Monthly Archive for June, 2007Page 2 of 6

Bumper Stickers, Squirrels, and the NY Times

Published
by
David W.
on June 26, 2007
.

I'm still trying to un-bury myself from the pile of work our move left me with, but there are a few things worth mentioning.

I saw an unfortunate bumper sticker the other day, on a car decorated with several dozen peace/love/etc. bumper stickers (on all sides). There are many really appalling bumper stickers, and I suppose as far as these things go it could have been a lot worse. What really stuck me about this one, though, was that the heart of the message was in the right place, it was just the reasoning that was flawed.

Don't take life too seriously. It's only temporary.

I agree with the concept of not taking life too seriously (emphasis on the 'too'). But calling life temporary implies, obviously, that there is something else beyond life that is the "real" life. Taken seriously or not, this denigrates the value, beauty, and preciousness of life.

While I don't think that life should be taken too seriously, I do not think it should be taken too cavalierly, either. This is it. This is your life. Don't waste it. It's all you've got! Do good things. Be remembered. Live on forever in the history books and in the memories of your friends and families. Don't be stupid. Don't do stupid things. Better yourself at every opportunity. But have fun while doing it.

Speaking of being a little too cavalier, here's a funny story. We have some new birdfeeders, put up recently after our move. I enjoy watching the birds while I work from my home office, and I keep a pair of binoculars and a bird guide on my desk. We've recently been having a squirrel problem, though -- specifically, he's climbing up and eating all of the bird food.

At first, all I had to do was bang on the glass of our patio-style door between the office and the front yard. Then I would have to open the door a tad and slam it shut. Then I would have to open the screen door. Then step outside and wave my arms. Then take a few steps towards the squirrel. He kept coming back. He finally got used to me trying to keep him away. He got bold.

Yesterday he was happily eating on the other side of the feeder, so all I could see was his tail hanging down. I walked outside. He peeked around the side of the bird feeder and took a look to make sure I was keeping my distance, but quickly resumed eating. I walk a few steps to one side so the bird feeder was more directly between us, and so that if he peeked around again I wouldn't be there anymore. Then I snuck towards the feeder.

I got close enough I could have grabbed his tail if I'd had gloves. I don't know if he really didn't hear me -- I was barefoot on grass -- or if he was just that bold. I guess he wasn't taking life seriously enough. He kept eating. I got my head really close to the bird feeder and peeked around and went "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!" I was eye to eye with him. Not four inches away. He did a little squirrel version of clutching his heart and peed a little in his fur. Ok, not really, but his eyes just about popped out as he was tripping over his tail trying to get away. Oh, it was brilliant.

He's learned his lesson, though. He is much more content with eating off of the ground now. Although he does occassionally get on the feeder again, he won't eat on the far side of the feeder anymore, and if I step outside he stops everything and doesn't lose eye contact with me until he runs off or I leave.

One quick link before I get back to work -- the NY Times has filled their science page up today with only evolution-related stories. Good on them!

George Carlin on Religion

Published
by
Gareth
on June 25, 2007
.

Fantastic stand up routine from George Carlin.

George Carlin on Religion

Published
by
Gareth
on June 25, 2007
.

Fantastic stand up routine from George Carlin.

What Can’t Be Proven?

Published
by
DT Strain
on June 24, 2007
.
Matt (aka The Dude) writes in with this question:

"What can't be proven?... I often get into debates, especially religious, where the point gets to someone saying "You can't disprove it, so I'll just keep believing it." My point is this: Lack of evidence, by default, points to non-existence, it does not give rise to limitless possibilities.

I can't disprove unicorns don't fly around Pluto, but it doesn't mean they're there.

I'm usually at a loss for words when people throw that argument forward. How would you deal with that objection?"

I agree such people are using faulty logic, and I have had similar experiences. But I would differ with the questioner on one point. He says, "Lack of evidence, by default, points to non-existence, it does not give rise to limitless possibilities". I would say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Indeed, the lack of disproof does give rise to limitless possibilities. We live in a reality that may ultimately be far more ancient and vast that we can ever know - perhaps infinitely so. Many things are possible - but that isn't the point. The point is, why should someone believe in one specific possibility without any positive proof therein?

The first thing I would note in answering that question is this:
Theism is not the belief that God is possible.
Theism is not the belief that God is likely.
Theism is the belief that God is real - that she/he/it does, in fact, exist.

Given that, we then have to ask ourselves how things would work if we were to have a similar belief about anything and everything that could not be disproved. Clearly, there are many claims and possibilities that, while possible on their own, are contradictory with other equally possible claims that have not been disproved. Therefore, it would be madness to accept every possibility that has not been disproved as real.

On my philosophy site, there is a conversation I held with another person which I've titled "How Do You Determine Truth?". In it, I say that we basically have three options for dealing with claims for which there is no proof or disproof:

1) Believe them all unless or until they are disproved.

2) Believe those things we like believing and disregard the rest.

3) Believe in none of them unless or until they are proven.

I've already noted that #1 would require a person to hold an infinite variety of contradictory claims as true. The most common response seems to be #2, even if only subconscious. Even we skeptical minded folks are guilty of this from time to time about various beliefs we take on in our lives. But only #3 is consistent with genuine reason. Of course, the above simplifies the matter considerably since, in reality, things are rarely either 100% proved or 100% disproved. But the simple delineation of these three options illustrates the essence of the matter.

Therefore, perhaps a more practical way to look at it would be as Carl Sagan suggested: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I like to note the implication of this, that ordinary claims require ordinary evidence - thus, the degree of belief in a claim should be proportionate to the degree of evidence for a claim. And, of course, all positions should be provisional and open to reassessment in the light of new evidence.

But perhaps your conversant is someone of a more romantic approach. In this case, it might be more effective to point out the inherent arrogance of making claims about things for which we have no evidence. More effective that accusations of arrogance would be to speak positively of the humility required to acknowledge our limitations to know when we have not received verifiable evidence. Thus, the lack of that humility is implied with the opposite position. This approach is more fully explored in my essay titled, "The Humanist Contemplative".

Thanks for writing! :)

What Can’t Be Proven?

Published
by
DT Strain
on June 24, 2007
.
Matt (aka The Dude) writes in with this question:

"What can't be proven?... I often get into debates, especially religious, where the point gets to someone saying "You can't disprove it, so I'll just keep believing it." My point is this: Lack of evidence, by default, points to non-existence, it does not give rise to limitless possibilities.

I can't disprove unicorns don't fly around Pluto, but it doesn't mean they're there.

I'm usually at a loss for words when people throw that argument forward. How would you deal with that objection?"

I agree such people are using faulty logic, and I have had similar experiences. But I would differ with the questioner on one point. He says, "Lack of evidence, by default, points to non-existence, it does not give rise to limitless possibilities". I would say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Indeed, the lack of disproof does give rise to limitless possibilities. We live in a reality that may ultimately be far more ancient and vast that we can ever know - perhaps infinitely so. Many things are possible - but that isn't the point. The point is, why should someone believe in one specific possibility without any positive proof therein?

The first thing I would note in answering that question is this:
Theism is not the belief that God is possible.
Theism is not the belief that God is likely.
Theism is the belief that God is real - that she/he/it does, in fact, exist.

Given that, we then have to ask ourselves how things would work if we were to have a similar belief about anything and everything that could not be disproved. Clearly, there are many claims and possibilities that, while possible on their own, are contradictory with other equally possible claims that have not been disproved. Therefore, it would be madness to accept every possibility that has not been disproved as real.

On my philosophy site, there is a conversation I held with another person which I've titled "How Do You Determine Truth?". In it, I say that we basically have three options for dealing with claims for which there is no proof or disproof:

1) Believe them all unless or until they are disproved.

2) Believe those things we like believing and disregard the rest.

3) Believe in none of them unless or until they are proven.

I've already noted that #1 would require a person to hold an infinite variety of contradictory claims as true. The most common response seems to be #2, even if only subconscious. Even we skeptical minded folks are guilty of this from time to time about various beliefs we take on in our lives. But only #3 is consistent with genuine reason. Of course, the above simplifies the matter considerably since, in reality, things are rarely either 100% proved or 100% disproved. But the simple delineation of these three options illustrates the essence of the matter.

Therefore, perhaps a more practical way to look at it would be as Carl Sagan suggested: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I like to note the implication of this, that ordinary claims require ordinary evidence - thus, the degree of belief in a claim should be proportionate to the degree of evidence for a claim. And, of course, all positions should be provisional and open to reassessment in the light of new evidence.

But perhaps your conversant is someone of a more romantic approach. In this case, it might be more effective to point out the inherent arrogance of making claims about things for which we have no evidence. More effective that accusations of arrogance would be to speak positively of the humility required to acknowledge our limitations to know when we have not received verifiable evidence. Thus, the lack of that humility is implied with the opposite position. This approach is more fully explored in my essay titled, "The Humanist Contemplative".

Thanks for writing! :)

Bananas were intelligently designed, but not by God.

Published
by
Gareth
on June 21, 2007
.

I’m sure a lot of you have seen the video by Kirk Cameron entitled “an atheists worst nightmare, the banana”.

For those who haven’t seen it here’s a link. Basically he argues that the banana is so well designed, being tasty, nutritious and easy to hold and eat that the only possible explanation is that they were designed by God.

My first reaction was to imagine the evolutionary process that produced bananas. Of course a fruit that tastes like crap and is difficult to eat is only going to be eaten as a last resort, whereas a nice, tasty nutritious fruit that is easy to eat will be the first choice for any animal. When a fruit gets eaten it’s seeds get distributed far and wide in a handy little package of manure. So by a gradual process of natural selection, the tastiest fruit thrive and spread. Hey presto we have a yummy banana.

I was wrong.

Fortunately, the truth does not support Kirk Camerons argument, but instead blows it completely out of the water.

Here is a natural wild banana

Wild bananas have fairly dry fruits with large seeds and no pulp. In Southeast Asia, the primitive seeded bananas are termed tae manu, meaning animal feces, implying that they are only eaten during times of famine.

The banana we see today is a result of years of selective breeding. So they were inteligently designed.

Here are the inteligent designers, the early native pioneers of agriculture in Papua New Guinea. I’m sure they would appreciate Kirk Cameron’s compliment but they’ll be the first to admit that they are not Gods.

I’d suggest to Kirk Cameron that next time he does a little research before making silly claims that he can prove the existance of God with a banana.


Bananas were intelligently designed, but not by God.

Published
by
Gareth
on June 21, 2007
.

I’m sure a lot of you have seen the video by Kirk Cameron entitled “an atheists worst nightmare, the banana”.

For those who haven’t seen it here’s a link. Basically he argues that the banana is so well designed, being tasty, nutritious and easy to hold and eat that the only possible explanation is that they were designed by God.

My first reaction was to imagine the evolutionary process that produced bananas. Of course a fruit that tastes like crap and is difficult to eat is only going to be eaten as a last resort, whereas a nice, tasty nutritious fruit that is easy to eat will be the first choice for any animal. When a fruit gets eaten it’s seeds get distributed far and wide in a handy little package of manure. So by a gradual process of natural selection, the tastiest fruit thrive and spread. Hey presto we have a yummy banana.

I was wrong.

Fortunately, the truth does not support Kirk Camerons argument, but instead blows it completely out of the water.

Here is a natural wild banana

Wild bananas have fairly dry fruits with large seeds and no pulp. In Southeast Asia, the primitive seeded bananas are termed tae manu, meaning animal feces, implying that they are only eaten during times of famine.

The banana we see today is a result of years of selective breeding. So they were inteligently designed.

Here are the inteligent designers, the early native pioneers of agriculture in Papua New Guinea. I’m sure they would appreciate Kirk Cameron’s compliment but they’ll be the first to admit that they are not Gods.

I’d suggest to Kirk Cameron that next time he does a little research before making silly claims that he can prove the existance of God with a banana.


When Will Governing From the Pulpit Stop?

Published
by
The Anonymous Atheist
on June 21, 2007
.
As I'm sure many of you are aware, Bush is vetoing another stem cell research bill. Again, the potential of the Scientific community to better the lives of millions has been hindered.

My question is "why?" Why on earth would the President consider himself in a position to stop such a bill? His faith! That's all it is.

Look, there are so many discarded embryos that just get destroyed. Why not put them to good use? Women are going to have abortions (unless the administration can stop that too). Fertility clinics almost always freeze way more embryos than needed, which get discarded after conception. Why not use that invaluable resource for the good of humanity?

There are already some lines that we can use, but they won't go very far. Why not clone them?

The only answer I can come up with for these questions is that it is against God's wishes. This notion of the "Sanctity of Life" must stop. Is it more important to protect cells that are going to be destroyed, or to potentially end (or at least relieve) Alzheimers and Parkinson's?

Beyond the stem cell debate, you have gay marriage and abortion. Two things that, at their core, should not be a problem. But when the administration enforces Christianity-- fundamentalist Christianity-- we end up with policies that stifle the scientific process.

This is not a red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative, or democrat vs. republican debate. It is a debate between fundamentalist Christian governing and rational governing.

People may call me unfair by suggesting that fundamentalist Christians are irrational, but ... well, they are. I'm sure they are perfectly capable of rational thought, as is every one of us, but when they choose to forgo rational thought in favor of faith in what a few people thousands of years ago claimed to hear from a higher being, they deserve to be called irrational.

And what's more, we have a Republican candidate for president right now who believes in scriptures that a man claimed to have gotten from inside a hat. Isn't there something wrong when we, as a nation, allow this completely irrational notion of faith to infect our lives?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to say that only atheists should be president. What I'm saying is that we should not allow the country to be run on faith! Granted, the majority of the country is Christian, but a very significant portion is not. When Bush goes against what the people want, in favor of his own faith, we have a problem.

So when will it stop? Will it ever? Are we really headed toward a Christian nation, or am I being paranoid?

Here are some fun links for you:
The Politics of Stem Cells
Stem Cells: Policies and Players
Laura Ingraham likens stem cell research to public executions
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer likens stem cell research to concentration camps (Godwin's law has spilled over to TV)

When Will Governing From the Pulpit Stop?

Published
by
The Anonymous Atheist
on June 21, 2007
.
As I'm sure many of you are aware, Bush is vetoing another stem cell research bill. Again, the potential of the Scientific community to better the lives of millions has been hindered.

My question is "why?" Why on earth would the President consider himself in a position to stop such a bill? His faith! That's all it is.

Look, there are so many discarded embryos that just get destroyed. Why not put them to good use? Women are going to have abortions (unless the administration can stop that too). Fertility clinics almost always freeze way more embryos than needed, which get discarded after conception. Why not use that invaluable resource for the good of humanity?

There are already some lines that we can use, but they won't go very far. Why not clone them?

The only answer I can come up with for these questions is that it is against God's wishes. This notion of the "Sanctity of Life" must stop. Is it more important to protect cells that are going to be destroyed, or to potentially end (or at least relieve) Alzheimers and Parkinson's?

Beyond the stem cell debate, you have gay marriage and abortion. Two things that, at their core, should not be a problem. But when the administration enforces Christianity-- fundamentalist Christianity-- we end up with policies that stifle the scientific process.

This is not a red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative, or democrat vs. republican debate. It is a debate between fundamentalist Christian governing and rational governing.

People may call me unfair by suggesting that fundamentalist Christians are irrational, but ... well, they are. I'm sure they are perfectly capable of rational thought, as is every one of us, but when they choose to forgo rational thought in favor of faith in what a few people thousands of years ago claimed to hear from a higher being, they deserve to be called irrational.

And what's more, we have a Republican candidate for president right now who believes in scriptures that a man claimed to have gotten from inside a hat. Isn't there something wrong when we, as a nation, allow this completely irrational notion of faith to infect our lives?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to say that only atheists should be president. What I'm saying is that we should not allow the country to be run on faith! Granted, the majority of the country is Christian, but a very significant portion is not. When Bush goes against what the people want, in favor of his own faith, we have a problem.

So when will it stop? Will it ever? Are we really headed toward a Christian nation, or am I being paranoid?

Here are some fun links for you:
The Politics of Stem Cells
Stem Cells: Policies and Players
Laura Ingraham likens stem cell research to public executions
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer likens stem cell research to concentration camps (Godwin's law has spilled over to TV)

Help Planet Atheism’s Alexa Rank!

Published
by
Deh
on June 20, 2007
.
As some of you know, besides being an atheist and maintaining Planet Atheism, I'm also, among other things, a Unix/Linux systems administrator, and I'm also interested in subjects like search engine optimization, website creation and promotion, full-time blogging, and so on.

One thing I've noticed is that PA has a much, much worse Alexa rank than many other of my sites, even though they are less visited. Obviously, this will not do. :)

Therefore, as a favor (and this is just a favor to me, nothing more -- I won't be annoyed if you don't do it, and I have no way of knowing who does and doesn't), I'd like to ask you, if you read PA through the site (as opposed to the RSS feed), to please install this Firefox extension. Just click on the grey "download searchstatus" button, and follow the instructions. After you install it and restart your browser (as indicated), you will get a small box on your browser's statusbar with PageRank, Alexa and Compete indicators, and will be contributing to the latter two's ratings every time you access PA.

If you use Internet Explorer, I'd advise you to switch to Firefox, for your own sake, not mine, as it's a much better, more secure browser (and then install the above extension! :) ). Opera, Safari and Konqueror users can't help me on this one, unfortunately: they're great browsers, but the extension isn't available for them.

Again, this is simply a personal favor I'm asking. It requires virtually no work from you, and you will be helping promote PA by improving its statistics (and rank). But I'll understand if you don't want to do it, of course.

Thanks in advance. :)

Help Planet Atheism’s Alexa Rank!

Published
by
Deh
on June 20, 2007
.
As some of you know, besides being an atheist and maintaining Planet Atheism, I'm also, among other things, a Unix/Linux systems administrator, and I'm also interested in subjects like search engine optimization, website creation and promotion, full-time blogging, and so on.

One thing I've noticed is that PA has a much, much worse Alexa rank than many other of my sites, even though they are less visited. Obviously, this will not do. :)

Therefore, as a favor (and this is just a favor to me, nothing more -- I won't be annoyed if you don't do it, and I have no way of knowing who does and doesn't), I'd like to ask you, if you read PA through the site (as opposed to the RSS feed), to please install this Firefox extension. Just click on the grey "download searchstatus" button, and follow the instructions. After you install it and restart your browser (as indicated), you will get a small box on your browser's statusbar with PageRank, Alexa and Compete indicators, and will be contributing to the latter two's ratings every time you access PA.

If you use Internet Explorer, I'd advise you to switch to Firefox, for your own sake, not mine, as it's a much better, more secure browser (and then install the above extension! :) ). Opera, Safari and Konqueror users can't help me on this one, unfortunately: they're great browsers, but the extension isn't available for them.

Again, this is simply a personal favor I'm asking. It requires virtually no work from you, and you will be helping promote PA by improving its statistics (and rank). But I'll understand if you don't want to do it, of course.

Thanks in advance. :)

Prayer as a Weapon

Published
by
David W.
on June 19, 2007
.
In a recent post, vjack describes the act of schoolyard "prayer circles" and how they are used to attack non-fundie children.
The children start calling you names and hurling insults at you. If you happen to be Jewish, you will hear things that would make neo-Nazi's proud. You are a sinner. You are going to burn in a lake of fire. You will rot in hell. They form a circle around you, holding hands to make sure you can't easily escape. They tell you that the only way you can save yourself is to accept Jee-zuhs. They begin praying around you loudly to "save your soul."
I have never been a prayer circle victim, thank reason. My school was full of good ol' southern Baptists, but I doubt there were more than two or three really fundie families in the whole school.

Socially, what exactly are these prayer-circle attacks? Are they some kind of fundie-centric bullying? Some kind of misguided attempt at an intervention? I'm trying to figure out what the childrens' point is. Are they just trying to be mean? Are they trying to convert their target, as if to say, "Hey, all you have to do is say 'yes, I accept jesus' -- it doesn't matter if it's the truth or not -- and you can be mean to the next kid with us!" Does it matter?

Because deep down, all they are really doing is highlighting one of the great inconsistencies of religion -- specifically, of prayer. Theists, at least those that believe in an active, personal god, believe that if you pray to him/her, your prayers will be answered. They are quick to gloss over the 'unanswered' prayers, and point out the 'answered' ones, to maintain evidence that their god really has listened to them. In reality, the answered/unanswered ratio is exactly what you would expect from chance. If you pray for the sun to rise on time tomorrow morning, then your prayer will almost certainly be answered. If you pray for a second moon to appear in the sky tomorrow night, your prayer will almost certainly be ignored.

A good example of this, as noted in Dan Barker's wonderful song, "Nothing Fails Like Prayer," are those who pray for lottery winnings. If god answers prayers, and people pray to win the lottery, then why are the odds for winning the same as are predicted by statistics? A theist might reason that it is because everyone has prayed for their ticket to win, therefore everyone has equal odds for god to have chosen to answer their prayer. So why pray in the first place?

(I should also point out not everyone will have prayed to win, as there would be plenty of atheists and lazy theists with tickets. Prayer suggests a tendency for devout theists to win the lottery, but this is not the case.)

The use of prayer as a weapon in a good illustration of the paradox of conflicting prayers. Imagine two opponents, an attacker and a victim. Both religious. The attacker prays, "God, please help me smite this person!" and the victim prays, "God, save me from this person!" No matter the outcome, one prayer will be answered and one prayer won't be. The victim either gets away or he doesn't -- exactly what would happen without prayer.

So, again, what's the point? Emotionally, I believe it is similar to rooting for a sports team. As long as there are no bets going on, what do you gain from your team winning? You enjoy the victory vicariously, and get bragging rights over your friends and co-workers that rooted for the other team. Prayer offers exactly the same benefits. If your prayer is answered, you get a vicarious high from feeling "the touch of god" in your life. And you get to feel superior to non-believers and the un-saved. It is similar to people that keep rooting for a losing team, knowing that they're bound to win some day, people keep on praying, too, knowing that their prayer is bound to be "answered" some day.

I think this is why it is particularly satisfying for theists to bash non-theists. There is no conflicting prayer. It feels like a victory by default to them -- a sure win.

So, to answer my own question, I think it's just about the bullying. There is no attempt at conversion, because the goal has nothing to do with victim. Just like doing drugs isn't about what's best for the cocaine. The prayer circle attackers are using the victim to achieve an artificial high.

My introduction to the cosmos

Published
by
The Anonymous Atheist
on June 19, 2007
.
I have to say, I think my brother-in-law is more fun than most. When I was growing up, whenever I would think to the future, I always feared that if I ever got married my brother-in-law would be the typical every man. I dreaded the day that I would be forced to watch football games or NASCAR races in an attempt to bond with my then-hypothetical wife's brother.

But last night, my wife, my aforementioned brother-in-law, and I went out stargazing.

When I was younger, I did spend some nights just lying in the grass, staring up at the stars in amazement. But last night was the first time I'd ever seen anything magnified that wasn't an image on NASA's website or similar.

As you can tell, David has some experience here, so he was our tour guide to the stars. I saw the moon magnified to the point of actually seeing detail, instead of just yellowish and brownish splotches. I saw the rings of Saturn, four moons of Jupiter, a binary star (I believe it was Albireo, David will have to correct me if I'm wrong), and the Dumbbell Nebula, however faint it might have been.

Before last night, I saw the night sky as a bunch of tiny lights. I always knew that they were stars, planets, galaxies, clusters, and nebulas. But it really set in last night. In the grand scheme of things, we live on what amounts to a speck of dust, which makes us even smaller. It really puts you in your place!

As enormous as the universe is, I can't understand how anyone could possibly conceive of an entity creating it all, much less for the use of the beings on one planet. If this was true, what a waste of space the universe is!

I take comfort in knowing how insignificant we really are. That may sound depressing, but I think it's exhilarating! We can be significant to thousands, maybe even millions of people if we're important to the planet, but we can't affect the cosmos. We could blow up the Earth and the vast universe would continue on without skipping a beat.

Think of how significant our insignificance really is: the universe formed over billions of years, gradually morphing from basic elements into stars and galaxies, planets and moons. Approximately 3.8 billion years ago, the earliest life forms appear, gradually evolving until 200 million years ago, when the first mammals appeared. Then, 600,000 years ago, Homo Sapiens evolve, and over time develop culture. Countless languages are formed, enabling us to study the earth and the universe, develop mathematics and science, philosophy and religion. Over 600,000 years we've evolved, and today we have the technology that enables me to write this blog entry that you're reading right now.

That's what I call significant! It is truly significance through insignificance.

Now the question is, why would you want to ruin that glorious process of the evolution of all things by saying that someone did it?! How does your life have more meaning when you think someone created you to do his bidding? How could you find any glory in being a pawn? Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but the point still stands.

I'm rambling a bit, I'll admit. Back to the point:

I've been a walking zombie all day because of lack of sleep (but it was worth it). Still, all day I haven't been able to get the rings of Saturn out of my head. I saw that, with my own eyes. Very obviously a planet, with definite pronounced rings. After what I've seen, and taken time to appreciate, I will most definitely never be the same.

I now understand the human desire to explore the universe. I understand why people, almost since the beginning of recorded history, have mapped out the stars and tried to make sense of it all. It's the great unknown, and it's intriguing! Do religious people feel this way? Do they have that sense of the great unknown? I don't know if I would want to live without it.

The great thing is, I never have to.

My introduction to the cosmos

Published
by
The Anonymous Atheist
on June 19, 2007
.
I have to say, I think my brother-in-law is more fun than most. When I was growing up, whenever I would think to the future, I always feared that if I ever got married my brother-in-law would be the typical every man. I dreaded the day that I would be forced to watch football games or NASCAR races in an attempt to bond with my then-hypothetical wife's brother.

But last night, my wife, my aforementioned brother-in-law, and I went out stargazing.

When I was younger, I did spend some nights just lying in the grass, staring up at the stars in amazement. But last night was the first time I'd ever seen anything magnified that wasn't an image on NASA's website or similar.

As you can tell, David has some experience here, so he was our tour guide to the stars. I saw the moon magnified to the point of actually seeing detail, instead of just yellowish and brownish splotches. I saw the rings of Saturn, four moons of Jupiter, a binary star (I believe it was Albireo, David will have to correct me if I'm wrong), and the Dumbbell Nebula, however faint it might have been.

Before last night, I saw the night sky as a bunch of tiny lights. I always knew that they were stars, planets, galaxies, clusters, and nebulas. But it really set in last night. In the grand scheme of things, we live on what amounts to a speck of dust, which makes us even smaller. It really puts you in your place!

As enormous as the universe is, I can't understand how anyone could possibly conceive of an entity creating it all, much less for the use of the beings on one planet. If this was true, what a waste of space the universe is!

I take comfort in knowing how insignificant we really are. That may sound depressing, but I think it's exhilarating! We can be significant to thousands, maybe even millions of people if we're important to the planet, but we can't affect the cosmos. We could blow up the Earth and the vast universe would continue on without skipping a beat.

Think of how significant our insignificance really is: the universe formed over billions of years, gradually morphing from basic elements into stars and galaxies, planets and moons. Approximately 3.8 billion years ago, the earliest life forms appear, gradually evolving until 200 million years ago, when the first mammals appeared. Then, 600,000 years ago, Homo Sapiens evolve, and over time develop culture. Countless languages are formed, enabling us to study the earth and the universe, develop mathematics and science, philosophy and religion. Over 600,000 years we've evolved, and today we have the technology that enables me to write this blog entry that you're reading right now.

That's what I call significant! It is truly significance through insignificance.

Now the question is, why would you want to ruin that glorious process of the evolution of all things by saying that someone did it?! How does your life have more meaning when you think someone created you to do his bidding? How could you find any glory in being a pawn? Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but the point still stands.

I'm rambling a bit, I'll admit. Back to the point:

I've been a walking zombie all day because of lack of sleep (but it was worth it). Still, all day I haven't been able to get the rings of Saturn out of my head. I saw that, with my own eyes. Very obviously a planet, with definite pronounced rings. After what I've seen, and taken time to appreciate, I will most definitely never be the same.

I now understand the human desire to explore the universe. I understand why people, almost since the beginning of recorded history, have mapped out the stars and tried to make sense of it all. It's the great unknown, and it's intriguing! Do religious people feel this way? Do they have that sense of the great unknown? I don't know if I would want to live without it.

The great thing is, I never have to.

Do I believe in evolution? Do I believe in anything?

Published
by
The Anonymous Atheist
on June 19, 2007
.
From Dogma:
Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.


And the definition of "belief" from dictionary.com:
  1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

  2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

  3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

  4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.


I can't say that I believe in anything, really.

Take extraterrestrial life for instance. I think that, since the universe is so staggeringly large, the potential for some life somewhere other than on earth is significant. Besides that, I think it would be depressing to think that in this massive cosmos only one little fraction of a speck has life. But do I believe in it? I can't say that I do. I have never been presented with any real evidence other than the random supposed UFO sighting. One could make the point that this constitutes evidence, and yes, it does. But it is not irrefutable. It's not rigorous by any means. It is very possible that there is life elsewhere, and it is very possible that there is no life elsewhere. I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I do hope for it. I certainly don't base anything in my life on the existence or non-existence of life outside of earth.

Now, on the other hand, take evolution. I don't believe in evolution, because the very sentiment diminishes the concept! Believe in evolution? Never! It has been rigorously tested, to the point of proof... UNLESS your mind is clouded with this notion of belief, and you can't accept the proof. Is it possible that the theory of evolution is false? Sure! It's also possible that I was just created this very second, and that every memory I have was merely planted in me upon my creation. It's possible that, at the beginning of time, God, Thor, and Zeus had a bet going to see who could get the most followers if they were to create a playing field, and that's how we were created. Many, many things are possible. But Evolution is as much fact as anything else in existence.

Beliefs cause wars. Beliefs cause the blind mistrust of anything that threatens one's world view. I say, get rid of your beliefs, and start having ideas!

DISCLAIMER: You will, undoubtedly, hear me say or see me write "I believe..." from time to time. It's part of our language, and it's hard to shake. But whenever I say that, I guess what I mean is "I'm convinced..."

Do I believe in evolution? Do I believe in anything?

Published
by
The Anonymous Atheist
on June 19, 2007
.
From Dogma:
Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.


And the definition of "belief" from dictionary.com:
  1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

  2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

  3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

  4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.


I can't say that I believe in anything, really.

Take extraterrestrial life for instance. I think that, since the universe is so staggeringly large, the potential for some life somewhere other than on earth is significant. Besides that, I think it would be depressing to think that in this massive cosmos only one little fraction of a speck has life. But do I believe in it? I can't say that I do. I have never been presented with any real evidence other than the random supposed UFO sighting. One could make the point that this constitutes evidence, and yes, it does. But it is not irrefutable. It's not rigorous by any means. It is very possible that there is life elsewhere, and it is very possible that there is no life elsewhere. I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I do hope for it. I certainly don't base anything in my life on the existence or non-existence of life outside of earth.

Now, on the other hand, take evolution. I don't believe in evolution, because the very sentiment diminishes the concept! Believe in evolution? Never! It has been rigorously tested, to the point of proof... UNLESS your mind is clouded with this notion of belief, and you can't accept the proof. Is it possible that the theory of evolution is false? Sure! It's also possible that I was just created this very second, and that every memory I have was merely planted in me upon my creation. It's possible that, at the beginning of time, God, Thor, and Zeus had a bet going to see who could get the most followers if they were to create a playing field, and that's how we were created. Many, many things are possible. But Evolution is as much fact as anything else in existence.

Beliefs cause wars. Beliefs cause the blind mistrust of anything that threatens one's world view. I say, get rid of your beliefs, and start having ideas!

DISCLAIMER: You will, undoubtedly, hear me say or see me write "I believe..." from time to time. It's part of our language, and it's hard to shake. But whenever I say that, I guess what I mean is "I'm convinced..."