The Human experience is vast and wonderful, and that is why I despise religion
Think of the Human experience as a a giant building with many people inside of it. All of the lights are off and there are no windows. Several people have found flashlights and are trying to map out the corridors. Most of us are wandering around the two or three rooms we're familiar with in one big stupid looking group. There are quite a few people however, yelling out ridiculous things like "Just behind this locked door is a carnival", despite the fact there hasn't been any carnival in any of the rooms before. Perhaps I could tolerate religion and superstition if that were the end of it.
NOPE
To take the irritation a step further, there are still more asshats running around and shutting off the lights in the halls. These unstoppable geniuses discredit the people who are trying to find ways to understand this mystery house the rest of us are stuck in. They insist that all of this methodical exploration is completely the wrong way to go about it. Some of them even have the stones to convince people that they have the floorplan for the building. People who follow this floorplan often end up falling through unfinished floors or walking out open windows.
I for one have absolutely had it with these fools. There are plenty of people who are working very hard to figure out just what the hell is going on around here and I can't stand watching a bunch of morons ruining it for everyone. I won't stand idly by and watch you woo people into nonsense.
You're on notice.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Stagnation
Its been a rough couple of years. Its been maybe five years since I felt like I was really moving forward in my life. I've been lacking in motivation to do much of anything. There have been sputters here and there where I've had energy and drive, and those were encouraging. But they've been far too infrequent. I'm sure there are quite a few people out there that can I identify. I won't let this rut get the better of me.
This is exactly the sort of life situation that makes me most uncomfortable. The stagnation makes maintaining my mood difficult. I often fear that the despair will get the better of me before I make it out. But I haven't given up hope yet. I'm sure I can make it. I know I will. And if I can get through this, I know I can handle whatever life throws at me.
This is exactly the sort of life situation that makes me most uncomfortable. The stagnation makes maintaining my mood difficult. I often fear that the despair will get the better of me before I make it out. But I haven't given up hope yet. I'm sure I can make it. I know I will. And if I can get through this, I know I can handle whatever life throws at me.
Monday, April 18, 2011
You (Probably) Aren't Agnostic
There is a huge growth in the number of people in this country who are not claiming any particular religion. This is a very good thing. In a country founded on secular ideas, it is good to have a large portion of the population who are secular in their private lives.
The problem is that a growing trend among this group is to consider themselves "agnostic". In general, the claim is that there is not sufficient evidence to prove that any certain deity exists, nor is there sufficient evidence to disprove any and all deities. This is what is known as a "false dichotomy". In layman's terms, "fucktard logic".
To begin with, there are not 2 potential options, prove or disprove. When someone presents a claim, you can take any position you want, but the default is to not believe what they say until they present evidence. If you are satisfied, you can accept the claim, or you can pursue your own evidence, or you can present a counter claim, etc. etc. At no point is it your job to disprove their claim, although you could present counter evidence if you like.
Even if those were the only 2 options, it would then be ridiculous to believe that you could opt out of the whole process by saying the jury is still out. That doesn't mean you're not in either camp. In fact, if you say there is no decision yet, that means you don't believe them, and you're probably going to continue acting as though you'd never heard that claim.
The misunderstanding can be illustrated quite easily through analogy. The misconception is that this is like two people are trying to convince you to go to one restaurant or another, and you just haven't decided yet. The reality is that one person is trying to convince you not to go out to eat, which is what you have been doing, and 9374329407234893 other people are trying to get you to come to their restaurant.
So why do people take this position? Mostly because being "atheist" has a negative social connotation. It was also historically defined as meaning that you knew that there were no gods, which makes no sense given the etymology of the word. That probably didn't really help. Also, some people just don't like to take strong positions on anything, so that they can feel superior to those who are "extreme" as understanding increases. But I don't know that for sure. Jury's still out.
The problem is that a growing trend among this group is to consider themselves "agnostic". In general, the claim is that there is not sufficient evidence to prove that any certain deity exists, nor is there sufficient evidence to disprove any and all deities. This is what is known as a "false dichotomy". In layman's terms, "fucktard logic".
To begin with, there are not 2 potential options, prove or disprove. When someone presents a claim, you can take any position you want, but the default is to not believe what they say until they present evidence. If you are satisfied, you can accept the claim, or you can pursue your own evidence, or you can present a counter claim, etc. etc. At no point is it your job to disprove their claim, although you could present counter evidence if you like.
Even if those were the only 2 options, it would then be ridiculous to believe that you could opt out of the whole process by saying the jury is still out. That doesn't mean you're not in either camp. In fact, if you say there is no decision yet, that means you don't believe them, and you're probably going to continue acting as though you'd never heard that claim.
The misunderstanding can be illustrated quite easily through analogy. The misconception is that this is like two people are trying to convince you to go to one restaurant or another, and you just haven't decided yet. The reality is that one person is trying to convince you not to go out to eat, which is what you have been doing, and 9374329407234893 other people are trying to get you to come to their restaurant.
So why do people take this position? Mostly because being "atheist" has a negative social connotation. It was also historically defined as meaning that you knew that there were no gods, which makes no sense given the etymology of the word. That probably didn't really help. Also, some people just don't like to take strong positions on anything, so that they can feel superior to those who are "extreme" as understanding increases. But I don't know that for sure. Jury's still out.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
What You Like
There are so many things in our lives that we seemingly create out of wholecloth. Our personalities, our sense of style, our way of talking. We can create most of our personhood in order to become a character version of ourselves that exists in our imagination. In this way, our lives are somewhat artificial. I'll admit to being one of those people. Most of my character traits are somewhat "artificial" in that I've cultivated traits I like, and I disguise the ones I don't like. Most people do this. Almost every area of my life is defined as I see fit. And why shouldn't it be? Nobody else has to live my life but me, so I should enjoy all its aspects.
However, there's an area where I won't do this. I feel like one of the important keys to a successful relationship is that it cannot stem from that mental place that defines most of what we are. It must be beyond the ego of either person. This is why I'm so firmly against people rattling off qualities that they say are part of their "ideal" soulmate. If someone meets these qualities, then the relationship then just becomes an extension of your ego. You may very well be happy, but if you change, or the other person changes, the relationship is over, never to be salvaged. The best relationships, the ones that can't be broken up no matter what, the "amor vincit omnia" types; those are held together by something much deeper. In my experience, those people can't point to any one thing that makes them love the other. Their entire being is what attracts them.
For this reason, I tend to steer clear of talking about what I want in a woman. Besides, you can't quantify attraction that way, no matter how you try.
However, there's an area where I won't do this. I feel like one of the important keys to a successful relationship is that it cannot stem from that mental place that defines most of what we are. It must be beyond the ego of either person. This is why I'm so firmly against people rattling off qualities that they say are part of their "ideal" soulmate. If someone meets these qualities, then the relationship then just becomes an extension of your ego. You may very well be happy, but if you change, or the other person changes, the relationship is over, never to be salvaged. The best relationships, the ones that can't be broken up no matter what, the "amor vincit omnia" types; those are held together by something much deeper. In my experience, those people can't point to any one thing that makes them love the other. Their entire being is what attracts them.
For this reason, I tend to steer clear of talking about what I want in a woman. Besides, you can't quantify attraction that way, no matter how you try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)