DECEPTION-This post follows on the heels of my recent viewing of the movie "Inception" in which reality is distorted by tapping into the subconscious mind using dreams as a weapon to infiltrate and exploit actuality. The first film that triggered my consideration about the possibility of an altered or false state of reality was "The Matrix," in which our world is really a computer simulation that is engineered by sentient machines that are enslaving the human race simply to harness energy for their own survival. These ideas pose relevant alternatives to what we perceive as "truth."
However unlikely the possibility of any of this happening or have happened is irrelevant to the fact that it IS possible. Just think for a moment about the video game "The Sims." We have already created artificial intelligence that can simulate and project our behavior as a species, and it can give us valuable feedback for the choices to be made about our own future. What better way to test the future than by a simulation? This brings me to my main point and that is Oxford University Professor Nick Bostrom's "simulated reality hypothesis." It states the following:
i. It is possible that an advanced civilization could create a computer simulation which contains individuals with artificial intelligence (AI).
ii. Such a civilization would likely run many, billions for example, of these simulations (just for fun, for research or any other permutation of possible reasons.)
iii. A simulated individual inside the simulation wouldn’t necessarily know that it is inside a simulation — it is just going about its daily business in what it considers to be the "real world."
Then the ultimate question is — if one accepts that the above premises are at least possible — which of the following is more likely?
a. We are the one civilization which develops AI simulations and happens not to be in one itself?
b. We are one of the many (billions) of simulations that has run? (Remember point iii.)
In greater detail, his argument attempts to prove the trichotomy, either that:
1.intelligent races will never reach a level of technology where they can run simulations of reality so detailed they can be mistaken for reality (assuming that this is possible in principle); or
2.races who do reach such a sophisticated level do not tend to run such simulations; or
3.we are almost certainly living in such a simulation.(1)
Many have proposed that our universe is much too old (13.75 billion years) to have NOT evolved life that is far more technologically capable than our own, yet many of us never give this possibility a single thought.
Furthermore, another idea for reality that envelopes the ideas from the movie "Inception" is the "dream argument." It states that:
A futuristic technology is not required to create a simulated reality, but rather, all that is needed is a human brain. More specifically, the mind's ability to create simulated realities during REM sleep affects the statistical likelihood of our own reality being simulated.(2)
If my purpose holds, then by now, you will have at the very least become skeptical of what you think you know about reality because it could very well be false. I concede that we may never know for sure what constitutes "real," but let us use our creativity to guide us to truth, and maybe some day, our children's children will innocently laugh at our ignorance.
Sources:
1. http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html
2. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bttg3B5CZOIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA96&dq=dreaming+simulated+reality&ots=iPQG-evOVr&sig=_7NT_42ES4XXK8iXz02Necg5W9c#v=onepage&q=dreaming%20simulated%20reality&f=false
Friday, January 14, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
No Such Thing as "Why"
ACCEPTING THE IMPROBABLE-This one, basic concept, for many years, I simply never even thought of...
If the universe is too complex not to have been designed, then God is also too complex not to have been designed. A creator-god would never be something simple or, more importantly, something simpler than the universe. If this god is at least as complex as the universe, then it needs a designer and a creator at least as much as the universe does. Believers allow an omnipotent creator God, which is infinitely more complex than our universe, off the hook and say that such a complex being doesn't require a designer itself, yet still use the fallacy that our universe is evidence for this far more superior being.
My overall point follows; wouldn't the simplest explanation plainly be that "the universe just happened", and after 11 billion years, and with a billion billion (literally) planets in space, single-cell replicators of life were destined to develop somewhere out of all of those possible elemental combinations and then evolution by natural selection (which is supported by massive amounts of undeniable scientific evidence) guided us to where we are 2 billion years later? Instead, we complicate matters with an all-powerful God that just "always existed" and chose to be invisible to us. Just think about this for a moment...if you were God, would it not just be absurd to create human beings only to remain physically hidden from them? That's like choosing to have a kid and before they see you, you move to outer space and watch their entire life from a surveillance camera.
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/design.htm
If the universe is too complex not to have been designed, then God is also too complex not to have been designed. A creator-god would never be something simple or, more importantly, something simpler than the universe. If this god is at least as complex as the universe, then it needs a designer and a creator at least as much as the universe does. Believers allow an omnipotent creator God, which is infinitely more complex than our universe, off the hook and say that such a complex being doesn't require a designer itself, yet still use the fallacy that our universe is evidence for this far more superior being.
My overall point follows; wouldn't the simplest explanation plainly be that "the universe just happened", and after 11 billion years, and with a billion billion (literally) planets in space, single-cell replicators of life were destined to develop somewhere out of all of those possible elemental combinations and then evolution by natural selection (which is supported by massive amounts of undeniable scientific evidence) guided us to where we are 2 billion years later? Instead, we complicate matters with an all-powerful God that just "always existed" and chose to be invisible to us. Just think about this for a moment...if you were God, would it not just be absurd to create human beings only to remain physically hidden from them? That's like choosing to have a kid and before they see you, you move to outer space and watch their entire life from a surveillance camera.
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/design.htm
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Pulling in the Reins
REALIZATION-Over the course of numberous debates and countless discussions with Christians, I have found that the prevailing reason for their acceptance of God's existence is the belief from "personal experience." Many of the conversations go something like this: Me, "well why do you believe Jesus is God?" Them, "I have had so many things happen in my life, I cannot deny the fact that it must be God." Me, "do you believe that these events could be coincidence?" Them, "No, nothing will ever change my belief in God because I have had these experiences." And understandably so, this begs my next question. Me, "well what are some of those experiences and why does it have to be the Christian God that did this for you?" Predominantly, I receive some strange and very vague responses such as the following: "The love that Jesus has shown me is undeniable." "My life has been blessed so greatly." "Jesus has answered so many of my prayers, He exists." And finally, another popular response is, "Um, let me think...." Evidently some experiences aren't that memorable after all. Anyways, it's always bewildering to me how low the bar is set on most people's "miracle gauge." However, it's certainly a wonderful thing when we get what we want in this life, but what I would like to look at for a moment is this: what is self-fulfillment?
It's a matter of fact that human beings have a much better probability of achieving or attaining something when setting a goal. For instance, when a person says to themselves that they want a particular job, a process is set into motion that pushes our likelihood of landing the job into a positive, forward-moving direction. Simply put, when a target is set, the odds that you hit the target increase. This brings me to self-fulfilling prophecy. Many people, through seeing the end-results of certain situations, credit supernatural explanations for something that can be naturally explained by something as simple as our behavior. This "self-talk" leads us to actually behave differently, therefore producing results. It works both ways though, such as telling yourself over and over that you are going to fail will often produce the result of failing the specific objective. However, what I am speaking of is the positive type of the self-fulfillment and the relationship between personal goals and the Christian's "God experience." There are three questions I like to ask when it pertains to purported "miracles":
1. Did you want this to happen?
2. Did you think it would happen?
3. Why did it happen? (If it did indeed happen.)
If the answer is yes to the first two questions, then why could the third answer not reasonably be explained by a causal effect from the first two that was ignited by the God "placebo-effect?" Is it not conceivable that the answer to the question of "why we got what we wanted" cannot simply be the fact that "we got it because we wanted it in the first place and we took action because we believed that it could happen?" Many people are quick to credit God for the result when in all reality, our behavior and forced movement toward achieving the goal is the reason why we actually accomplished it.
The new version of the movie Sherlock Holmes is a superb example of how humans are very hasty in making rash assumptions that events are supernatural when, in all reality, there is a perfectly plausible scientific explanation for the events that transpired.
On a slightly different note that pertains to uncontrollable events, I have personally had instances in life where I have been tempted to attribute a miracle to an important life event that in all actuality, had very good statistical odds of happening in the first place. One example is that my daughter was born prematurely at 32 weeks. Things couldn't have went better for her, and now she is a healthy two and a half year old girl. It was a pivotal time in my life, and I prayed for her. Of course it was a critical situation, and any premature birth should be, but the statistical odds of her surviving was over 90 percent. Now could it at all be possible that God actually had nothing to do with the fact that she survived and that sheer probability played in my favor? I am very grateful that life has given me the chance to be a father, but to unknowingly, blindly accredit an invisible, complex God is rather presumptuous. It is also intellectually dishonest to claim that you have substantial evidence that out of the thousands of gods invented in the history of mankind, your god happens to be the one, true deity and everyone else is mistakenly believing in their "experiences" from their God. Why is it so easy for religion A to discredit religion B's miracles yet everyone is supposed to believe in religion A's miracles? And while we're on the subject, what about these "visions", "voices", "miracles", and "experiences" that people of other religions have had? As in the case of Islam, Muhammad had "revelations" that he honestly believed were visions from God. Many other people from opposing religions also have had personal experiences that reveal to them the supposed truth yet many of them contradict one another. Would an all-powerful, all-knowing creator really send conflicting, confusing messages or would a mind's ability to delude itself be a better explanation? Every denomination's local pastor is telling us that "God told me this" and we should believe him/her and not the other denomination's preacher even though their pastor says "No, God told ME this." Maybe our mind is more powerful than we give can even imagine, and humans have the natural tendency to attribute coincidence to the supernatural. Epileptic seizures can be attributed to the cause of "prophetic visions" where sufferers profess that God spoke to them, but that certainly doesn't make their experiences a universal truth that we should all lay our lives down for, and I think everyone can agree about that much.
To conclude this, when a person says to me that they simply cannot deny the existence of God because He answered their prayer to save their dying grandmother of cancer, it holds no empirical weight with me when their grandmother was receiving chemotherapy treatment. Many apologists say this is God's way of answering the prayer, but do you believe that God denied the prayers of millions of people that died before chemotherapy treatment was invented and still thousands that receive treatment today simply because "the technology wasn't there yet" or that "God's ways are mysterious to man?" I suppose the reason God won't acquesce to the prayers of millions of starving Africans that need only rain to spring their crops to life is because of their sinful ways?
It's a matter of fact that human beings have a much better probability of achieving or attaining something when setting a goal. For instance, when a person says to themselves that they want a particular job, a process is set into motion that pushes our likelihood of landing the job into a positive, forward-moving direction. Simply put, when a target is set, the odds that you hit the target increase. This brings me to self-fulfilling prophecy. Many people, through seeing the end-results of certain situations, credit supernatural explanations for something that can be naturally explained by something as simple as our behavior. This "self-talk" leads us to actually behave differently, therefore producing results. It works both ways though, such as telling yourself over and over that you are going to fail will often produce the result of failing the specific objective. However, what I am speaking of is the positive type of the self-fulfillment and the relationship between personal goals and the Christian's "God experience." There are three questions I like to ask when it pertains to purported "miracles":
1. Did you want this to happen?
2. Did you think it would happen?
3. Why did it happen? (If it did indeed happen.)
If the answer is yes to the first two questions, then why could the third answer not reasonably be explained by a causal effect from the first two that was ignited by the God "placebo-effect?" Is it not conceivable that the answer to the question of "why we got what we wanted" cannot simply be the fact that "we got it because we wanted it in the first place and we took action because we believed that it could happen?" Many people are quick to credit God for the result when in all reality, our behavior and forced movement toward achieving the goal is the reason why we actually accomplished it.
The new version of the movie Sherlock Holmes is a superb example of how humans are very hasty in making rash assumptions that events are supernatural when, in all reality, there is a perfectly plausible scientific explanation for the events that transpired.
On a slightly different note that pertains to uncontrollable events, I have personally had instances in life where I have been tempted to attribute a miracle to an important life event that in all actuality, had very good statistical odds of happening in the first place. One example is that my daughter was born prematurely at 32 weeks. Things couldn't have went better for her, and now she is a healthy two and a half year old girl. It was a pivotal time in my life, and I prayed for her. Of course it was a critical situation, and any premature birth should be, but the statistical odds of her surviving was over 90 percent. Now could it at all be possible that God actually had nothing to do with the fact that she survived and that sheer probability played in my favor? I am very grateful that life has given me the chance to be a father, but to unknowingly, blindly accredit an invisible, complex God is rather presumptuous. It is also intellectually dishonest to claim that you have substantial evidence that out of the thousands of gods invented in the history of mankind, your god happens to be the one, true deity and everyone else is mistakenly believing in their "experiences" from their God. Why is it so easy for religion A to discredit religion B's miracles yet everyone is supposed to believe in religion A's miracles? And while we're on the subject, what about these "visions", "voices", "miracles", and "experiences" that people of other religions have had? As in the case of Islam, Muhammad had "revelations" that he honestly believed were visions from God. Many other people from opposing religions also have had personal experiences that reveal to them the supposed truth yet many of them contradict one another. Would an all-powerful, all-knowing creator really send conflicting, confusing messages or would a mind's ability to delude itself be a better explanation? Every denomination's local pastor is telling us that "God told me this" and we should believe him/her and not the other denomination's preacher even though their pastor says "No, God told ME this." Maybe our mind is more powerful than we give can even imagine, and humans have the natural tendency to attribute coincidence to the supernatural. Epileptic seizures can be attributed to the cause of "prophetic visions" where sufferers profess that God spoke to them, but that certainly doesn't make their experiences a universal truth that we should all lay our lives down for, and I think everyone can agree about that much.
To conclude this, when a person says to me that they simply cannot deny the existence of God because He answered their prayer to save their dying grandmother of cancer, it holds no empirical weight with me when their grandmother was receiving chemotherapy treatment. Many apologists say this is God's way of answering the prayer, but do you believe that God denied the prayers of millions of people that died before chemotherapy treatment was invented and still thousands that receive treatment today simply because "the technology wasn't there yet" or that "God's ways are mysterious to man?" I suppose the reason God won't acquesce to the prayers of millions of starving Africans that need only rain to spring their crops to life is because of their sinful ways?
Monday, November 1, 2010
The "New Ten Commandments"
OUTCRY-It's often said that to sum up morality, human beings need not look further than the Bible's Ten Commandments. I'm not sure about everyone else, but I feel that, number one, we can derive our morals without a "holy book" telling us not to slaughter one another, and, number two, does the Sabbath really have anything to do with the way we live today? That is, unless of course, you are Jewish. (Sorry) So what I stumbled upon, in my new search for the basis of what our morality stands for in this age, is the "New Ten Commandments." Actual ideas and thoughts that resonate throughout this era in which we live today, not several thousand years ago. What I found is that I had to look no further than the Atheist website ebonmusings.org. (Ironic, you might be tempted or "programmed" to think.) For the many people that mistakenly believe that we have to derive our morality from a certain bronzed-age book, or even a religion in general, this list proves otherwise.
(As a sidenote to number one, I would like to add that Confucius coined the silver rule which predated Jesus' golden rule by some 500 years. Jesus just reversed the meaning, thus using it in a positive application instead of negatively. Jesus said, "do unto others" instead of the original "do not do to others" as was originally invented by Confucius.)
And now, without further ado: "The New Ten Commandments"
1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.
3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
6. Always seek to be learning something new.
7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
10. Question everything.
Beside the obvious number one silver rule, number ten is undoubtedly my favorite, but let me ask you this: why could God have not just provided us with this list and save us all of the ritualistic nonsense? How many lives could have been spared if the Jewish, Old Testament God (which happens to be the same God that incarnated Jesus' body) would have just provided humanity with a list like this? No "jealous god" babble. No "remember the Sabbath" sacrament, and especially no animal (or child) sacrifices or burnt offerings absurdity that was a mainstay in the Old Testament? Just plain, simple, unambiguous rules to lead a good life. The Bible made things complicated, which, in turn, led to the thousands of branches of beliefs we have today that do horrible things to one another. This list doesn't. This list doesn't have its own agenda to fulfill that included satisfying God's unquenchable thirst for your attention, time, and worship. This list doesn't "promote by example" war, genocide, women oppression, slavery, and the incarnation of God Himself to kill Himself (as the Son) just to forgive us "unworthy humans" of our sins. Why not just forgive us and save us from the formality? Do we need to see the most gruesome act of child sacrifice ever committed in history upon a Roman cross to believe in You? However sad every fiber of my body may be to say this, I simply cannot believe in a God such as this, and Jesus Christ was my last option.
Sources:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/confucius.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/new10c.html
(As a sidenote to number one, I would like to add that Confucius coined the silver rule which predated Jesus' golden rule by some 500 years. Jesus just reversed the meaning, thus using it in a positive application instead of negatively. Jesus said, "do unto others" instead of the original "do not do to others" as was originally invented by Confucius.)
And now, without further ado: "The New Ten Commandments"
1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.
3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
6. Always seek to be learning something new.
7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
10. Question everything.
Beside the obvious number one silver rule, number ten is undoubtedly my favorite, but let me ask you this: why could God have not just provided us with this list and save us all of the ritualistic nonsense? How many lives could have been spared if the Jewish, Old Testament God (which happens to be the same God that incarnated Jesus' body) would have just provided humanity with a list like this? No "jealous god" babble. No "remember the Sabbath" sacrament, and especially no animal (or child) sacrifices or burnt offerings absurdity that was a mainstay in the Old Testament? Just plain, simple, unambiguous rules to lead a good life. The Bible made things complicated, which, in turn, led to the thousands of branches of beliefs we have today that do horrible things to one another. This list doesn't. This list doesn't have its own agenda to fulfill that included satisfying God's unquenchable thirst for your attention, time, and worship. This list doesn't "promote by example" war, genocide, women oppression, slavery, and the incarnation of God Himself to kill Himself (as the Son) just to forgive us "unworthy humans" of our sins. Why not just forgive us and save us from the formality? Do we need to see the most gruesome act of child sacrifice ever committed in history upon a Roman cross to believe in You? However sad every fiber of my body may be to say this, I simply cannot believe in a God such as this, and Jesus Christ was my last option.
Sources:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/confucius.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/new10c.html
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Morality (Sodom and Gomorrah)
IMPURITY-Whatever I thought I knew about morality and religion in the past is very different than what I think today. Many people believe that morality comes from religion and the two are inseparable. Many Christians have this false belief that without the Bible, humans would have never figured out what was "good" or what was "bad." People think that the Bible has delivered upon us the end-all be-all of morality. I truly hope everyone that is reading this really takes a moment to think about this example of what the Bible shows us of morality, and not just morality, equality. This excerpt is from one of my favorite authors and one of the most highly regarded scientists in recent history:
In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Noah equivalent, chosen to be spared with his family because he was uniquely righteous, was Abraham's nephew Lot. Two male angels were sent to Sodom to warn Lot to leave the city before the brimstone arrived. Lot welcomed them into his house, where all of the men of Sodom gathered and demanded that Lot should hand the angels over so that they could (what else?) sodomize them: "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them" (Gen.19:5). Yes, "know" has the Authorized Version's usual euphemistic meaning, which is very funny in the context. Lot's gallantry in refusing the demand suggests that God might have been onto something when he singled him out as the only good man in Sodom. But Lot's halo is tarnished by the terms of his refusal: "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing"(Gen.19:7-8).
Whatever else this strange story might mean, it surely tells us something about the respect accorded to women in this intensely religious culture. As it happened, Lot's bargaining away of his daughters' virginity proved unnecessary, for the angels succeeded in repelling the men by miraculously striking them blind. They then warned Lot to decamp immediately with his family and his animals, because the city was about to be destroyed. The whole household escaped, with the exception of Lot's unfortunate wife, whom the Lord turned into a pillar of salt because she committed the offense of looking over her shoulder at the fireworks display.
Lot's two daughters make a brief reappearance in the story. After their mother was killed, they lived with their father in a cave up a mountain. Starved of male company, they decided to make their father drunk and have sex with him. Lot was beyond noticing when his elder daughter arrived in his bed or when she left, but he was not too drunk to impregnate her. The next night, the two daughters agreed it was the younger one's turn. Again Lot was too drunk to notice, and he impregnated her too.(Gen.19:31-36). If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone.
Source: Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Pages 271-272
In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Noah equivalent, chosen to be spared with his family because he was uniquely righteous, was Abraham's nephew Lot. Two male angels were sent to Sodom to warn Lot to leave the city before the brimstone arrived. Lot welcomed them into his house, where all of the men of Sodom gathered and demanded that Lot should hand the angels over so that they could (what else?) sodomize them: "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them" (Gen.19:5). Yes, "know" has the Authorized Version's usual euphemistic meaning, which is very funny in the context. Lot's gallantry in refusing the demand suggests that God might have been onto something when he singled him out as the only good man in Sodom. But Lot's halo is tarnished by the terms of his refusal: "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing"(Gen.19:7-8).
Whatever else this strange story might mean, it surely tells us something about the respect accorded to women in this intensely religious culture. As it happened, Lot's bargaining away of his daughters' virginity proved unnecessary, for the angels succeeded in repelling the men by miraculously striking them blind. They then warned Lot to decamp immediately with his family and his animals, because the city was about to be destroyed. The whole household escaped, with the exception of Lot's unfortunate wife, whom the Lord turned into a pillar of salt because she committed the offense of looking over her shoulder at the fireworks display.
Lot's two daughters make a brief reappearance in the story. After their mother was killed, they lived with their father in a cave up a mountain. Starved of male company, they decided to make their father drunk and have sex with him. Lot was beyond noticing when his elder daughter arrived in his bed or when she left, but he was not too drunk to impregnate her. The next night, the two daughters agreed it was the younger one's turn. Again Lot was too drunk to notice, and he impregnated her too.(Gen.19:31-36). If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone.
Source: Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Pages 271-272
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Tearing Down the Walls
RECONNECT-It's been several weeks since I've made a new post (mostly due to the Fall semester beginning), but I haven't forgotten about the reasons why I started this blog. Over the past year, I have pulled a 180 degree turn regarding my views about some very important things in life. Religion, God, life, science, and evolution to name a few. Why, you might ask, have I experienced this change? The simple answer to this question is the fact that I broke down a wall in my mind that wouldn't allow myself to let in any possibilities other than what I had already believed. It was definitely not an overnight turnaround. Every neuron in my brain fought against letting go of what I had grown up to know. Finally, the dominoes started to fall, and I am so happy that they did. Everything that I had programmed into my mind was concrete (or so I thought.) I was so closed-minded to the point that I was saying I was open-minded only in denial. Regretfully, I have come to find out that I have believed some pretty ridiculous things in my 28 years on this planet. Talking snakes, ascendancy to Heaven (via "the Rapture"), homosexuals deserving Hell, and most of all, that an invisible God provided eternal life for me if I said a few words and believed.
Here recently while taking an economics class, the teacher had an interesting question. Is "greed" good? (It's from the Gordon Gekko Wall Street speech.) I thought about this for some time, and then I realized what it meant....incentives. Incentives are what humans seek in everything we do so I asked myself, regarding my views about Jesus, if I took out the incentive of Heaven, would I still worship Him? Well, the simple answer to this question is no, and when you think about the ridiculous amount of time that is consumed in worshipping and serving, it just isn't logical or rational to wager on one out of the thousand gods available just because your parents told you specifically to worship this one. I thought about how I could be using that time productively toward my REAL wife and daughter, to my REAL career, to my REAL hobbies. Not some fantasy that I had no proof of. Eternal life....what does that even mean? How could a human being ever have the capacity to understand infinity? It doesn't make sense, but I used to think it was perfectly clear. If you can understand infinite time going forward, then you can understand infinite time going backward, and that is where the fun begins regarding macro-evolution and the birth of our Universe, but I'll save that for another time. You see, if God exists, then He had a purpose for our lives, our race, our species, but that purpose allowed so much death and suffering. My question remains unanswered: how could an all-powerful, all-loving, perfect God, let His children suffer so much? 22,000 children die every single day from starvation and disease. Especially when we have at our "supposed" arsenal Matthew 21:22 at hand. I suppose this is because of "mankind's sin?" There would be nothing holding me back from saving my children from death no matter what means were needed to be used. No matter what master plan I had originally scripted, it would have to be altered because I would go to any lengths to save my daughter or wife from harm. Yet, the contradiction of free will and prayer cannot be answered by my opponents either. If Jesus spoke the infallible truth in Matthew 21:22, then why can't we pray away our disease? Surely anything is possible through prayer. However, no matter how hard we pray, AIDS and cancer remain prominent death machines that eradicate people all over the globe. And speaking of cancer: does cancer come from mankind's sin? The Bible says sin leads to death. I never stopped to consider the alternative, and for this, I am truly regretful to waste so many years....that prayer and God may simply be superstition; fictitious. The problems of infinite regression will always remain; if we were created, then who created the creator? You see my point hopefully, but what I ask is that we all see life through an unbiased lens. Letting go of the bedtime stories that our parents told us. Searching for truth using the scientific method to back up any claims. Living life free from religious dogma, and unaffected by what the local preacher says we must do to get to an unwitnessed, unproven place called Heaven. Letting our children have a choice instead of using fear of hellfire and eternal damnation as a means of control. Tithing, praying, worshipping, and most importantly, we may be wasting our most valuable time and efforts on something that is purely unsubstantiated. For what reason would I believe in these supernatural stories when I innocently laugh inside while reading my daughter a tale of Dr. Seuss? My aim is none other than trying to explain to others how religion can be bondage, and an open-mind that's able to explore all of the avenues of possibility is much more powerful than one that simply recites what their pastor or parents told them. Moraliy and religion can be separated. It is possible that mankind would have figured out that killing each other was a bad thing. Some apologists say without the Bible, we would have no morality. That is simply false. Without relgious control in our world, humans can understand how to make this world a truly better place. A place where questions can be asked, and other ideas and ways of thought are tolerated. One where truth is found, not simply believed.
In conclusion, I leave you with this anonymous quote that I was proposed when I used to militantly defend my Judeo-Christian God awhile back on a certain forum...."when you understand why you dismiss all the other religion’s gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Here recently while taking an economics class, the teacher had an interesting question. Is "greed" good? (It's from the Gordon Gekko Wall Street speech.) I thought about this for some time, and then I realized what it meant....incentives. Incentives are what humans seek in everything we do so I asked myself, regarding my views about Jesus, if I took out the incentive of Heaven, would I still worship Him? Well, the simple answer to this question is no, and when you think about the ridiculous amount of time that is consumed in worshipping and serving, it just isn't logical or rational to wager on one out of the thousand gods available just because your parents told you specifically to worship this one. I thought about how I could be using that time productively toward my REAL wife and daughter, to my REAL career, to my REAL hobbies. Not some fantasy that I had no proof of. Eternal life....what does that even mean? How could a human being ever have the capacity to understand infinity? It doesn't make sense, but I used to think it was perfectly clear. If you can understand infinite time going forward, then you can understand infinite time going backward, and that is where the fun begins regarding macro-evolution and the birth of our Universe, but I'll save that for another time. You see, if God exists, then He had a purpose for our lives, our race, our species, but that purpose allowed so much death and suffering. My question remains unanswered: how could an all-powerful, all-loving, perfect God, let His children suffer so much? 22,000 children die every single day from starvation and disease. Especially when we have at our "supposed" arsenal Matthew 21:22 at hand. I suppose this is because of "mankind's sin?" There would be nothing holding me back from saving my children from death no matter what means were needed to be used. No matter what master plan I had originally scripted, it would have to be altered because I would go to any lengths to save my daughter or wife from harm. Yet, the contradiction of free will and prayer cannot be answered by my opponents either. If Jesus spoke the infallible truth in Matthew 21:22, then why can't we pray away our disease? Surely anything is possible through prayer. However, no matter how hard we pray, AIDS and cancer remain prominent death machines that eradicate people all over the globe. And speaking of cancer: does cancer come from mankind's sin? The Bible says sin leads to death. I never stopped to consider the alternative, and for this, I am truly regretful to waste so many years....that prayer and God may simply be superstition; fictitious. The problems of infinite regression will always remain; if we were created, then who created the creator? You see my point hopefully, but what I ask is that we all see life through an unbiased lens. Letting go of the bedtime stories that our parents told us. Searching for truth using the scientific method to back up any claims. Living life free from religious dogma, and unaffected by what the local preacher says we must do to get to an unwitnessed, unproven place called Heaven. Letting our children have a choice instead of using fear of hellfire and eternal damnation as a means of control. Tithing, praying, worshipping, and most importantly, we may be wasting our most valuable time and efforts on something that is purely unsubstantiated. For what reason would I believe in these supernatural stories when I innocently laugh inside while reading my daughter a tale of Dr. Seuss? My aim is none other than trying to explain to others how religion can be bondage, and an open-mind that's able to explore all of the avenues of possibility is much more powerful than one that simply recites what their pastor or parents told them. Moraliy and religion can be separated. It is possible that mankind would have figured out that killing each other was a bad thing. Some apologists say without the Bible, we would have no morality. That is simply false. Without relgious control in our world, humans can understand how to make this world a truly better place. A place where questions can be asked, and other ideas and ways of thought are tolerated. One where truth is found, not simply believed.
In conclusion, I leave you with this anonymous quote that I was proposed when I used to militantly defend my Judeo-Christian God awhile back on a certain forum...."when you understand why you dismiss all the other religion’s gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Landing at Megiddo
DESTINY-I have to say I have learned so much about life, the world, and science since I have released myself from habitual, contrived thinking. On the other side, however, I have to say that it isn't the greatest feeling realizing the possibility that someone you've put so much time into and worshipped for 28 years may not even exist, but no matter how much we may not like the truth, it doesn't change it. I can relate it to the feelings I had when I was told that Santa Claus wasn't real. By the way, does anyone else see anything wrong with lying to your children? Santa maneuvering the sky delivering all the good children's presents sliding down those chimneys. Pretty ridiculous to believe in that isn't it? But I find it amazing that I clung to stories of equal absurdity in the Bible. Jonah living in a fish for three days, a talking snake, God as a burning bush (there's as much evidence for the veracity of these stories as there is Santa Claus.) Now I understand that some people hold that much of the Bible is non-literal, but it speaks rather oddly to me that an all-powerful, jealous-for-your-soul God would choose to present His case in such a way as metaphorical stories. For instance, if the Book of Revelation is just a metaphorical way of showing the triumph of good over evil, and it is meant to be non-literal, then did God not realize that billions of people everywhere would be self-fulfilling these prophecies in a literal way? Also, ask yourself this: does believing that the world is going to end at Armageddon with the salvation of good and the eradication of evil not conflict with people's desire to make this world a better place? Now you can say that evangelists are making the world a better place by spreading "eternal life," but in a scientific, humanistic, technological-advancement sense, religion is undoubtedly inhibiting our civilization. Students and professionals everywhere are spending countless hours developing new ways to fight disease, better our economy, and better our world, and religions everywhere are doing what? Giving eternal life for which there is no evidence provided? Reading out of bronze-aged books? Treating women as insubordinates? Fighting Jihad? Teaching their children to be slaves to their beliefs? Profiting off of false-hope? I also find it peculiar how end-time believers watch the news and rejoice in the fact that the world is becoming increasingly hostile. Nuclear weapon talks excite the end-times believer. Preachers everywhere praised God after 9/11 saying, "at last, the end is near." I look at this and shake my head. I used to believe in prophecy until I discovered self-fulfilling prophecy. When humans set plans, they tend to achieve them. I want the world to be better for my daughter, not worse, and organized religion is not making this a better world. While it is intended by some as a tool for hope and purpose, it is being used to exploit, enslave, and destroy.
In closing, I would like to say again that the purpose of this blog is to inspire curiosity into the readers. I'm not here to provoke or belittle anyone. However, it's very difficult to express a view on this matter without offending someone. Simply put, it just bothers me to see so many people that never give this any thought. I feel that it is a tragedy to live the only life we are certain of, bound by organized religion. I'm not trying to tell you what to think, I just want to encourage an open-mind. I want to help free people's minds so please read this blog for what it is, and not what it is not. -Jason
In closing, I would like to say again that the purpose of this blog is to inspire curiosity into the readers. I'm not here to provoke or belittle anyone. However, it's very difficult to express a view on this matter without offending someone. Simply put, it just bothers me to see so many people that never give this any thought. I feel that it is a tragedy to live the only life we are certain of, bound by organized religion. I'm not trying to tell you what to think, I just want to encourage an open-mind. I want to help free people's minds so please read this blog for what it is, and not what it is not. -Jason
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)