine beings exist and what they are like.
For all we know, no one has yet to believe in the correct divine being; conversely, we could all be believing in the correct divine being (even atheists and agnostics, in a way) and that prosecuting the others will cause us to go to Hell, Hades or whatever variation. That is, of course, assuming there is a negative or positive place to go when you die instead of just being in the ground and there being nothing beyond that. It's irrelevant, it doesn't change anything, from people's true beliefs to preventions.
Of course, some will argue along the lines that "since we know how we got here, we can prevent our absorption back into the 'infinitely' dense point from which we spawned/other universe/other dimension/whatever." A simple question - why are we still in this universe? If we can stop the absorption, then we should be able to create an expansion, meaning we could create another universe, one in which we could live in just in case we fail to stop the absorption. Besides, we know how humans are born, but we have no idea how to achieve immortality (and by immortality, I mean living forever in the flesh, not in memories or deeds done or other such things).
Scientific cosmology is a bit more varied. Variations aside, the most popular and, therefore, "correct" theory is the Big Bang theory. The assumptions here is that we are assuming the universe is not rounded, that there is a center within "seeing" distance of the earth, that this is the first (and only) incarnation of the universe, that the universe hasn't always existed in time as we know it and care to about it as, that God didn't create it, (from Stephen King) that this universe isn't actually a blade of grass in another universe, that this is all real (a la Matrix).
I'd like to postulate a much question than those that science and religion posit; does it matter how we got here?
If science is correct, there is, at this point in "time," no means to stop our absorption back into the single, infinitely dense point that the universe was originally concentrated in.
If religion is correct and the existence of God is proven beyond correlation (correlation is not causation), then people will only believe in God because they are scared. That's not truly belief. That's knowing. God asks us to believe in him, not know he is there. Those that "know" God, sin.
No matter what, it doesn't really matter. Not truly. We can't see into the future, we don't know what's going to happen, we don't know which divine beings exist and what they are like.
For all we know, no one has yet to believe in the correct divine being; conversely, we could all be believing in the correct divine being (even atheists and agnostics, in a way) and that prosecuting the others will cause us to go to Hell, Hades or whatever variation. That is, of course, assuming there is a negative or positive place to go when you die instead of just being in the ground and there being nothing beyond that. It's irrelevant, it doesn't change anything, from people's true beliefs to preventions.
Of course, some will argue along the lines that "since we know how we got here, we can prevent our absorption back into the 'infinitely' dense point from which we spawned/other universe/other dimension/whatever." A simple question - why are we still in this universe? If we can stop the absorption, then we should be able to create an expansion, meaning we could create another universe, one in which we could live in just in case we fail to stop the absorption. Besides, we know how humans are born, but we have no idea how to achieve immortality (and by immortality, I mean living forever in the flesh, not in memories or deeds done or other such things).
Schools and Sources
So earlier I was reading something on a forum discussing religion and why, when someone states that they are an atheist or an agnostic to any degree, people begin to quote Bible verses. I find the cause of this to be due to our educational processes, in which nothing holds any weight or value in a paper (or argument) without a source.
One problem with this process is this causes people to feel that if they come to their own conclusion on a topic (especially philosophy), but doesn't have any outside source to back the claim up, that it cannot be correct; you cannot come up with new, innovative ideas - at least, not any ideas that are seriously considered or might which make you a social pariah or deemed to be mildly (or moderately) psychotic, anti-religious, racist, unpatriotic, inhuman(e), et al.
Another problem is that I can come up with the same conclusion of a topic with similar data or arguments to some other person that I have not encountered (a source) without going to any sources at all (beyond the bare, raw data which does not include any kind of conclusion), yet my paper will not hold any value and will more than likely be declared as plagiarism, pirated, or whatever.
A larger problem, which somewhat ties in with religion to some, is that teachers and professors will accept a source, no matter how flawed or fictitious the source is. I imagine that if a paper asked to discuss the causes of poor mental health in women and you used the ancient Greeks as your source, with their thoughts of it being because the uterus wanders to different parts of the body, your paper would be correct and credible (even though they did, a few hundred years later do an autopsy on a psychotic woman to find her uterus in the correct place).
A rarer but no less valid problem is that maybe someone in the class (especially college) has already written a book on the subject, but no one knows that the pen name is that person, but if he writes a paper in their class on the subject that their book is about, they will be discredited and their paper won't hold value, no matter how acclaimed their book on the same subject is.
In short, educational processes are holding us back, in certain instances. How are we supposed to learn if we don't think? All school does is that makes us feel like we've learned or/and accomplished something when we get our grades. Waste.
Clearly, due to the lack of sources in this assertion, this argument is invalid, holds no credibility and is, quite plainly, flawed.
One problem with this process is this causes people to feel that if they come to their own conclusion on a topic (especially philosophy), but doesn't have any outside source to back the claim up, that it cannot be correct; you cannot come up with new, innovative ideas - at least, not any ideas that are seriously considered or might which make you a social pariah or deemed to be mildly (or moderately) psychotic, anti-religious, racist, unpatriotic, inhuman(e), et al.
Another problem is that I can come up with the same conclusion of a topic with similar data or arguments to some other person that I have not encountered (a source) without going to any sources at all (beyond the bare, raw data which does not include any kind of conclusion), yet my paper will not hold any value and will more than likely be declared as plagiarism, pirated, or whatever.
A larger problem, which somewhat ties in with religion to some, is that teachers and professors will accept a source, no matter how flawed or fictitious the source is. I imagine that if a paper asked to discuss the causes of poor mental health in women and you used the ancient Greeks as your source, with their thoughts of it being because the uterus wanders to different parts of the body, your paper would be correct and credible (even though they did, a few hundred years later do an autopsy on a psychotic woman to find her uterus in the correct place).
A rarer but no less valid problem is that maybe someone in the class (especially college) has already written a book on the subject, but no one knows that the pen name is that person, but if he writes a paper in their class on the subject that their book is about, they will be discredited and their paper won't hold value, no matter how acclaimed their book on the same subject is.
In short, educational processes are holding us back, in certain instances. How are we supposed to learn if we don't think? All school does is that makes us feel like we've learned or/and accomplished something when we get our grades. Waste.
Clearly, due to the lack of sources in this assertion, this argument is invalid, holds no credibility and is, quite plainly, flawed.
As Requested - Postmodernism in Film
Postmodernism. What an inherently invalid moniker created by those which classifying things into time periods is the only way they can evaluate and appreciate beauty or/and genius in works of art or/and literature.
Post = after
Modern = of or pertaining to present and recent time; not ancient or remote
After now in film? What? The future is in the present in film? How contradictory. Might as well say the present is occurring in the future. Of course, depending on your viewpoint, the latter is completely conceivable. Conceivable, but not true as then the future would become the present. As is, incorrect.
Supposedly, there is so form of culture that is derived from "postmodernism." How exactly culture can be derived from something which has to exist is dumbfounding, to say the least. It's like the Christians saying the word marriage belongs to them, even though the term marriage belonged to many other religions that existed prior to the creation of Christianity, such as Celtic paganism, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism and many other Oriental and pagan Indo-European religions. Impossible. You can't steal from something that which does not exist.
Post = after
Modern = of or pertaining to present and recent time; not ancient or remote
After now in film? What? The future is in the present in film? How contradictory. Might as well say the present is occurring in the future. Of course, depending on your viewpoint, the latter is completely conceivable. Conceivable, but not true as then the future would become the present. As is, incorrect.
Supposedly, there is so form of culture that is derived from "postmodernism." How exactly culture can be derived from something which has to exist is dumbfounding, to say the least. It's like the Christians saying the word marriage belongs to them, even though the term marriage belonged to many other religions that existed prior to the creation of Christianity, such as Celtic paganism, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism and many other Oriental and pagan Indo-European religions. Impossible. You can't steal from something that which does not exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)