Metaphysic Storm

Few things surprise me in regards to religious faith. When the main principle of the “leap” is that a person doesn’t need evidence or facts to believe in something, anything can potentially be believed. The leap of faith has never been in my nature. The frequent reason that god demands faith because without it the belief would be meaningless is internally flawed. The reason is not that it would be meaningless, the reason is that god demands it. But the proof that god demands it is non existent. Thus, the virtue of faith is without a valid reason. Leaps of faith foster irrational belief. I’m confident that the believers think valid reasons based on evidence and logic exist. But after an exhaustive study, and inquiry, I’ve found nothing other than “the bible says so”. Therefore there is no reason. That’s my argument from ignorance but I talking to a wailing wall. The following clip from an article from Time threw me off balance.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year surveyed 35,000 American, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement “Many religions can lead to eternal life.” Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that “no one comes to the Father except through me.” -sorce

I can wrap my head around a persons faith. They have a level of confidence in validity of the bible. I can not except the superiority of any book especially when the claims should transcend words thus nullifying the sacredness of print. If I’m to believe that Muhammad, Jesus, Vishnu or Buddha flew up into the sky, I’m going to need a little more than millennial old testimony. What I fail to understand is how a peson who bases their belief off of the stories in a book can allow their belief be counter to that word. Without any intent of condensation and no gentler way to say it, it appears to be a mental disorder or evidence of cherry pickin’

I’ve been accused of being a Christian hater because of the “caustic” language in my arguments against religion. I understand why a person who’s personal identity is superseded by Christianity would think that. I find the belief that I’m going to go to an eternal torture prison for not worshiping a ghost or come back as a cockroach repulsive. Especially when “what I’m not doing” isn’t bad according to the logical principled ethical base of self ownership and passive reciprocity. I do hate the Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. However, I don’t hate John, Mahoud, Kumudavati or Chan Khong, for I need more reason than their alegance to a religion they were most likely born into. What it takes is if John tells me I’m bad for not doing something.

I don’t see any problem with the “good” side of religious belief. Daydreaming about chilllin’ with the creator of the Universe and an eternal life of bliss with all your friends and familly on cloud nine really can’t be topped. And if the believer believes there is no one way to get there, their belief is relatively harmless to the rest of the species. I bet the results from the survay are missleading though. When a believer was asked if another religion could lead to non-damnation, they might have assumed the other religions were variations of Christianity. My first thought was that those that answered with the liberal many paths answer weren’t actually even theists. It’s such an agnostic answer. Although I’m happy with the many path answer I actually have more respect for the Orthodox believers of the doctrines I dispise. A more revealing question would be to ask if they believe a peace loving atheist will escape the firey pits of hell.

Post by Vox Day an Award-winning Cruelty Artist

New Atheists and the Neocons - What do they have in common? Both of them took a proudly triumphalist posture just as their perceived popularity began to visibly collapse. Neocon boasting of a permanent Republican majority was still being bruited about only two years before the 2006 electoral debacle, while as I noted in TIA, atheist identification and popularity have actually taken declined since the New Atheist literary wave began:

“Most Americans believe that angels and demons are active in the world, and nearly 80 percent think miracles occur, according to a poll released yesterday that takes an in-depth look at Americans’ religious beliefs. The study detailed Americans’ deep and broad religiosity, finding that 92 percent believe in God or a universal spirit — including one in five of those who call themselves atheists.”

Best-selling books can, but don’t necessarily, prove the popularity of the views contained within those books. In some circumstances, it is the reverse that is more likely the case, after all, the fact that I own more than a few New Atheist books doesn’t indicate that I agree or even think well of the arguments contained within them. It is, of course, quite funny to see yet more evidence that so many “atheists” define atheism so broadly as to include belief in God. But they’re entirely rational… just ask them.

And of course, in nearly half the major cases, the New Atheists ARE Neocons. Both Harris and Hitchens fit the bill rather nicely; they’re not conventional Republicans, but they support American military adventurism in the Middle East. Hitchens, in fact, is very nearly a true Neoconservative as defined by the elder Kristol, considering his former Trotskyite politics.

Aren’t you the Christian who believes in Polytheism?

Eaglewood said, Bunny boy shows up. How ya doin’ Robert? Yes a good number of Christians understand that there are many gods but that there is only one G_d. The Creator Jehovah.

Hi Eaglewood. I’m doing fine. Getting ready to hit the west coast for some plein air painting. I had no idea that many of the Monotheists were Polytheists. So what makes a god a god?

Vox said, All Christians believe in polytheism. Note the definition:

the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

Christians worship one supreme Creator God. Not only does this worship not conflict with belief in the existence of many lesser gods, but the latter is quite literally Biblical. If Christians did not believe in the existence of other gods, there would be no need to capitalize God.

Now, you can certainly attempt to get pedantic, but you’ll lose. You’ll soon find yourself attempting to deny that what is by any atheist definition “a god” is not “a god”.

So what makes a god a god?

This is a reasonable definition:

“(lowercase) one of several deities presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.”

I would add: “supernatural” and “that is worshipped, propitiated or otherwise entreated for action by human beings or other sapient beings.”

MarkkuKoponen said,

@So what makes a god a god?

Whatever receives worship, be it sentient or not, is a god. For example:

Phl 3:19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.

Not all Christians believe in Polytheism. That is a fact. I’ve asked around because when I read what you wrote about Christians believing in “lesser” gods I just couldn’t believe it. The majority of the Christians I asked believe in only one God.

I’m also curious to know what lesser gods you and Eaglewood believe in. Continue Reading »

Post by PZ Myers a member of the out cAmpain.

That smart guy, Carl Zimmer, has written an article on those smart molluscs, the octopus. I like that his conclusion is that we can’t really judge their intelligence, because it is different than our own.

That’s the same answer I give to questions about the existence of intelligent life in the universe. I suspect that it’s there (but rarer than most astronomers seem to think — intelligence is an extremely uncommon adaptive strategy here on Earth, as is probably likewise elsewhere), but that it will be radically different in intent and action than our own, as different as we are from a squid, or a dolphin, or an elephant, to name a few forms that have evolved large brains. Often, the question of alien intelligence is more like, “Are there people like us out there?”, and I think the answer to that one is clearly no, almost certainly not. There are too many alternative pathways.

I think that life is far rarer than most science enthusiasts assume. I know the numbers are big and there most certainly are many planets with water and the proper temperatures in this enormous universe. But the actual conditions that are required for replication to begin is in my guess very, very rare. However, once replication does begin convergence seems highly probable. Heads with sight, sound and smell detectors are going to be vital in any environment. Legs for locomotion and arms with hands are essential for environment manipulation. We’re so close in abstract terms to all the vertebrate mammals. Nearly identical when you use relativity as a judgment.

I also believe in an infinitely cycling universe because of the conservation of energy. Therefor, I think that life emerging from non life is inevitable when limited time isn’t a consideration. So even though I’m an atheist and don’t give any credence to personal reincarnation, I believe that there are indeed “people like us” out there, a “divine” natural design. The real question is when.

Stephen Wells said, Why would a head be vital to the gas giant airbags of zebulon-B, whose senses operate at radio wavelengths and whose intellect is dispersed among the swarm? Or to the megaclams of Gwflhrx, whose perimeter is studded with a thousand eyes and whose nerve ganglia are safely protected deep within their mighty shells?

J said, Sorry PZ, but that’s way too broad to actually mean anything substantial. What are you talking about when you say “people”? Bipedal and two-eyed, with penises and vaginas? Nobody subscribes to that notion of extraterrestrial life.

On the other hand, some traits of human life which are special on Earth (e.g. language) might conceivably have evolved many times in the observable Universe. Maybe they’re what Dan Dennett calls “Good Tricks”, which are prone to being converged upon independently.

Even within the swarm there are individuals and the head is a most efficient way to give the body the ability to navigate. I’ll have to give the megaclams of Gwfhrx more thought but I don’t know how far they would get manipulating their environment. Environment manipulation, I think, is a fair way to judge intelligence. Too much manipulation by the highly intelligent might be a good sign of idiocity.

J said, Sorry PZ, but, “Often, the question of alien intelligence is more like, “Are there people like us out there?”, and I think the answer to that one is clearly no, almost certainly not. There are too many alternative pathways.” [is] way too broad to actually mean anything substantial. What are you talking about when you say “people”? Bipedal and two-eyed, with penises and vaginas? Nobody subscribes to that notion of extraterrestrial life.

On the other hand, some traits of human life which are special on Earth (e.g. language) might conceivably have evolved many times in the observable Universe. Maybe they’re what Dan Dennett calls “Good Tricks”, which are prone to being converged upon independently.

Even within the swarm there are individuals and the head is a most efficient way to give the body the ability to navigate. I’ll have to give the megaclams of Gwfhrx more thought but I don’t know how far they would get manipulating their environment. Environment manipulation, I think, is a fair way to judge intelligence. Too much manipulation by the highly intelligent might be a good sign of idiocity.

@J “Nobody subscribes to that notion of extraterrestrial life.”

I do. Continue Reading »

Louisiana legislatures have just passed a bill which allows science teachers to supplement their 7 year old science books with material that the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education deem appropriate. Opponents to the bill claim that this is a covert way to incorporate Intelligent Design in the public schools science classes. Biologists and the New Atheists across the Nation have since looked at Louisiana in befuddlement at our desire to keep our children as dumb as they can be. The designers of the bill state that it’s purpose is to encourage free thought in the science lab. Hopefully similar bills will be passed for the History curriculum, the one place that questioning the facts is really appropriate. The record of history, after all, is selected out by the men whores sexes the most with the biggest and bestist gun. Three days latter the same legislation voted for their %300 pay raise.

I admit that I don’t know that much about evolutionary biology. I do understand the basic facts and implications. Random mutations occur in the copying process of DNA. If that mutation is detrimental the individual will have less favorable odds of succeeding in life, which objectively is reproduction. If that mutation is beneficial to the current environment, even in the most insignificant amount, that lineage will have more favorable odds of succeeding. I have no problem letting the abstract parts of my mind witness the development of the eye from pond scum, but I have a difficult time seeing current birds as little dinosaurs. I have relatively high confidence in the professional evolutionary biologists determination that the birds are little saurs. The abstract parts of my mind is also able to see quite easily that the fossil record is never going to give enough physical evidence of where everything came from. But I never needed that, all I needed was the fact of random mutation and statistics.

As an artist, I might not be a master of biology but I am a specialist of design. That’s my job. I take Carbon, TiO2, cadmium, cobalt and others, mix them up on a surface and design images for viewers to enjoy. If you were walking in the desert and came upon one of my paintings you would look at it and intuitively know that there was a designer behind it. That is called a truism. It’s obvious that the desert didn’t weave a canvas, refine pigment and arrange it is such a way as to make an illusion of an island sunset. So, as an expert on design, I thought that I could propose a supplement for the science classes of Louisiana. That is the only “legitimate” argument against evolution so far proposed. Just look at your opposable thumbs. Isn’t it a truism that, that couldn’t have happened, by the awesome power of Natural Selection?

The smartest person on television, Ben Stein, stated that evolution doesn’t explain why the laws of thermodynamics are what they are. I agree with him completely, they certainty do not. However, I think he’s implying that the entity that designed thermodynamics also designed the Bonobo. I’ve studied the design structure of thermodynamics which can be summed up as, ——-. I would like to quote someone now. Arnold Sommerfeld: “Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don’t understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don’t understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn’t bother you any more.” Cheers and this foreign bud is for you. I would, and obviously will, like to incorporate into this paragraph that I think the the +1 of Zeroth law of thermodynamics was realized before the heat sink. I abstract an ancient dude watching a camp fire thinking, “That wood turned into heat, sound, light, gas and dust. But nothing was lost.”

I’m tired of countering the religious with logic and facts. It just seems entirely pointless to say that we, the naturalists, need more reason than, “Duhhhh, don’t you see?”. Therefor, I thought that I would capitalize on duhhh. Duhh is awesome. Duhh is better than a mathematical proof. Duhh is, I think therefor I am. After studying the “design” of the boring laws of established physics and math, 1=1, and the intricacies of the human brain, one brain is more complex than the entire known universe, I have concluded that there could not be one individual designer. I’m sure you may ask how I know that. My answer is duhhh. As a designer myself, I have made everything from complete non representational vomit to photo realistic graphite drawings. But throughout all of my work, no matter how diverse it may be, there is a fingerprint, a signature which reveals who the author was. Ahhh, duhhhh, it’s Robert Sutton’s work. What more Pollock proof do you need?

In conclusion: I would like this work to be included in the supplemental work for young Louisianan scientists. If you look at the design of a rock and the design of an animal part, you must instantly conclude that there were multiple designers. Or the highly improbable possibility that a single designer of everything is currently suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder. However, claiming that the Almighty is suffering from a mental disorder, which might send you strait to hell, is not a good odds option to consider. Thus logically concluding that it’s highly improbable that a supreme being is mentally deficient, we must except that there are a multitude of designers leads us to determine that if any faith is correct it is the polytheists. Will the real Shiva please stand up! Intelligent designers: when Sutton’s mind meets the far right. The mantra is: “Sutton Sutton, he tastes like mutton.”