Random Facts, Opinions, and Observations with 2018 coming to a close.....

'Haven't had much to write about, at least not anything that I feel I want to devote an entire blog entry to. I've still had a lot on my mind, though, so I will go ahead and dedicate a year-end post to a bunch of different topics, some related, some not, and just as the title indicates, this will mostly just be some random facts, opinions, and observations. Okay, there might be some ranting, and possibly even some autobiographical tidbits.

So, since it was Christmas the other day, I guess that I will start with the whole, "Merry Christmas!" vs "Happy Holidays!" debate, aka, the "the War on Christmas".

I think that all of the hoopla, or to some people, the "controversy" surrounding this debate was most likely due to retailers asking their reps to say "Happy Holidays"(as opposed to "Merry Christmas"). And I'm thinking that this was simply an attempt to be inclusive when it comes to customers or potential customers during the holidays. After all, happy customers come back, whereas, offended customers, or perhaps those who may feel left out, just may not come back. Though it seems to me that a good deal, is a good deal, is a good deal. But that's just me.

If we get down to brass tacks, I think what we're most likely witnessing here is carry-over from a business strategy, not some covert conspiracy to ruin Christmas for people who celebrate it. And BTW, I'm an atheist and I celebrate Christmas as a cultural holiday. True story.

But as many have witnessed, the Far Religious Right ain't having this "Happy Holidays" junk. I personally don't feel that this sort of adversity to a phrase should really come by any surprise to anyone, given that the most conservative of the Conservative are traditionalists by definition and their spiritual beliefs are inherently exclusive. The other guy's religion? Don't be silly, that's just a bunch of man-made nonsense. And note, this exclusivity is not merely my opinion. No, because the language in the Christian handbook is there for all to see and it is delineated in no uncertain terms that "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life"(aka, John 14:6). And then there's, "You shall have no other gods before me.", yadda, yadda. So, yeah, it's a exclusive club.

Christians, and former Christians such as myself, had this part drilled into our heads. In fact, exclusivity is at the hub of the whole Christian philosophy, and perhaps the biggest clue was that Jesus spoke on no other topic more than that of what would be the consequences for people who reject Him as "the way, the truth, and the life", etc. Why would I focus on that and not the gems, one might ask? I "focus" on what's there. Not just what I find palatable.

So, yeah, Christianity(according to Christianity) is the one and only path to Enlightenment. IOW, it's circular reasoning being paraded as "fact". So, until it's demonstrated to be true in some non-circular, objective way, I'm afraid Christians will just have to get used to other belief-systems getting acknowledged during the holidays. I know, such a terrible thing, isn't it? Including other's spiritual beliefs in the festivities? #ByeFelicia

But truth be known, I'm not the slightest bit offended if someone says, "Merry Christmas!"

This brings me to the 45th president of the United States since he is somehow seen as the "hero" for bringing back the expression in question and winning this so-called "war on Christmas". While I could surely devote an entire post to this guy, I flat-out won't do it, because, a) he's not worth my time, but mostly, b) I cannot change an ideologue's mind, and this is precisely what those who still defend him are: Fucking ideologues. In fact, it's gotten to the point where supporters now evoke the political equivalent of Divine Command Theory. To recap, DCT is where an action's moral status is based on whether "God" commands that action(or not).

The 45th president? Same, only in a political sense. Remember, this is the guy who by his own admission said that he could march out onto the street and publicly shoot someone dead for no reason at all and he would not lose supporters. This, believe it or not, was one of his finer talking points while on the campaign trail. If I believe anything at all that spews from this vile buffoon's mouth, it's this. Yes, absolutely, he could blow someone's brains out for no reason at all and he wouldn't lose supporters. No doubt about it. And let's be honest here, he's bragging, not saying it regrettably. His supporters? They eat it up.

So, yeah, just like the "God" of the Christian Bible, the 45th president can literally do no wrong in his supporter's eyes. Sad and disgusting.

I'm approaching the age....no, wait...I'm already there... where I could drop dead from any one of the various instant killers out there---heart attack, stroke, aneurysm, and more. Then there's the diseases that kill you slowly. Yay! But seriously, so many people I know(knew) are dying all around me, from friends I grew up with, to musical peers, and this is both musicians I knew personally and those I grew up listening to. Many of my heroes have passed on. I'll see a favorite artist's name mentioned or song posted, and I'm like, "Oh, wait, they're dead now" :(

So, what happens is that people will share music on social media and often times I'm reminded that the artist has passed on. And this is sort of sad, is it not? I mean, especially for independent artists who are trying to get all the fans they can get in the hopes that a major label might take notice. To think that we independent, "self-everything" artists have to die to get noticed? Fortunately, I do have a dozen or so friends who have given props to the music I've created/co-created, and for this I am grateful. I guess it's just a little unsettling to know that the most "likes" I'll ever get will be when I croak = /

Sadly, the same dynamic is true with this blog: Chances are, people will flock here in droves when I'm gone to read posts just like this one. This quite honestly is a lot of the reason that I feel inclined to touch on this topic. And since I have very unpopular views, views that many would say (and have said) are "negative" and/or "depressing", I can only imagine some of the comments from these super, duper positive people who mysteriously seem to be able to shit sunshine 24/7. Funny, it never occurs to these people that my "depressing" views could actually be right. But alas, this is their world---a world in which reality evidently sympathizes with their feelings. Must be nice. Must be nice to be able to look on the bright side when you witness three of your four kids get plowed over at the bus stop. Four of your kids go to school, only one comes back. God is great.

Oh, well, at least when I'm dead I won't even know that I'm dead nor that I'd ever lived. I guess what  I'm saying is that I regret now what I won't be able to regret later, which is that I won't be around to field some of the inane, misinformed comments that I can only imagine would pop up here, and elsewhere on the internet. It's only sort of a bummer now because I'm actually able to foresee such comments based on what history shows. And, well, one of the things that history shows is that there are people, even friends and family, who don't have the slightest clue what atheism is and how it "happens". And that's just it---atheism is not something that you choose; it just happens, and it happens as a result of some other seemingly innocuous decisions. For instance, something as innocent as deciding to investigate the origins of the Bible, but more importantly, having a willingness to accept the findings even if it makes you uncomfortable. And yeah, this takes courage. Being atheist takes courage.

But like I've said before, most theists have zero desire to know what atheism is or how it happens. Nope, they don't care about my experiences because their experiences have convinced them that the Universe, in one way or another, is looking out for little ol' them. Subjective validation? Nah. Confirmation bias? Unthinkable!....::sigh::

And yet, I can't help but notice there's a correlation between the above-described people and today's conspiracy theorists---that is, people who are quick to believe things that they cannot possibly know, and I mean things about us as individuals and the world we live in. Good grief, we are a frecking spec in 125 billion galaxies. And this is just known galaxies, mind you. Perspective is everything. So, I dunno, but maybe people should spend more time getting to know people and less time pretending to have them all figured out? Maybe more time living the life they know for sure they have, and less time trying to get in the next? Just a thought.

Hey, did you know that just like it's possible to have good sex without love that it's also possible to have good love without sex? I know, I know.....that was a curve ball. And I know that the latter scenario may seem weird to some people, and while it's definitely atypical, that doesn't mean it's not possible. Good sex and good love are not interdependent. They just aren't. Sure, people might convince themselves that one makes the other better. But I would opine that this is more psychology than it is biology.

I guess maybe this is where it becomes a little bit autobiographical, but I can recall as a 10 or 11 year old stumbling upon the stack of Playboy magazines that my dad would keep in his bathroom(we had a house with a one & half bath, and the half bath was my dad's personal space).

But getting back to Hugh Hefner, his photographers left a whole lot to the imagination, especially in contrast to some of today's men's magazines where absolutely nothing is left to the imagination. Back then it was mostly just topless, and on the rare occasion that there was full frontal nudity, let's just say that a combination of clever studio lighting and the hippie movement prevented a guy from seeing anything that could remotely be considered "raunchy". IOW, you had to use your imagination, and that's just what I did.

But the point here is this: As a kid, the first urge I had was a sexual one. Love? At the time, the love I got from my family and the love (I thought) I was getting from "God" was enough. I didn't care about what those Playboy Bunnies did in their spare time. If Miss June got hit by a bus, I'd move on to Miss July without batting an eye. I wasn't thinking about "love", I was thinking about sex.

Of course, like most young adults I eventually started to seek love later on, and yet, in retrospect when I thought I found it, I know now that it wasn't "love" at all, it was infatuation. But still, even as an adult I see infatuation, romance, sex, and love as different and separate things. I can look at a woman with lust and it not invalidate the love I have for my significant other. Religion disagrees, of course. Basically, imagining yourself in a sex act with someone besides your wife or husband is the same as actually engaging in a sex act with that person. Huh! *May as well do it, right?! I mean, what is an urge to have sexual intercourse with someone if not lust? 'Guess I really just fail to see how you can feel sexually attracted to someone, whether you're married to them, or not, and not lust after them. It seems to me that lust is a natural and necessary precursor to sex. My goodness, if our biological fathers didn't at some point lust after our biological mothers, most of us wouldn't be here!

*this was to make a rhetorical point.  I am not advocating that people act on thoughts they might have.

I'm aware that some people might sense there's some dysfunction. Fair enough. I'm not a believer in romantic love, and here again is another unpopular view. In my experience and from what I see around me, when lust turns to romance, I see this stage as infatuation. Infatuation (to me) is the stage where it's still all about you and your own needs. There's strings attached here, and real, genuine love has no strings, because real love is all about the other person. Well, unbelievably, I am finally in a relationship where it's about the other person. This doesn't necessarily mean I don't seek to have my own needs met. I do. I live with my best friend, and she seems to understand me more than anyone else ever has. I've gotten her to at least hear me out on what I believe are the pitfalls of romantic love, and while she might not agree entirely, she sees places where I do have a point.

One thing I can't stand is double standards. For example, if, say, an attractive woman is decisively childless and has never settled down; if she is known to "date" different people, but is now well into mid-life and remains single and/or uncommitted, think of what people might say in their attempts to account for her relationship status and preferences. I don't think it would be uncommon to hear things like, "Well, she sure knows what she wants!"..or maybe something like, "She's independent and won't be controlled!" Or maybe we'd hear, "Oh, leave her alone! She's smart and is simply waiting for the right person!". All of the above?

Now think of a guy who is decisively childless, has never settled down, is known to "date" different people, but is now well into mid-life and remains single and/or uncommitted.

I rest my case. And let's be honest here, the above kind of theories would be at the very bottom of the list of things that people might conclude about a man with the exact same status and preferences. A male that knows what he wants, values solitude, and is emotionally independent? That's just crazy talk. Well, crazy or not, for the longest time I was that dude and I sort of still am. Okay, I suppose there's a slight chance that an open-minded person might "get" this. All I can say is thank goodness for rational thinkers! Because conspiracy theorists? Ugh. You know the type, it's the people who are rarely if ever consistent in reasoning. It's the ones who are quick to make up their minds on scant or even demonstrably false information. It's the crowd who would rather believe what they want to be true rather than what's actually true. Think flat-earthers or chem-trail theorists, here. It's the ones who parrot what they've heard(or read somewhere), because after all, it's cool to think you "know" some shit that no one else knows. Doubly cool when it comes to thinkin' that you know some shit about people you don't like. Goes triple when it comes to thinkin' you know somethin' juicy about someone who's burned bridges with you still standin' on 'em.

Meh.

But like I said, one day I'll be gone and chances are that some of the above-described people will be reading this. Welp, this is for that insipidly ignorant bunch ;) 

Uh-oh. Guess that was the "rant" part, eh?.....::snicker::

Oh, well, like most normal people there are a few things in my past I'm not so proud of. But you know the adage, right? I'd rather make mistakes than fake perfection? Yeah, that's the one. Of course, as far as things that I will not miss when I'm gone, ruminating on poor judgment that I used in the past is one such thing.  And by "ruminating," I mean wishing over and over I could go back and "redo" a few things. Damn me to hell, right? Trust me, in some ways I'm already there. I am my own devil and I make my own hell. Wait....that sounds like the makings of a new song...

But the truth is, I'm sorry to have to report that binge-drinking contributed to some really poor decision-making in my past. I'm sorry to have to report that, yeah, I've said some really ugly things to people I care about, probably out of fear, anger, or frustration. Maybe all three? Sure.  Look, I'm sorry to have to report that atheism does not = perfection. Atheists are human beings just like everyone else, and like everyone else they use poor judgment from time to time. But the reality is, this has squat to do with whether atheism is true or false. But people won't "get" this. They won't understand it, and for this reason they won't accept it---not while I'm alive and well, and not when I'm dead and gone. To a moral objectivist(especially one whose feelings have been really hurt), atheists need to account for morality if they're going to claim that morality does not come from "God". Well, no we don't. What about free will? What about being at the wrong place at the wrong time? What about three fingers pointin' back?



Good bye, all! Wishing you all a marvelous 2019!!!!

Koardic World

The word "Kaordic" is considered a blend, aka, a portmanteau, which is when the sounds and meanings of two words are turned into one word. Examples would be "execution", which is made from the words "execute" and "electrocution". Another would be, "motel", which is made from "motor" and "hotel".

The word "Kaordic" is a spin on a blend, being an adjective, not a noun, and it is derived from "kaos" and "order". In other words, opposites.

                                                 
                                            Kaordic World

                                                

                                                Right now I see the majesty of order

                                                Hostility is right behind the door
                                                And here I stand, somewhere in the middle
                                                Descended from the stars I live for evermore

                                             
                                                 There's no rhyme or reason why galaxies collide
                                                 Now Jesus Christ is bleeding....
                                                 For a world he wants to save
                                                 A world you can kiss goodbye

                                                   

                                                       ~ J. Lords (Dark Matter)

Under the Microscope: Divine Command Theory

Previously in a recent discussion on morality, "Divine Command Theory" came up.

Divine Command Theory, henceforth, DCT, will often pop up when the topic turns to morality, simply because theists who argue as moral objectivists claim that there exists a moral standard that is "Absolute" and that said standard comes from "God". "God" is the standard, they would argue. And moreover, in some but not all cases, the theist will argue that atheists must account for an objective morality if they reject that morality comes from a Divine source. This is false, but what atheists need to account for (or not) is for another discussion.

So, ethics - aka, "right" Vs "wrong" - are contended to be grounded in a theistic framework, claims the theist.

For example, Christians would likely say that the god of their bible is the moral standard, while Muslims would contend that morals come from "Allah", the god of the Holy Qu'ran.

Okay, so this essentially leaves *two choices for the people who claim to get their moral standard from "God": Either, 1) God can command anything at all and it is seen as "good" by sheer virtue of the command coming from "God", or 2) God commands certain things because certain things are "good", and by extension, God would refrain from commanding things that are "bad"(or "evil").

*if I've left an option out, I'm willing to have a listen to what that might be, preferably with examples. 

Option 1 is more or less DCT, encapsulated.

Here's how Wikipedia defines the term:

Also known as theological voluntarism, [DCT] is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. 

Perhaps the biggest clue here that something is amiss is the word "whether", because it's implicit that there's some contingency or stipulations to be found. In other words, we're being reasonable to conclude that "or not" is implied, as in, "an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether or not it is commanded by God."

So, if certain things might not be commanded by God, the very first question we must ask, is why not? Who or what would prevent even God from commanding certain things if this God is presumably where the buck stops? Not to mention, the very notion that there would exist a "who" or a "what" that would prevent God from commanding certain things should be all the evidence that anyone needs to conclude that DCT completely crumbles if anything or anyone exists that might prevent God from commanding certain things.

In the past what I've used as an example was the command to kill all non-Christians. The response I got, in short, was that "God" would not command such a thing because if he did, then he/she/it wouldn't be "God".

I guess this depends on which "God" we're talking about, because in both the Bible and the Qu'ran, passages can be found commanding the death of the respective infidels.

In fact, in Luke 19:27, the bible states....

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Nice, huh? Okay, well, to be fair, according to some apologists, Jesus is speaking in parable here. Fine. So what is parable mostly used for? It's used to illustrate some finer, spiritual lesson.

So, here, the finer spiritual lesson is evidently that it's in one's best interest to be Jesus' disciple. 

But rather than debate the "true" meaning of what was intended, I prefer to just use other examples. For instance, if God commanded our soldiers to secure the children of our enemies and to then dash their heads against rocks, the question we can rightfully ask, is this:  Does dashing the heads of children become the "moral" thing to do if God commands it? By the way, no Christian can use the, "God wouldn't be God if God commanded that", defense, because in this instance, it is clear that we have the OT deity of the bible, aka, "Yahweh", commanding precisely that. (Psalm 137:9) There's even a special twist, because said God is not saying that this act should be done regrettably, but instead, that we should feel "blessed" or righteous to perform such an act.

While this example might not put all theists in the hot seat, it most definitely puts Christian theists in a bit of a quandary, because assuming their deity actually has a referent in reality for sake of discussion, what if Christians were commanded such things today? How, exactly, would Christians respond to such commands? If one subscribes to DCT, then, in theory, such a despicable act and others just like it, become "moral" by mere virtue of the command coming from God, who we are to believe is the objective Moral-Giver.

So? What's stopping you? What would stop you from following such orders?

It seems to me that the only option would be to flat-out disobey God. In fact, from where I sit, that would be the one and only choice; the right choice. After all, there is nothing inherently "good" about following orders.

Consider that human beings have followed the orders of sinister people since time immemorial. Horrible, despicable acts, all carried out because people evidently either couldn't think for themselves or were too afraid to disobey. And again, some theists would surely be quick to point out that atheist dictators commanded evil things, too, and while I would not deny this, I would contend that they did this, not because they didn't have enough religion, but because they were following the tenets of religion a little too closely.

And let's examine something else: When a child follows the orders of a parent, is that child making a moral judgement? I would contend that, no, the child isn't making a moral judgement. Sure, said child is a free agent, but he or she is neither being moral, or immoral; he or she is just following orders. The end.

Most of us as normal, reasonable adults know that we must filter anything we're told to do, whether it comes from a person of authority, or not, through our own, innate sense of right and wrong. If it's contended that this "screening" process is totally subjective, and therefore, unacceptable, you know, since it's based on nothing outside or independent of ourselves, then he who contends this must consider that with DCT this is no different. The mindset, "Yeah, but this is God we're taking about!" amounts to special pleading, and at the end of the day, it ends up being a circular argument.

So, something's got to give, here. The one and only way that DCT can "work" as defined above is if the moral objectivist who's advocating said theory follows, without question or apprehension, any and every command or order that God gives them. The DCT proponent doesn't get to sit back and say, "Hmm, is this something that God would command?" To be apprehensive of, or to flat-out disobey such commands, instantly suggests that one is evoking their own, subjective sense of right and wrong and then projecting the conclusion onto the situation, which of course then flies in the face of the very idea of DCT.

There's no "wiggle room" here, folks.  If one wants to introduce things like "wiggle room" and nuance when one talks ethics, fine, but then they are talking situational ethics, not anything Absolute.

Skepticism

Okay, so in the wake of the two previous blog posts, posts which actually involved some pretty intense and even heated debate with a Christian I came across on social media, a few things became apparent to me:

For starters, my blog statistics show that the two previous posts are the most viewed in relation to the amount of time they've been published. Hundreds of views in just a matter of days. In other words, there's evidently more people following along in the conversations that took place in these last two posts than there was in previous posts. In other words, I think it's fair to conclude that people as a whole are drawn to conflict and dissension, despite that many people would likely claim just the opposite. There seems to be an innate curiosity there when ideas diverge. 

The second observation was that it seems like the biggest stumbling blocks in said conversations, were, 1) morality..i.e..where our moral standard comes from, 2) origin of the universe, and 3) burden of proof.

Maybe I'll revisit each of these in future posts. For now, I think it's safe to conclude that we, as human beings, at least in this society, become enamored with conflict and controversy, and particularly so in scenarios like this where one set of core beliefs is pitted against another set of core beliefs, so we like to see how our own views stack up when others represent those views. Although, I should point out right now that if every atheist at some point become a theist, I would still be and remain an atheist until I encountered evidence that I found credible enough to change my mind. In other words, I'm not an atheist because it's trendy or fast-growing. I'm an atheist because I'm not convinced by the claims of theism.

But back to debate---even if someone is declared to be a "winner" in a debate, this often means nothing more than one person is just a better debater than another. For example, Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is a great debater. He is knowledgeable on the bible, he is well spoken, and he quite the wordsmith. A similar example on the atheist side would be Sam Harris.

When these two guys debate(and they have debated, for anyone interested), dollars to doughnuts you will have atheists saying that Harris clearly won the debate, just like you will have Christians insisting that Craig clearly won the debate.

But again, a "winner" in a debate doesn't necessarily prove anything. Should Harris or some other atheist be declared the "winner" of a debate on God's existence, this doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of "God". And by the same token, if Craig or some other Christian was declared the "winner" of a debate on God's existence, this wouldn't necessarily prove that "God" exists.

So, where does this leave us? In my view, it leaves us with having to use other methods for determining which guy in the debate is arguing for a worldview that is actually true, because, after all, both atheist and Christian agree that someone can actually argue for a worldview that is false. There is no denying this if we just stop to consider that there actually exist Muslim scholars who debate the existence of "Allah", arguing for the Islamic faith, and as well, there are Jewish Rabbis who debate the existence of "El", arguing for the Jewish faith.

So, the long and short of it is this: both the Christian and the Jew think the Muslim believes in error. Both the Jew and Muslim think the Christian believes in error. Both the Christian and the Muslim think the Jew believes in error.

And the atheist? The atheist thinks they all believe in error.

But the point here is that all four are skeptical of someone else's claim. This is interesting, because the atheist contends that the theist doesn't apply the same skepticism to their own "faith" as they do to the other guy's faith.

But when they do apply it do the other guy's faith, what does this entail? What methods are theists using? What method is a Christian or Jew using to determine that a Muslim's personal experience is a figment of their imagination and/or that the Holy Qu'ran is man-made..i.e..not "Divine"? Isn't it the same methods and skepticism that atheists use when they arrive at the same conclusion about Muslims and the Islamic faith? I contend that the answer is yes.

First and foremost, to disbelieve in someone else's core beliefs and the related claims, there has to be at least some skepticism present. After all, skepticism is basically applied doubt. Skepticism weeds out error; it keeps us from being duped in our daily lives, just as it keeps us from being duped by false religions. From vacuum cleaner salesman who come to our doors, to emails from people in Nigeria offering us a share of a large sum of money, to products that promise to slow down the aging process, and on, and on, and on, skepticism is a useful and necessary tool to navigate through life.

So, for me the question then becomes one of, if Muslims, Christians, and Jews are each skeptical of the other guy's religious claims, even to the point that they've all concluded that the other guy is self-deceived and subsequently believes in a man-made religion, why, then, are atheists seen as unreasonable, or "too scientific", or "too logical", or "too legalistic", or "too" this, that, and the other thing, when atheists are simply applying the exact same skepticism that theists use on each other? Atheists have determined that all religious people have been duped and that all religions are man-made, but evidently, this rubs quite a few theists the wrong way. Why is this?

Could it be because theists are only good with skepticism up until the point that someone uses it to determine that they have been duped and/or believe in error? I tend to think so. There are hundreds if not thousands of gods, all of which have been believed in throughout history. Atheists are skeptical of all of them, while Christians, Muslims, and Jews are skeptical of all of them except one.

To me, this seems suspiciously close to atheism. In fact, the following word and its *definition immediately come to mind....

1. Compartmentalize: transitive verb to separate into isolated compartments or categories.
(ref: Merriam Webster)

In psychology the mental process of allowing conflicting views to co-exist in one's mind without explicit acknowledgement is called compartmentalization.

Okay, so if theist Y is not going to accept the religious views nor the personal experiences of theist Z - say, for example, because theist Z believes that in the distant past his religion's prophet performed feats of the supernatural kind, specifically, things that conflict with what science currently tells us about the physical laws of the universe - but yet, theist Y, himself, holds the view that his own religion's prophet did precisely that..i.e...performed feats of the supernatural kind, then theist Y is not being consistent.  He's not applying the same skepticism to his own religion's supernatural claims as he is to the other guy's religion and related supernatural claims.

What theist Y is doing, is, he is "roping off" a section of his brain and is disallowing skepticism or critical thought to enter. In other words, theist Y is compartmentalizing.

And how about the personal or religious experience? Same. If theist Y is not going to accept the personal experiences of theist Z - say, when theist Z claims to have had a direct, one-on-one experience with the deity of his chosen religion - but yet, theist Y expects theist Z and everyone else to accept and not discredit his own alleged one-on-one experience with the deity of his chosen religion, this, again, is compartmentalization at work.

So, again, the atheist simply rejects the religious doctrines and personal experiences of both theist Y and Z. The atheist does not make an allowance for one or the other, nor does he partake in special pleading, which brings me to this:

If someone is going to set forth an argument that follows a given principle or rule, for instance, say, that all bachelors are single, but then later on argues for the existence of a "married bachelor", he or she is special pleading. In turn, if the person arguing that special pleading has been employed holds the user of the fallacious argument to the definition of "married bachelor", he or she is not being unreasonable. Bottom line: Words have meaning. Definitions exist to convey meaning. Does this rule out things like nuance in certain circumstances? No. But are there some circumstances in which there just isn't any "fudge" room? Yes. "Married bachelors", by definition, cannot exist, and therefore, do not exist. The only "fudge" or wiggle room is if you discount or completely change one or the other definitions---or, eliminate one of the two words altogether.

I guess the trick would be to avoid or eliminate beliefs or premises that rest on special pleading? It seems so, but perhaps that's easier said than done, depending on which philosophies or religious doctrines one is upholding. If nothing else, at least try to understand that everyone..e.g...atheist and theist, alike, is skeptical of someone else's claims. "Skepticism" is not a bad word.

Fallacy of Composition

In the previous post an interesting exchange took place between theist and atheist. While I'm not exactly sure how much common ground was achieved, if any, a question was raised(directed at me, the atheist). And while I felt it was a loaded question, and I said as much, I do think that I may have an idea where this question was going.

I'm still waiting on the clarification, so the discussion could very well continue, but in the meantime I'm going to roll forward and dedicate a separate post to this question in an attempt to address it and lay it to rest, and I'm doing so under the pretense that my hunch is correct about what the question is ultimately implying.

So, the theist guest with whom I was exchanging ideas, a guy who blogs as "Deus Aderit", asked me the following...

What is outside evolution to an atheist? 

To try to add a little context, this was immediately followed by him also remarking , "Saying love is an instinct is like saying violin music is cat gut scrapped over horse hair."

Okay, so the impression I'm getting here is that Deus somehow thinks that since atheists don't believe in God, then atheists must substitute something else for "God". And by the looks of things, what we substitute for "God" is evolution.

This is incorrect on a few different levels. For starters, this mindset makes the assumption that all human beings must derive purpose in life from an original source, in a Christian's case, it would be an ultimate source.  For example, it's a safe bet that many (most? all?) Christians will claim their origins are rooted in "God" and possibly even cite the Genesis narrative of "creation".

In other words, Christians get their purpose in life from God, and/or, Jesus, and/or, the Holy Spirit.

If Christians want to believe or claim that, that's fine and all, but what they don't get to do is assume that since atheists came about by evolution, then... oh, atheists must get their purpose from evolution and everything that atheists experience in life must be explained by the process of evolution.

This is as ridiculous as it is wrong. For one thing, evolution does not attempt to say or explain anything about origins. That topic is abiogenesis, not evolution. The latter is simply an explanation of the diversity of life we see on earth.

Secondly, why does there have to be an explanation for everything? Thirdly, how does "God did it!" explain anything? Until any of us learn how a God or gods did something, theists are simply putting a question mark over another question mark. They are no more knowledgeable about the mechanics of origins than anyone else.

I, as an atheist, am content with saying, "I don't know for certain". *From what I can tell, theists are not at all content with it, hence, "God".

*Note, I do not want to over-generalize here. I'm inferring that theists are not comfortable with not knowing things, in this case, the answers to life's greatest questions.

Moving on to love, music, and art, etc., maybe someone can explain why I, as an atheist, have to know where love or music originates in order to enjoy it? Where is it written that I must know why or how love exists for me to be able to love or be loved? Best as I can tell, it's not written anywhere and "love" is an instinct that ensures our survival. If the human species wasn't capable of love, they'd be flippin' extinct. And for that matter, so would any other species of animal that isn't capable of love. A female cat gives birth to a litter of kittens. She instinctively loves her young, because if she didn't, they surely get eaten or suffer in some other way. There are, of course, lower, non-sentient creatures that might not feel "love", but these creatures have still evolved by the process of natural selection to propagate the species. Surviving is job one.

To be able to love benefits a species. Love is a life-affirming emotion. From a naturalistic standpoint, "love" originates in our brains. But the supernaturalist will no doubt say that our brains are, oh, just a bunch chemical reactions, or something of the sort. For those who take such a position, I'd tell them that this is the fallacy of composition. This is where someone (erroneously) infers that just because something is true of the parts of something, it is therefore true of the whole. For example, the chemical formula for water is H2O. What would you say to the person who told you that since water is just some chemicals, then water couldn't possibly be wet? 'Sounds a little off, doesn't it? What about a stringed instrument? Say, a violin? Sure, at a fundamental level we can say it's cat gut and horse hair. But put together, it can produce some beautiful tones, can't it?

These are crude analogies, but they work. Just because "love" is the result of some chemical reactions in our brains, that doesn't mean that love is nothing more than just some chemicals and that it cannot be something beautiful to experience.


"We are most often inspired and motivated by fallacy rather than logic" ~ M.F. Moonzajer

Purpose in Life Revisited

I'll get straight into it: An encounter with a social media theist happened and a discussion ensued because of a remark I made in response to one of his comments:

Atheists often claim that life is irrelevant

I started by asking for examples of this claim, and I specifically requested examples where the word "irrelevant" was used, because, curiously, I don't recall ever encountering an atheist, either online, or in real life, whose sentiment on life's purpose is that it's "irrelevant". It sounds very grim, doesn't it? Well, in my experience with theists and moral objectivists, this is no accident. No. See, they need it to sound grim in order to bolster or fortify their belief that life can't possibly have any purpose if there's no gods/God, which of course, is where they (claim to) get their purpose.

This person came back with a Bertrand Russell quote(see above).

So, okay, putting aside the fact that the word "irrelevant" is nowhere to be found(yes, it could be considered a nitpick), there is still a distinction to be made here, and that is that Russell(an atheist) is saying that the question would be meaningless unless one assumes a God. He does not disclose his own personal feelings on life's purpose one way or the other; he is talking about the question, itself.

 And, so, here's where I'm willing to give benefit of doubt:

Even if atheist X cannot see/find/secure/obtain, etc., any objective purpose to life and he or she regards life(not the question, but life, itself) as "irrelevant", that does not preclude me from finding subjective purpose in life. It just doesn't. Maybe there just isn't any "higher" Purpose to Life. Fine, whatever. That does not mean that there can't be any purpose in life---"in", being the operative word, here.

See, I decide if I find purpose in life. This is not something that other people get to decide for me, much less complete strangers on social media. Sorry, but nah.

I do "get it" to a degree, though, because for some people, fathoming their own non-existence is just out of the realm of possibility, hence, why they postulate (wish for) an afterlife, an unproven "realm" in which they never really die and life goes on forever and ever and ever..i.e..to infinity. I mean, if life ended, then theists would apparently be forced to conclude that everything up until that end is meaningless or "irrelevant".

But do theists live this mindset, is the question. I contend that, no, they do not.

Imagine you have a friend who identifies as a Christian and you invite them to the movies and his or her response is, "You know, I appreciate the offer, but I'm going to have to pass because the movie will eventually end, so it would be a meaningless night out in the grand scheme of things".

'Sound silly? It is, but let's keep going, though, because all of these things end, too...

- a nice, frosty mug of beer

- going on a picnic with friends

- taking a hike in the wilderness

- a snow cone on a hot day

- reading a good book

and on, and on, and on, and on. 


This whole mindset that we get from religion that teaches us that life has to last forever in order for us to have meaning and purpose while on this earth is short-sighted, at best. When I used to harbor this very mindset myself, my perspective was short-sighted. It's actually easy to see, once on the outside of the theist bubble.

And let's back up a bit. If theists get their "purpose" from somewhere else, call me crazy, but it's not their own purpose at the end of the day. How ironic, then, that it's the ones ministering to us non-believers on the topic of  "purpose" who don't have a purpose of their own????

Then there was a follow up comment regarding a "moral absolute". Not too shocking, though, because in my experience, these two subjects often go hand in hand when theists claim to want to understand what we atheists believe/do not believe.

Welp, as I've stated many times on this blog, I don't believe that morality is "absolute," nor that there even has to be an "absolute morality" in order to have morals(act ethically). I contend that the closest that one can get to an absolute morality is the avoidance of unnecessary harm.

But once again, I'm willing to point out the irony here, which is that so-called moral objectivists are in the same subjective boat in which they like to put me, the atheist.

Here's how and why: When theists - let's take for example, Christian theists - claim to get morals from their bible, they are filtering every passage on ethics or morals through their own, subjective moral standard. To think that we get morals from a book that condones owning and beating other human beings; to think that we learn "right" from "wrong" from a book that says one should feel "blessed" to take their enemy's children and dash their heads against rocks, is the height of craziness.

And the dead give-away? How would Moses or any other human being know the difference between a slab of "good" commands and a slab of "evil" commands? This is a no-brainer.

We do not get morals from gods or holy books.

Conflicted

Back when I was new to the internet, and particularly, when I was a silent lurker in a few atheist/theist discussions, I remember a few things that atheists would point out to theists, namely Christian theists, that would stand out. Certain things said would just stand out more than others, and one day an atheist put personification to good use. His Christian opponent was arguing for anthropic principle, but at some point the atheist wrote back[paraphrased], "'Lookit how perfectly I fit into this hole in the road! It must've been made just for me!', said the mud puddle."

That was a "light bulb" moment for me, despite already having doubts as young as nine years old and carrying those doubts into adulthood..e.g..Captain Noah and his ark, things just springing into existence, etc.

Long-story-short, I lost faith in faith because I eventually could no longer ignore the conflicted thoughts.

______________________________________________________________________


Changing gears, someone asked another person, "How can you eat something that has a face?"


: /


: (


>: (

This got me thinking(more like a nagging feeling, actually), to the point that I cannot simply choose just to not think about it anymore, albeit, I was able to not think about it for most of my life.

But how? Compartmentalization? Say it isn't so. Indoctrination? Indoctrinated to believe that eating other sentient creatures is A-oh-fu(king kay? Why not? I mean, that's exactly how I became "okay" with an innocent person being executed for my shortcomings. That's how I became "okay" with someone holding me accountable for something I have zero control over...i.e..being human. That's how I became "okay" with some of my fellow human beings being incinerated alive in a place torture chamber called "hell" for not believing as I believed.

After ruminating on this, it seems to me that, yes, this is exactly how I was able to have stuffed animals as "friends" as a child, but could be called to the table to eat a sandwich made out of ground up farm animals, gobble it right down, then be back playing with my stuffed animals.

Q: Why didn't I make the connection?

A: Indoctrination.

You're taught that doing X, Y, and Z is "normal", so you don't ever question it. You see a BLT in front of you, what do you do? Why of course, you eat it.

Mmmm....bacon. Right? I'd venture a guess that if you could somehow know people's thoughts right before they are preparing to jam cured and smoked pig flesh down their gullets, you would not see many thought bubbles with the above-pictured in those bubbles. After all, such thoughts might cause conflicted feelings. And yes, I'm aware that there's people who have no qualms keeping and eventually slaughtering certain animals to put food on the table. After all, that's the way they always done it, ain't it? Yes, just ask the "Motor City Madman", himself, Ted Nugent......::eyeroll::

But it seems that, yes, for millions, that's how they've always done it. And of course, the more longstanding the tradition, the more it must be right. Right? Arg.

For those who might answer "no"..e.g...me, the solution is simple, isn't it? Yes, I just stop eating meat, and voila!

Okay. But as with many other things done out of habit, tradition, and convenience, this is easier said than done. And to make matters worse, just how in the hell does a saucier avoid foods with animal proteins?

So, again. I want to do what I feel is right, ethically, but muuuuch easier said than done. This is going to be tough, because once again, you cannot "unring" a bell.

Atheists are Intellectually Dishonest

I'm paraphrasing from memory, but recently in a discussion it was argued that Atheists are "intellectually dishonest," and the theory here is that this is because someone would have to essentially be God in order to simultaneously search everywhere in the universe, which would be necessary in order to know that there is no God. For this reason they argued that atheism is intellectually dishonest, adding that agnosticism is the better, more honest choice, if one is going to dare to be a non-believer(as if non-belief is a choice?)

Anyway, I contend that this line of thinking is not entirely correct. While I do agree with the part that a person would need to be omnipotent to be able simultaneously search everywhere in the universe, that dilemma could also be solved with either omnipresence or omniscience, both of which many believers also attribute to God. If, say, you're omnipresent, then by definition you're already everywhere at once. If you're omniscient, then you know everything, including if gods exist, or not.

But what I'm also contending here is that one needn't have any of those three attributes to conclude, in a practical sense, that there is no God/are no gods. More on this in a minute.

For now, let's look at two types of atheists: (1) those who believe that there is no God, and (2) those who simply lack a belief that there is a God(there's a meaningful distinction there, BTW).

But before I get too far into this, I should point out that it is possible and reasonable for someone to be both agnostic and atheist at the same time. Yes, contrary to what many people believe, the two positions are not mutually exclusive, because one deals with belief; the other deals with knowledge. In other words, it's two totally different subjects. I know I've covered this a half a dozen times on this blog, but it seems it can't hurt to repeat it as long as people are going to repeat misinformation or out'n out falsities.

To attempt to illustrate how I or anyone can be both atheist and agnostic, consider that I do not know for sure, and thus, I cannot say for certain that leprechauns do not exist(for all intents and purposes, I'm agnostic when it comes to leprechauns).

Notwithstanding, I still do not believe that leprechauns exist(for all intents and purposes, I'm an atheist when it comes to leprechauns). Note that this is slightly different than me saying, "I believe leprechauns are non-existent!", and it's much different than me saying, "Leprechauns don't exist!".

So, on the one hand I could simply be suspending belief in something until there's conclusive evidence for that something's existence, all the while admitting that I don't know for certain. On the other hand, I could be saying that X doesn't exist and it be implicit that I mean it in a practical sense, not an absolute sense.

Neither of these is being intellectually dishonest or unreasonable, whether agnosticism is overt like in the former, or whether agnosticism is implied, like in the latter.

If we encounter a person who believes that God does not exist, or if someone proclaims, "There is no God!", the same thing applies; this person need not know with absolute certainty that no God exists to be intellectually honest with one's self and others.

Case in point, in the same practical sense that we can say that leprechauns don't exist, we can also say that invisible, supernatural, creator beings don't exist. If someone says that they don't believe in leprechauns, no one tells them that they're being foolish and/or intellectually dishonest. I mean, imagine how that would sound. Well, I contend that it sounds just as absurd to say that non-believers are "intellectually dishonest", including when they profess Atheism instead of Agnosticism. Sorry, I don't have to choose between the two.

Now, with all of that being said, could I, an agnostic atheist, be missing a greater truth? Yes! Of course I could! How about a more awesome truth? Ditto! But here's the rub: I'd only be doing myself a disservice to accept such a greater, more awesome truth on "faith". Once I start accepting things on "faith" and/or because something sounds more awesome than something else, at that point I have chosen a constructed truth over a truth built on facts and evidence. If someone finds fault in truth that's built on facts and evidence, then I don't know, maybe it just could be that I'm not the one who's being intellectually dishonest?

Social Media Christian no. 2,899,761

Hi, all,

Okay, yes, I pulled that number out of thin air :p

But seriously, it really does seem like I've had conversations well into the millions with Christians on social media. Well, yesterday I crossed paths with yet another social media Christian(friend of a friend), a guy who I quickly found out had some very bizarre views on the topic of morality, which of course, he claims comes from Christianity(this is demonstrably false, but that is for another discussion)

It all started with a meme that a mutual friend posted, one where pop skeptic Penn Jillette is pictured and is quoted, saying....

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. You know what I mean?

The reasonable among us understand the point he is making. But at least one person, a guy who I will simply call "jj"(his initials), either pretended to not understand the point being made, or willingly misunderstood it, countering back....

Believe me...no true Christian thinks that a 'person' is watching over them.

I remarked back that the distinction he made is irrelevant, because Penn Jillette is simply making the observation that he finds it inconceivable that the only thing stopping some people from murdering and raping is the notion that they're being watched, with the possibility of being judged at a later time.

So, like clockwork, jj fires back....

Anyone who actually KNOWS and believes in the Spirit of God is not going to be drawn to raping and murdering

Did you catch that? Okay, anyone who's ever read a newspaper headline or a social media news feed knows that this is false. For starters, Christians, themselves, are some of the first people to admit that they are drawn to "sin", but always add that the "Holy Spirit" protects them, well, unless they slip up and get caught. When that happens, then they are sure to let you know that they are "forgiven", and this seems to align with one platitude in particular that goes, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"

We all know that one, don't we? And yet, in this instance when I called the apologist out, rather than him point out that Christians aren't perfect and can "sin" like everyone else, he instead attempted the ever popular, "Not a True Christian!" argument, aka, the No True Scotsman fallacy. Yes, the learned Christian apologist proffered that, while Christians can act immorally or unethically, no "True Christian" could ever rape or murder. 'Funny, because just a cursory look at the bible and we see that murdering people is in fact approved by the very character whom jj will no doubt claim makes him and every other "True Christian" incapable of murder. There are countless murders of people commanded by biblegod, including the murder of women and children. Now, are the ones who followed the orders not "True Christians", then? I think of what a great ministry tool it would be if someone could clear this up. But I wouldn't recommend the holding of one's breath.

In any case, at this point I interjected that, statistically, Christians are just as capable of rape and murder as anyone else, which, in hindsight, might not have been the best choice of words. Notwithstanding, there are statistics and studies that have shown that prison populations have a higher number of inmates who identified as Christian than those who identified with other faiths.

But of course, jj latched onto the "statistic" comment like a fly on guano, demanding that I provide said statistics, which, by the way, I did, but a few of them were given by way of a bar graph. I provided graphs (and sources) for two separate years, clearly showing that Christians make up most of the prison population.

Here is one of the actual links I provided...

 https://www.statista.com/statistics/234653/religious-affiliation-of-us-prisoners/

Lo and behold, my Christian interlocutor contested the link, calling one "a meme" and another "vague", while complaining at length because it lacked the precise percentages of the inmates who are in prison specifically for rape and murder, never mind that there are also charts that actually do show these percentages:

So, inmates who committed violent crimes, including rape and murder, make up more of the prison population than those who committed lesser offenses. Given this data, we are then being reasonable to deduce that a very large percentage of that section identify as Christian. It's a matter of doing the math.

And yet, this sort of evidence will not satisfy, and I knew it wouldn't, which is why I didn't even bother with posting the above pie chart. Why didn't I post it? The answer is simple and obvious: Because the social media Christian has taken the intellectually lazy way out and simply redefined what "Christian" means. This way, with a wave of a hand, he can simply say that any person who rapes and murders isn't a "True Christian". How's that for convenience?

I'm sure that I am not the only one who sees how vacuous this sort of argument is. I certainly saw it, so using one of my favorite literary tools..i.e..sarcasm, I pointed out that things like armed robbery, child molestation, and child pornography are not deal breakers in this guy's world; you can still commit these 'not-so-immoral' acts and be a "True Christian".

Of course, this is what all Christians do. I did it when I was a Christian. They all subjectively draw their lines. They all project their own idea of how morals should be.

As one might have guessed, there was dead silence on this issue. Not one iota of interest shown in clearing it up. Not that this is shocking, or anything.

Happy New Year!

Wishing my commenters and lurkers a happy upcoming year!