[161] Plausible Deniability

I'm not happy right now. I am happy most of the time. I don't think Steev and I will be able to reach any "fundamental understanding." She takes things out of context, makes associations where none exist, and is, as most women, too emotional for a discussion that can go anywhere. I'm tired of fighting, and am more convinced that the things I like are not balanced against the things I emphatically hate. She said I was just like Nikki. When I've spent my life after my feelings for Nikki developing and learning to fix all the things I saw wrong in how Nikki and I interacted, I can't think of a bigger slap in the face. So this moment we are pretending like we didn't talk and things didn't get heavy. It doesn't matter to her that I've been honest, it doesn't matter to her that I've tried to fix the things she's, after much begrudging to do so, finally told me about. She doesn't appreciate nor understand me, and she doesn't want to. She thinks I am incapable of understanding when I'm wrong. She thinks it is impossible for anything to change, let alone me. She doesn't accept me in the only way I care to be accepted. I don't want a "go through the motions" relationship. I don't want to be around someone for too long because, here she's right, they will get boring and no longer feel like they are worth it. She's willing to lie to me "for my sake." She's willing to leave stones unturned. I don't want to be pitied, excused, or subdued. I don't appreciate someone attacking me out of fear for expressing themselves. She needs to grow the balls in this situation and just break up with me if I'm "not playful enough," "not affectionate enough," or can't figure out "what you do and don't say to your girlfriend." It isn't worth losing a friend for the sake of putting on the facade of a relationship. She told me "I appreciate the time I have" in reference to us. She feels betrayed, used, silenced, and maybe even manipulated by the things I say and how I express myself. It isn't that I can't change. It is that I refuse to change. I outright refuse to dramatically alter why and how I do things when the person I would be doing it for doesn't care or is unable to understand why I do them. The way I live my life works because it leads me to understanding. Whether that understanding always leads to "perfect happiness" or "the best" way of interacting with someone or not, does not make it any less valuable a tool to work with. If I don't understand, I don't even open the door that will lead me to happiness.

She's given up on happiness and wants to get it by subverting me. By trying to "train" me or suppress herself in ways that will "make me happiest" she hopes I'll start behaving in the right ways to translate "yes, I care for you too," "yes, I acknowledge you," and "I love you." She thinks I don't understand love. She thinks I handled what I called love horribly. If love means indulging her on her sycophantic fantasy then I can tell you I don't want it nor think it love. If love means taking down a fact sheet that may or may not coincide with the ebbs and flows of her feelings, then acting according, then it is not what I want nor what I call love. She does not have a grander perspective. When she tries it depresses her and makes her lose hope. Why have a better perspective when you can resort to ridicule? She thinks that because I understand this and speak of this understanding that I am the same as those I empathize with. I can't be someone's happiness when they refuse to acknowledge what about them could possibly make me happy in return. It can't only be me dignifying. When it comes down to it I could never do it in the way that really matters. In the way that can drive a life. In a way that can heal.

If every talk leaves things unsettled, if every comment feels like a punch to the gut, if every action is just a reaction of us trying to play to this notion of happy, then how can even call that friendship, let alone a relationship or love? If she wants to act like she gets it, then she needs to take the good with the bad. She needs to be humble about her understanding, and be open to, at the very fucking least, refraining from shutting off and blotting out a conversation. I can't wake up next to someone who went to bed with a secret that could blow up into a book of accusations by morning. I can't fall into the moment of a kiss with someone who's using it to shut me up. I can't hug someone who only hugs back convincingly enough to finally make it to the door.

Girls don't refrain from making jokes about guy's cock size. When they do refrain, it isn't from some notion of respect for guys despite a seemingly endless wave of belittling and sexist comments towards women. Respect, just like everything else, comes from understanding. You don't respect a guy because you don't understand them. You don't care to understand them because you're too busy sorting them into groups, trying to train them, and pointing out all the reasons they make you lose hope and happiness. Because it is all their fault. Even when I try to take the blame for something I did, it doesn't matter, so why bother saying anything anymore? Why pretend like doing the mature thing matters to her. Why allow myself to look bad when it just gives her another chance to make a caricature of me?

I like her for the things that make her, her. She is pained by the things that make me, me. It doesn't make sense for us to be together. It isn't honest for me to be in a one sided relationship. She allegedly feels for me how I felt for Nikki. I don't buy it. I also don't like how she acts just like I did in letting her feelings allow her to stay on a path that is nothing but heartache. This can be a second example of when I open up, I get nothing but scorn in return. I get ridiculed, misunderstood and am just not getting it. I won't be forced to care and I can't be guilt tripped into feelings. And if it even matters, everyone of her speculative guesses about my past or upbringing were dead wrong, and yet I bet it felt like she was donning some grand revelation upon me. Every time we talk it's like a mini episode of this effect. No, this I can't, don't want, and shouldn't bother to deal with.   

[83] On My Past Blogs

I’m not hundred percent sure I have anything specific to say. I’ve stayed up all night again and have been reading my old blogs. For anyone who says I haven’t thought through faith, believing in god, love, or significance in life a simple “fuck you” is all I have. I can’t tell after reading all that if I am/was a really depressed kid or just really thoughtful. I can be sure that I’m frequently pissed off because of my thinking , hence close to 80 blogs lol. People tend to look back on things like these and reflect on who they were or how misguided or immature they sounded just a couple of years ago. I can’t help but feel like I’m still right there. Granted certain questions regarding god or Christianity are no longer there, but I can still feel how I felt in some long ass digression that pissed me off for even having to write it way back when.

I think I’ve given myself too grand a goal, if there is such a thing. I undermine my own ambitions with ideas that, while relevant and factually correct, effectively demoralize my will. That’s really fucking stupid right? You think something, you want something, go and get it. What good does it do to constantly remind yourself of other “stuff?” Maybe it’s a way to police myself or feel accountable. I think I regard myself as dangerous. Not freak out and hack someone up dangerous obviously, but guy who hacked the government in last Die Hard dangerous. Nothings stopping me from using my information for good or bad. What’s stopping me from regarding my actions as good or bad? What compels me to say, ay back that up, your taking it too far? I think if you felt my level of disdain for this feeling I can once again sympathize with why you believe in a perfect law giver.

I have this overwhelming feeling that’s repulsive to what I, and I’m sure we all, know about humanity or worse ourselves. Yet, it can never be prayed away, forgotten, or denied. It surely serves a purpose; a purpose on the lowest tier of the pyramid no doubt, but it almost goes hand in hand with fucking up the rest of you simultaneously. I’m talking of course about fun. Whatever you find fun is going to twist and your life in some way that aligns you with it. If you widen the definition of fun to stepping outside the sandbox and outside the confines of a good book you realize that the whole world can at any point be made fun of. Not just making jokes about, manifested for your pleasure. You can take any atrocious scene in the world and put it in a stand up act. You can use any character flaw in your fellow man to dupe and scheme a way towards your means. If you can suck it, fuck it, snort it, drink it, shoot it, preach it, or merely think about it, you have a new play thing to have fun with. Just like there are some things you wouldn’t apply those actions to in your own life, there are options of thought you seemingly don’t want. The difference is your head is an open playing field. There are no rules and no accountability.

[176] 'Ole Time Revival

Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:42pm

Copied from a blog, contents of which are not what I'm hoping to highlight.


Hannah Norton at 8:37am September 24
This has always been confusing to me as well. The best answer that I can come up with is: we won't completely understand this side of heaven, and that's where trust comes in.

But what I do understand is this: God is a God of Love and a God of Justice. He loves us so much that He's provided a way for everyone to go to heaven. But He also loves us so much that He gives us free will and is not going to impose His on us. So then each person in the world has a choice. We can choose to accept or reject His gift. If we accept it, we have forgiveness and peace with God. If we reject it, we cannot live in the presence of a Holy God because of His justice.

As for sovereignty and predestination. The Bible also says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. I think his predestination (or forknowledge) is simply Him knowing before the foundation of the world who would choose Him and who would reject Him. ... Read More

That's whats helped me anyhow

Nick P. at 6:43pm October 5
I would say that hell is a way of "imposing" his will. Believe or burn make a choice? There is no freedom there.

For Hannah's sentence ""God is not willing that any should persih, but that all should come to repentance" is an inherent gap in reasoning for me. If God wills something how can it not happen? If he wills you to repend, your repenting otherwise it wouldn't have its godly power.

Your note centers around a questions thats been asked for thousands of years and the most famous quote is this:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

Andrew Sackett at 12:03pm March 18
Hey Ben,

God IS all loving and all caring. Regardless of what he does know and what he "chooses not to know", in some theories, he will always be there for those with faith in him. We cant even begin to imagine what he's like or what he will do next. We cannot know how he works and how he sometimes chooses not to work. To waste our lives searching for those questions without answers is complete foolishness.

What we do know is that God is present. Whether you want to try and blame that on coincidence or not, its true. And we also know that the name of Jesus Christ still holds tremendous power after 2000 years. We know that with pure faith in God, comes joy in the purest form. We know that faith in nothing often leads to bitter lonliness in countless people.... Read More

So that being said, stop trying to solve and understand God. Our minds are limited and are not made to understand anything that is unlimited. We cannot understand God, because if we could, He wouldnt be God.

Nick P. at 5:18pm March 18
"We cant even begin to imagine what he's like or what he will do next." "What we do know is that God is present."

You are a liar and you contradict yourself. Please fix this.

"We cannot know how he works and how he sometimes chooses not to work."... Read More

And yet your faith in jesus stemming from the bible, god's rule book, people like yourself tend to claim they "know god' in such a way.

Andrew Sackett at 5:23pm March 18
Please explain the "liar" title and the contradiction, none seems to be present to me. And please explain "people like yourself." You can disagree with me if you'd like, just do it clearly

Ben Cabe at 5:51pm March 18
haha wow I wrote this two years ago -- why the sudden comments? XD

I have partially, due to my own research and studies, acquired knowledge to answer this question and many others -- which I find far more fascinating. XD

Ben Cabe at 6:05pm March 18
...Also, when I wrote this I didn't do a good job of explaining or coming at it from every different angle -- I feel foolish when I read my words of any of my notes on facebook xD

I would write another, but I am going to save it for my book.

Nick P. at 8:49pm March 18
The contradiction: "We can't even begin to imagine what he's like" against "knowing" he is present. Your either lying about our ability to know what he's like, or about knowing that he is present.

I may have overstepped by not asking first if in fact in you believe in the bible and to what degree. Taking for granted you did based on your comment ... Read Moreabout jesus, I cited another example of your inherent contradiction by you trusting and/or knowing something about the god you stated "We can't even begin to imagine what he's like or what he will do next."

Andrew Sackett at 11:42am March 19
knowing that hes there but not knowing what he's like is not a contradiction, it may take a little extra to wrap your mind around it, but still makes perfect sense.

And yes, i believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and dont see anything that comes close to logically proving it wrong

Nick P. at 5:50pm March 19
Knowing something about your god would imply that his presence would at the very lease illicit some sort of tangible or describable feeling. To say you begin to imagine what he's like, is to barre yourself from even claiming "he's like a warm fuzzy feeling in my stomach" let alone going farther and using his "un-imaginability" to understand his ... Read Morerange of morally skewed acts in the bible.

I think if you haven't see anything that's come close to proving it wrong your simply lazy. Also, maybe haven't read the creation myths or, and this would be mind-blowing, think there was a global flood. If such is the case I'll state for the record to anybody reading my replies that I will know and appreciate the time I'm potentially wasting on someone who thinks those are logical precepts.

Andrew Sackett at 9:59pm March 19
and what do u believe in, that the world is billions of years old, and even though people have been around for many millions of years, they have failed to evolve to the point of even discovering fire for millions of years into their existence? A little far-fetched, and a bit more requiring in faith than even me believing in God creating the world ... Read Moreand loving us.

And I still dont quite get the explanation to the contradiction. Why is anything but the tangible believable to you? Why can't there be something that is not tangible, or explainable, just there. For example, anxiety is a general feeling that is not seen, and cannot be described and i havent heard one psychologist try and say that it doesnt exist. The psychologists can only see the effects of the anxiety, and yet still believe it. There are countless signs of God's presence here on earth, and to discredit those just because you dont understand the source doesnt make sense to me. The results are blatantly clear.

Nick P. at 11:06pm March 19
LOL, thank you for telling me all I need to know about you with your reply. No, I don't believe humans have been around millions of years, more so about 195,000.

I like how you utterly ignore what I presented to you and resorted to a very obtuse conjecture and attack on what it is I "believe." I don't have to "believe" in the age of the earth. It's a fact. A key word you'd do well to understand is evidence. It takes zero faith to accept a fact.

The fact that you still don't get the contradiction is yet another reason for me not to bother. I can't spell it out for you in any language but English. Try reading slower...?... Read More

Anxiety manifests in people's heart rate, sweat glands, brain activity, body movements, etc. It's isn't some ephemeral idea that' just "there" without evidence or reasons to call it anxiety. I will never understand how someone can tell me something can't be described then literally in the next sentence tell me it has effects.

Nick P. at 11:10pm March 19
Aw heck, for the lulz please tell us the evidence for your god's presence, but only if you tell me they aren't descriptions as well as explain how they are utterly impossible by natural means. :)

Andrew Sackett at 11:12pm March 19
God in his nature cant be described, but you can see his effects everywhere. The world for example. Do you really think such an intricate system of atoms, charges, entropy, cells, organisms, etc. was just there. I think it was a clear design by a being far above our realm of understanding.

Nick P. at 11:21pm March 19
You can't claim that there's a being beyond our understanding because you do indeed have a world which we can in fact understand.

Is it really that illogical to think something can be described in terms of how it effects the world around it? Invisible pink unicorns can't "really" be described in their nature. Why do I bring them up? What do they ... Read Morematter? They don't! And neither do your statements about your god. If invisible pink unicorns make leaves shake on trees, I'm going to think wind is more likely. Hell, maybe they created the earth too! Ya, or it is the intricate and detailed explanations offered by physics, cosmology, and geology.

The world? Really, the world. The giant globe of NATURE you say can't be explained by natural means. Something tells me you know NOTHING about atoms, charges, entropy, cells, organisms, etc. If you did you'd probably feel as bad as I do for you.

Andrew Sackett at 11:32pm March 19
If you knew anything about atoms, charges, entropy, cells, organisms, etc. you would see the beuty of them and the wonderful intricacy of them.

I guess what this really comes down to is whether the world was created, or is just there, and works in a way that is efficient. It just doesnt make sense to me that a world so perfectly designed could ... Read Morenot be designed at all. Who taught the planets and stars to create a gravitational force? Thats a question that splits the two of us apart. I believe, while you can only see whats tangible. But to think that our minds, which are so limited, could explain the universe is a personal choice, and one that causes much conflict between atheists and Christians. If you want to believe that the world was a coincidence, and that we are all here by chance, than go ahead, but im not about to jump on that bandwagon any time soon.

Nick P. at 11:36pm March 19
You are utterly hopeless. I suffer your ignorance.

 Nick P. at 11:43pm March 19

Andrew Sackett at 11:38pm March 19
sounds like a resolution! =)

 Amanda Velasquez at 11:46pm March 19

stop being so cool

 Billy Bowman at 10:42pm March 22

In regards to the anxiety metaphor:
Well maybe God is simply the manifestation of all the effects we see around us in the world, like existence! Perhaps we could even devout ourselves to studying these wondrous intricacies in some vain attempt to better understand God, by studying his effects. There could be priests that would be best educated on...  Read More the various studies of His greatness!

...Or maybe we already do. And instead of God, we call it the universe. And it's effects we call the laws of nature. And they call it's study science. And it's priests we call scientist. And in our vain attempt, we have succeeded in understanding some, and don't claim to know everything. And at this point we realize this young man has just proved our own argument via his anxiety metaphor.

 Byron R. Turner II at 11:53am March 23

Nick, just to let you know I have seen" heaven", had a "religious" experience, and have heared "god "talk to me. I'll talk to you later about that more in detail. What I can tell you here is that it is a incrediable easy thing to manifest and that anyone who truly believes they "know" anything about the Big Sky Daddy is are truly a weak minded individual. Hit me up later and I will tell you what "truth" they are seeing and hearing and knowing.

 Nick P. at 2:19pm March 23

Will do.

And yes Mr. Bowman, just yes.

 David M.L. Jaffe at 8:40am March 24

Sigh... Religious freaks... They should really sit in on some science classes and educate themselves.

[175] Lies, Lies, Everywhere's A Lie

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 1:39am

We'd never try to change you on your opinions. "I don't like the thought of people going to hell." Lie to Me. We are wretched horrible people. When Jesus died for me, he took away my sins.

I think I'm writing to hear myself repeat things I've said countless times, and because I'm feeling the exhaustion of watching my religion documentaries, news stories, and lectures. One of the things that will endlessly frustrate me about "religious" people or those that wish to proselytize, is that they do not change. If the foundation to every living thing is adaptation and survival, these people are the most drastic point of disjunction.

Why is this such a problem for me? If I'm going to be perhaps meanly blunt, I think when you preach or make some claim about your god you are a liar, you are lazy, and flatly ignorant. I feel like I lie to myself when I say I can respect someone who makes some unsubstantiated and naive claim about a god or their religion. Now I said I think these people are liars, lazy, and ignorant. If your not downright offended, and even if you are, permit me the time to elaborate.

I'll start backward. Ignorance is at the heart of the human condition, not just the religious. For every answer we get ten more questions. Many times we think a problem has been fixed, new ways come in to fuck things up. I wish to put everyone on the same playing field of ignorance for a simple reason. Some have developed ways of keeping their ignorance in its proper place, and others have decided to live in sheer defiance of it. One of the main difference of character when I'm deciding who I can or can't trust is a simple statement; I don't know. For a species that never wants to be wrong about itself or its claims, when you can swallow your failure to understand and say it loud enough for all to hear, you deserve respect for your honesty. Where this ability becomes important is when it can be applied to our convictions. How does a Gamecube work?: I don't know, isn't as worthy as, Is there a god?: I don't know. There's a simple check to see if your on the path to becoming "less ignorant." Catch yourself saying incorrect things. Acknowledge when your position on something is failing or in complete. Doubt that what you said and what you meant are always the same.

One should think the next logical step would be to get off our lazy ass and go out and learn something. Again, there is a point of disjunction between when an honest person reads and learns something, and when a convicted person reads and "learns" something. Part of the reason people get egos about a particular subject or develop an air of asshole is because they understand what it took to get them so "far" in their knowledge. There is a difference again between just being an asshole with a conviction, and being pompously plump with knowledge. Be advised, that when I talk about laziness, it isn't just your ability to go out and pick up a book or sit through a lecture. You have to endure the mental fight that comes with changing your mind. You have to adopt rules of thought independent of your opinion. Indeed too many apologetics claims to have read all the "new atheist books" and wrote their own books in response. Turning the pages of one of those masterpieces reveals the lazy asshole who only knows how to sling personal attacks and ignore evidence. This screams the underlying tragedy in their character and thought process. They have only "learned" what it is next they have to scream at. They hear the words but don't listen to what they say. I find this inexcusable.

So now onto the biggest one for me. The lying. I'm going to ask you to read really carefully and fully distinguish what and how this goes down. Do I think they are lying about their opinion? Obviously not. Do I think they are trying to be deliberately deceptive in their words and actions? In the everyday person not so much, in the professional proselytizer, it gets more complicated. When I watch a debate or speaker, they all tend to assume the same kind of trend or pattern of speaking and laying out their arguments. What bothers me, is that by no real excuse I can surmise, when I hear an apologetic speech, they tend to pepper in statements analogous to "Oh by the way, Hitler was an atheist." This an obvious lie, but for more important reasons than just getting a factual claim wrong. This is a lie I suppose we can refer to as a compound lie. One that is made worse because it is based on a previous lie or lack of knowledge frequently having nothing to do with the statement in question. I can't tell you how many times someone will rant about "atheism" then just kinda ramble off Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, having done ZERO research or reading about any of them, social psychology, or even the very word atheism.

Apart from these annoying, but easily fixable once unpacked, kinds of factual fuck ups, is the more insidious lie. This is the one I have more "hope" exists because I don't see overwhelming evidence for it. This is the lie to themselves. This is when you hear a perfectly logical analysis, analogy, or statement, know in your "heart of hearts" it does indeed make sense and is a good point, and choose instead to write it off or go on some tangent that has nothing to do with what the person said. These I hate more than anything. If someone can't be honest enough with themselves to relinquish a meager bad fact about their position, what can they even begin to know about themselves as an individual human being? I said above that I have yet to hear any real change in from these people. Hundred year old arguments, word for word recitations, and a desperate attempt to beat their favorite passages over ours and their heads because the longer and louder you say it, the more true it becomes.

Their religion is their supplement for change. If life teaches anything it is that which does not change is bound to perish. People who've "adapted" to remain complacent in thought are allowed to survive under the veil of religion. Tell me why this is acceptable? Tell me what good has come from holding ideas which are obviously wrong for obvious reasons indefinitely. Is it because we just want them to be happy? What a fucking joke of a statement. Retarded people are happy. Psychopathic serial killers find their happiness in an array of styles. I think this ridiculous statement is given by the person who is so unhappy their last result is to try and see it and feel it through someone else. The majority of my friends seem and act happy when they get drunk and party. Do you think I would give one fuck about their happiness if all my shit was puked on, the apartment destroyed, and the cops were at my door? Happiness is a responsibility to yourself and others. It is not just some ephemeral ideal we should strive for beyond all reason.

When you are unable to change something like a view that everyone you meet is filthy and a sinner and deserves to rot in hell for an eternity; a concept our minds aren't able to even fathom, you are a cancer on society. You are destructive. You need to change. Any time you make a divisive comment that isn't predicated on someone's divisive action, you need to change. When you can't let yourself accept information, just pure and simple opinion free information, you need to change. I've been thinking for a while now that the secret to life and everything in it is irony. What kind of sick dramatic irony lets someone exist where styles, gadgets, information, people, and their very own religion can all frequently and endlessly change, but they refuse to. They have bypassed the selection pressure and avoided all competition, albeit through denial, but nonetheless avoided. What kind of joke would a god play by allowing us to become emotionally entrenched with people who are able to hold such despicable ideas about themselves, family, and friends, but still claim to be motivated by love? Why do we indulge them in this fantasy? Why do you want to call such a person friend when they believe you should burn for eternity?

Of course the quick jump is always, "it's not me, it's god" which if I have to rant about please just stop reading my blogs.

Ultimately, I always find myself trying to reconcile the relative fact that nothing will get "better" because people don't recognize what it is about themselves or the world that needs to be fought against. I love the show Lie to Me because it is a simple analogy to what I'm talking about. The underlying message. The real truth. The stuff you may be able to naturally recognize, but still need to study and refine to know how to work with it. I wonder how many people are really capable of seeing things like the ones I call "on the level." More than that I wonder what it would take, or if its even possible, to teach someone how to think that way. I think until you can your not really my friend. Your not someone I can trust, and your definitely not something I respect. But hey, what does my opinion matter anyway?

Written about 3 weeks ago · Comment · LikeUnlike

 You like this.

 Mickey Woods at 1:11am March 18

This is excellent.
I like that you recognize that the natural human tendency to use fundamental opinions as a way to solidify personal beliefs, values and traditions is something that needs to be challenged AND changed.
I think it is very frustrating when so many"pundits" who call themselves leaders, pioneers of a movement (example Ann Coulter) ...  Read Morevoice their opinions loud and proud, successfully gain momentum through fanaticism, and establish a loyal audience but absolutely refuse to obtain facts and do the research necessary to support their opinions.
You're right when you say that it boils down to laziness. We live in a right-here, right-now society that doesn't encourage active and deep thinking unless it can be handed to you immediately or bought somewhere in a store (which by the way, is a direct result of OTHER people working toward a solution, and more than likely in a sweatshop in a third-world country).
Then again, these are all opinions. Does that make me a hypocrite?

 Nick P. at 1:57am March 18

I'm not sure Ann Coulter's cunt level is an opinion so your probably safe from the hypocrite charge.

 Steev Young at 4:46pm March 18

I would like to comment on the last paragraph. You said that until "friends" can see the little things that the people on the level see that they are not really your friends and they are not trustworthy. I would like to say that your logic is flawed. If your friends can see the signs like in Lie to Me. Then they can learn to hide those signs. Which...  Read More would make them less trustworthy.

Whereas your friends that cannot see the signs as in Lie to Me, they don't know what they are so they will show them. Which makes them better to read, and easier to control, and predict. They would be more trustworthy.

 Colin Hampton at 3:54pm March 19

I find that extremely offensive, Steev. To state that you only believe those who are easily manipulated are trustworthy is ridiculous. I would like to think of myself as a very trustworthy person, and I do not believe that I am one of these people that you can read and control. However, I do believe that everyone has some level of predictability.

 Steev Young at 12:08am March 20

I am sorry that you find this offensive. But i trust you because i can read you.... Just because i know how people are feeling doesn't mean that i feel the need to control them. I would have hoped that you would have known that. Again... sorry if this hurts you.

 Billy Bowman at 11:13am March 20

This all makes me smile in amusement.

 Colin Hampton at 6:01pm March 22

Steev, you have an extraordinary ability to read people. However, I do not believe that you have me pinned as well as you might think. And no, I don't think that you feel the need to control me or anyone else. However you did say that you find people that are easily controlled more trustworthy. It would seem to me, that if someone is easily controlled by you, that they would also be easily controlled by others, thus making them less trustworthy due to outside influence.

 Billy Bowman at 7:10pm March 22

I think what Steev means is just that if you can completely predict or completely control someone, you can trust them more easily then someone you can't control or can't predict, for the simple reason of being able to predict or control if/when they will betray you.

 Nick P. at 9:23pm March 22

Let's not get too confused everybody. We're talking about a level of trust that is more than just between acquaintances. This is a trust that doesn't come from reading people or controlling them. It's more of a mutual understanding independently arrived up, but says the same thing. You know its there when your able to "read" that persons actions from then on.

[82] The Longer I Debate (Not Mine)

Submitted by Hambydammit on Sun, 2007-08-19 00:47.

The longer I debate theists, the more I realize they don't have definitions for anything. Consider this sentence:

God is the creator of everything and gives meaning to humanity through the sacrifice of his son to atone for our sins.

God: No definition. He's supernatural, which is literally nothing. He's omni-max, which is self contradictory at least a half dozen different ways.

Everything: Except himself? So it's not everything. So what created god?

Meaning: As you say, meaning assumes intelligence, which assumes god, which is circular, and therefore, meaningless in the logical and philosophical sense.

Sacrifice: How exactly is it a sacrifice to die when death is not death and you have lost nothing? So this sacrifice means something else, but what?

Son: Really? God has a penis? Who did he mate with? So, not really "son." Some other thing that is different, but is called son.

Atone: How does a deity who created everything 'atone' by a 'sacrifice' that isn't really a sacrifice, forgiving people for being the way he made them, and then sending those who don't believe it to eternal punishment. This doesn't fit the word atone in any definition I can find.

Sins: What is a sin? It is what god doesn't want us to do? Or is it things that we can reason to be bad? If we can reason it, then we don't need god to tell us. If we can't reason it, then it is not bad, so why is it a sin?

So, that whole sentence is just riddled with words that don't have a precise meaning!

The whole thing is simply meaningless babble.

[174] So Live Your Life

Sunday, March 8, 2009 at 5:12pm

My third adventure reading up on what it means to be a sociopath has left me with things I need to write down. First and foremost, I think the majority of the self-tests are relatively unreliable and purely contingent on if you can see what answer it is prompting the sociopath for. Also, with a question like "are you sexually promiscuous" I find it hard to believe it says much about the nature of a sociopath if the random sample of questionees were drawn from any group of 18-24 year old males. What intrigues me the most is the amount of things that are so strikingly close to being dead-on, but just miss it relative to me. For example, with regards to empathy, I do enjoy a good stint of just making someone feel bad, granted if they deserve it, and can walk away without a tinge of regret or empathy as the tears well up and the visible body quivers show that the words actually sunk in. I don't personally feel like I'm that intimidating, but I also know that it's when I'm not trying to be that I may be coming off like I am. You must understand, I find these kind of phenomena fascinating. I think what's been written about lying is pretty funny as well. While I hardly think I'm a pathological liar, I don't scoff at what I've gotten away with. It still is a tad nerve racking in the anticipation of all the things that can go wrong, but that only goes so far. They say that time heals all pain; I think this should be reworked into time heals all anxiety.

The concept of this "terrible emptiness" that comes up in an article I read is intriguing for two reasons. One I think it only tells half the story and doesn't encapsulate what is going on in that "terribly empty," at least of "real" feeling person's head. Two, I think there is a bigger collective "terrible emptiness" that stems from more than the particular person's environment, but instead speaks to the bigger social problem. I have a really hard time buying into any sort of specified diagnosis regarding my behavior, simply because I see it reflected in enough people back to me. Sociopaths are allegedly unendingly bored, a symptom I find in almost every college student I've met regardless of how many movies, football games, or homeworks they can pack into their schedule. Your supposed to have this grandiose feeling of entitlement and self worth if you want to fall in line with your fellow sociopaths. Maybe I just try to hang around enterprising people with self-esteem, but practically, life has taught us that you can get as far as your work and connections will take you. Have a tremendous goal so that if you fall short you still accomplish something huge.

Now to go off in a different direction. I try to avoid drama. One thing that has become overwhelmingly apparent is that most drama comes from our social interactions. I, being maddeningly rational, attempt to break down why these social interactions are either a hell or a haven. The people that have always gotten along best with me are the people that know they don't need me to be around in order to be happy. In fact, perhaps more often than not, me not being around allows them to do their own thing the way they like even more so. I believe everything breaks down to the individual. Being secure in yourself, motivated and understood, my trust in you comes from your trust in yourself. Acquiring this level of trust in yourself is a painstaking endeavor. Thus, I am reassured by your tenacity to accept this challenge and put yourself through this process. This is what I trust. It is a drastically different situation than simply having high self esteem or endlessly touting some goal or belief higher than all others.

I need trust. The problem is, people don't feel the need to put themselves through the mental rigors that illicit this trust. There are many a pitfall that enshroud your mind when you start on the road of "dangerous," "pessimistic," or introspective thought. Instead of exploring all of them, I'll just point to what I think is the biggest one; depression. Depression here encapsulates hopelessness, emptiness, no motivation, perhaps anger, inability to resolve problems, and defensiveness. It is easy for smart, or maybe those who've begun this thoughtful process, people to look at the world and see all the obvious reasons for why it is shit. One could go on for days and indeed many works have been written about the human condition alone, let alone its standing with other entities and its environment. Each "new" experience can be written off as just another movie, just another party, meaningless gesture, the logical result of that amount of time spent doing that particular activity resulting in said "skill." I want to argue that this ability to see the future or instantly understand a situation is no reason to be depressed. If anything it should enhance your drive to think that much further and push your predictive powers that much harder.

One of the biggest reasons I hold this view comes from personal experience. While there isn't exactly a one to one ratio of things I've gotten right to things I've gotten wrong, some simple "law" always creeps in to humble me when I try to convince myself of just how right I really am. On the notion that no human has any more or less predictive powers than me, and can feed off the same social information, I think it is reasonable to assume that if your chin is held so high that you've begun to black out in the stratosphere, maybe you should spend a little more time pretending your still genetically equal to the rest of us mere mortals. The greatest thing about being wrong, particularly if it doesn't result in jail time or physical pain, is that you get the opportunity to learn. The people that are so bored or lost in themselves because the world around them is hopeless, need to see the opportunity and accept that we all can stand to grow up. I say that I can understand the depressed thought pattern, and I hope people don't think I'm bullshitting. A big thing that got me out of it is to look at the absurdity of where that leads to. I had to fully realize what that associates me with. You must actively shower scorn upon such thoughts and associations or you will forever be controlled by them.

Well, I don't want this to trail too far away from the how's and what's where this relates to our social interactions. When you find the people that can find it in them to have even a meager enthusiasm for life or happiness after they've undergone the "on-the-level" test, I believe life can lead any and everywhere those people want to take it. When you run into people who are infuriatingly close to said level, you get the ups and downs that come with someone who has yet to keep their emotions in check, but still understands enough about themselves, and you, to draw you into a battle I wish was reserved for the next group of people. The final group of those who hardly ever think, live their life by accident and convenience, move from one conversation about, like, you know, to whatever that's just gay.

So my ultimate rationalist dream is this; a free society of people on the level, or working to get there, who's main focus isn't for "new and exciting" but happily sustainable. I think there is a major fault in our reasoning that says there is somewhere for us to go. Like there is some "human final" that all of our thought and struggle is contributing towards. The difference between suicidal thoughts and a suicidal victim is the conversation you had with yourself leading up to that moment. Should it be filled with "woe is me" testaments and adolescent rationalizations for how the world made you this way? Is it really so appropriate to point the ever stretching finger at all the people who conspired towards your downfall? This is why I tell people who talk about killing themselves to just do it. Logically, if I literally cannot find rhyme nor reason for why I'm here, nobody to provide a hint of evidence showing that I enjoy life or can make an improvement, and nothing standing in any of my relationships or actions that I can be proud of, then that's what I would do.

All of this torments my thoughts. It all contributes to my angst of being in college. Working on ways of fixing what I view as the bigger problems in life, is stifled by the time I waste writing bullshit reports or reading from English speaking authors who still manage to butcher English. I want the group of people who can show everyone else that there is an alternative to the practice begrudgingly referred to simply as life. There no longer has to be this struggle of "us vs them" on these superimposed "levels" I've denoted. I can't imagine that we would even have the word objective if there wasn't a way to measure your happiness against your contribution to yourself and the people around you. I guess I just want everyone to just "be." When you can get there you can understand how and why you should be happy. Then, sustaining and appreciating it will quell or manipulate the boredom, displace the depression, and constantly organize the torrent of thoughts into a ever expanding and changing mental framework you've purposefully chosen to understand the world. When this framework reassuringly surprises you with how similar it compares with other happy, and not merely contented, people, you'll know your doing right.

[81] The Bible Is Bullshit

Conservatively speaking of course, as it turns out the bible is merely astrology. I'm in a wave of never ending fascination when I stumble upon a new piece of humble pie that completely and definitively tears about any notion that the bible is even close to something called god. "The Naked Truth" a documentary made way the hell back at the beginning of the 90's beats the hell out of modern religions. I keep telling people to look at the history, do your homework and you'll finally realize why I sympathize yet called you a completely irrational head case at the same time. I'm gonna make my own parables that help illustrate my point because that's the only thing religious people ever want to listen to.

Covering your head and screaming doesn't make the pain go away.

Someone else is thanking god that you'll never be back when you die.

"Look around with a gaping mouth" is not proof.

To study the bible is to disgrace the sacred word study.

The devil did NOT make you do it. (F.U.D.)

One day a time will come when humanity will come to its senses and finally publish the perfect 22nd version of the bible.

How many Jews does it take to screw in a light bulb? Who cares, one was the sun.

Remember you have a choice to not burn in hell if you disbelieve. (breath a sigh of relief all you people worried about finding a get out of hell free card)

Thou shalt watch every documentary on the history of religions and read every book explaining why people think you are irrational before invoking something existing outside of space and time. (Turns out we really do have all the answers)

And finally, remember all the times Jesus didn't speak the next time you think its important to open your mouth.

Guy's and gals, I have been writing on this stuff for years and THIS is the first time you start getting at me? I mean I've written an 11 page digression summing up all the things you could ever talk about one night and I had three responses to that. I don't want to convert anybody and I definitely don't know everything, obviously. I've never claimed to know anything that science can't teach. That is the problem. I have provable, key word provable, facts and history to tell people about and they have personally stories they don't understand call it god. There is the difference. Anything I say you can come to the same conclusion w/o me having to convince you its true.

[80] Insignificant

Probably the biggest word to describe how I justify most of my actions in life. Words, for example, are pretty insignificant. I was asked why I cussed recently and the best I could come up with is that I've been doing it since 2nd grade. Who cares? In a number of years many of our words will disappear with history. History that, as tv so clearly points out, is nothing but violence, take overs, political squabbles, and wrought with fear. From one famous name to the next the world is passed around like a cheap whore. If there's one thing i learned from watching the history channel and then switching to Green Day's cover of Working Class Hero its that we, as existing individuals, are completely insignificant in relation to the universe we inhabit. I mean who's reading this that's really thinking about the Darfur people?

You hope your actions will influence people, assuming you even act at all. The burden is still on them to accept it and understand you. This is a give and take relationship. The highest honor you can aspire to in this life is that your service to someone will make you and them truly happy. I don't like to focus on bullshit and that's why people think I'm the rebel or one that likes to fight. I don't care to talk about half the shit people revolve their worlds around because we both know it will provide nothing in the end for either of us. I'm concerned about the all too frequently used term sheep that I see people become. They don't know how or are afraid to weed out this intrinsic bullshit.

Do you want someone to tell you your life before you live it? You'll be born into such n such religion, told right and wrong, go to school, get a job, have such and such right of passage, go to college, get a job, work the next 50 years, have fun sometimes here and there, talk about these issues your parents did, find someone to "settle down" with, the list goes on and can get unbearably specific. To take a misquoted line from the Astronaut Farmer "When I was a kid I was told I could be anything I wanted to be, somewhere along line I think we forgot that." I think before we ever ask questions we should start with the ultimate question. Are you happy? Before you care about someone's cussing, their religion, their possessions, their anything, ask yourself if your happy. If not, why not, if you don't know, why don't you know. If you don't know why u don't know then I can say you're in denial.

How much fuller can you make this life when you realize your probably not going to dance across the universe with Jesus forever anymore than your going to burn in hell for having an opinion?

[172] The People Around Me

Friday, February 27, 2009 at 6:19am

For multi-layered reasons of not-so complexity I find many of the people I surround myself with being upset, depressed, or angry. My feeble attempts at having parties seemingly unable to penetrate this self repudiating thought pattern in some, and frustration with the world in others. While my sense of happiness and well-being are not contingent upon the people around me, one can't help but to invest in those they consider friends. Given that I've been rather stooped in thought the past few days, and seeing as how there must be something screwy with how the planets are aligning, taking down my friends one at a time, why not write?

A few moments ago I made a little list of everything that could currently be categorized under stress. Four of them had to do with money, three with the system, and seven with me. Granted the last category is rather inflated by seemingly trivial things, but things weighing on my thoughts no less. I've been trying to think of what could make me absolutely miserable. I remember what things I used to think could, but now all I can come up with is the inability to enjoy life. If I couldn't laugh with my friends, be entranced by a story line in a video game or movie, or get excited planning on how to take over the campus, then I may as well kill myself. I wonder if people either don't have or simply don't choose to engage in the simple things that can bring them happiness. I think when people aren't focused on themselves and what makes them happy, they both knowingly and unknowingly affect the people around them. One must take a moment to state that when it comes to "things that make us happy" it doesn't always mean in a way that's necessarily healthy or generally condoned. Perhaps I should be more specific. One of the biggest things that can pull me away from self loathing or borderline depressed introspection is the prospect of being able to contribute towards someone else's happiness. Take the difference between that and say, doing drugs, as the "kind of happiness" I'm focusing on. A manifestation of happiness, not supplementation.

So onto my next question. Are there things providing that kind of happiness to which people have identified with and then tried to strive for? This could even be only for the means of self preservation at the very least. My initial thought is to say no. If that's true, then I wonder the consequences. I for example, fall back on the plans I have with Mystik and potential fun in random encounters and adventures on the days where I feel disgustingly bored. If one of those stressors starts to creep in, I try to fit it in my framework that doesn't leave room for excuses, but fights to see opportunities. I remember what it was like to have overbearing thoughts that made me think unbelievably low about myself. But what then? Why choose sadness or lasting anger? They don't feel good, they don't provide fun, and they alienate you from the part of yourself that truly does recognize what it wants and how it will get it. I guess I just wish for people to be more thoughtful when they're normally depressed. There should be an eagerness to find happiness because they know this low point is only going to last as long as they'll let it. Instead of being crushed by the big picture, simply recognize it and then move on. It really boils down to being honest to the point of exhaustion, at least to yourself, then actively working within the choices you make as a result. The biggest opposition to that is the easiness in which we find ruts and others propensity to help us settle in them farther.

I've made several references in blogs and conversations about the failed system. I wish there was a better way of making reference to it without sort of glancing over the striking fact that we are the system. It's an overhanging metaphor for all the reasons we fail ourselves. We betray ourselves, and we refuse to accept the knowledge which may indeed save ourselves. Those "moral underpinnings" of "civilized" society are imposed by people who I would venture to guess have the most naive and scattered understanding of why they believe in them and how, when pitted against those with more "radical" ideologies. Why don't we like murder? Besides the fact that we did, those in power decided they themselves wouldn't like to be murdered, therefore murder is wrong. It isn't "because murder is wrong, murder is wrong" like some religious sect could harp at you. This stems from the selfish, self preserving, very basic introspection of those with a disposition for power and control. You can apply this line of reasoning to any "atrocious" act. This idea is so intertwined with empathy I am hoping someone will challenge it and show me why it fails. It's so easy to say that you can understand and feel for someone else, but if the moral obligation to care was so deeply entrenched in our hearts and souls we'd be unable to laugh at a motivational poster saying "404 food not found" underneath a picture of starving African kids. And if you can't laugh at something like that, then to me you actively deny and are scared of the part of you that could. Recognizing that you don't want to be as sad, hurt, or as angry as the person you perceive is hardly an equally mirrored empathetic suffering.

So then what of this suffering? People ask these broad "why is there evil" "why is there suffering" questions and they're overwhelmingly met with cliches like "that's life" or nods to some supernatural battle between sky daddy and pyrogoatman. These things exist because we actively choose to engage in them. They make sense to us within the framework of our failed system. In some capacity, that's the only thing they need to do is make sense. For some they provide purpose, a chance to be some valiant knight through their self-righteous moral obligation. Others get use them as every excuse. That's why they're there. It's like riding a wave that's going to drown you regardless of the path you choose. If you don't recognize, accept, and change how to view yourself in light of it, then the system will not see fit any reason to change either. We no longer have the same kinds of selection pressures that got us this far. We need to take on the cold, anxiety ridden, but now thoughtful process of naturally selecting ourselves. It's easily viewed and understood what happens to our lives and society when we just kinda go with whatever gives us fleeting moments of marginal happiness and distraction. Is this what you want? Is it something you're willing to fight?

What does this mean for how and why we lie? The easiest lies are the ones you believe. If to you society, you, the system, etc. can be solved with arbitration, spiritual enlightenment, and a little bit of hope...please, just never talk to me. Right and wrong are absolutes?...develop an imagination. Who am I though to say my view is so right? Why should my method of thinking or elaborate scheme be taken seriously? The simple answer is that it shouldn't and can't. My ideas can only come true and be worked at by me, the same push is your own choice. You'd have to come to the same independent conclusions from a preponderance of evidence. Your introspection, your study, and your honesty are at the corner of what matters. Do I expect that a perfect exercise of this will have us all nodding along accordingly and just "getting it" as it were? Absolutely not, and to think so would be to completely miss the point of the exercise. Given that I believe those "on the level" can understand how this works I'll call it a "secret" for the people I've all but completely lost up to this point.

All I do is start with what I feel are relatively easy questions. What makes me happy? What appears to make those around me happy, and why? What is it about myself that is enabling or preventing me from one act or idea and another? When you literally feel like you can do, think, or say anything and then dignify active work towards one of your choices, you can find happiness. You can find a sense of self with purpose properly secured. You can overwhelmingly find all the reasons why, and you can be confidant that they are "right."

Written about a month ago · Comment · LikeUnlike

 You like this.

 Colin Hampton at 8:18am February 27

Ok. So it's a quarter past eight in the morning. I haven't slept, despite the fact that I've been laying here for hours. So I am going to have to read through this one more time.

lol pyrogoatman <~ that was the entire point of this comment.

 Billy Bowman at 4:12pm February 27

I agree with lol pyrocgoatman, but to answer one of your original points about why the people around you seem depressed, despite all the little things that can bring them happiness, despite the realizations of a flawed system and working to fix it would if not make you happy, distract you from the depression. I believe, at least in my case and I'm ...  sure several others, it boils down to one statement you made.. "..but if the moral obligation to care was so deeply entrenched in our hearts and souls.."

I believe there is some deeply entrenched obligation to care embedded in us. Maybe not for everyone, maybe not even care about a lot of people, but there is something there. You care for the happiness of your friends, the success of Mystik, trying to do something to fix the system. It's not the same level of 'care' as Christian fanatics claim to have, loving every living soul despite everything. No, it's something simpler, a care to be happy, and for those close to you to be happy.

 Billy Bowman at 4:15pm February 27

There's truly some biological need, for lack a better way or wording it, for us to care, comfort, and be close to others, to complete us. Thing about nature for a moment.

Lions, for instance, have their prides. They care for each others, but you don't seem them hanging out with other prides, they don't care about other prides, they just have ...  Read Moretheir close knit circle of lion friends and family, and they are perfectly content to care for them and them alone, and fuck any one else. Sea otters have larger families, their more social creatures. They have fun playing with each other, hanging out, and dealing with issues as a group, but all the sea otters in an area are in the same group, they aren't all 'friends'.

It might be a slightly weird, and awkward metaphor, but I think it gets the point across.

 Nick P. at 4:21pm February 27

I understand your point Mr. Bowman. I guess I was aiming more for the how and why nature of caring and not so much the act in itself. This is why I used the terms "moral obligation" as if to ridicule the idea of it being outwardly imposed as much as intuitively realized and expressed. Basically the root of that caring is either extended or stifled by the amount of benefit you see it carrying.

I called it last night that pyrogoatman would be the main thing people took away from this lol.

 Billy Bowman at 4:28pm February 27

I thought you would, but hopefully you're not the only one reading. Right, the how and why.. I'm not sure I can address as easily. I agree it's not some outwardly imposed idea, and it makes sense that it's tied to the benefit you perceive.. but I think there's more to it. It doesn't explain very well how one might care if they accidentally hurt a friends, or why one would care so much if they made a mistake that affected nothing, but they feel they just shouldn't have made.

 Nick P. at 4:49pm February 27

An interesting point, but I think could still stem from a system eye's view with regards to its "hurting friends" policy. I think the amount of worry one imposes on the situation, particularly if it "affected nothing," is mostly subjective as well. I accidentally elbow and headbutt steev all the time, do I care? Obviously. Will I scold myself about...  Read More what this means for our future, my subconscious "real" feelings, and be put down that I "just shouldn't have done that?" Not likely. I think it comes from an even deeper sense of that person's self. If you just never cry, never fight, never betray, and then something you do or are accused of doing resonates with a life pattern you've worked hard to establish, then the "I just shouldn't have done that" turns into a kind of self hating reserved for Jews.

 Billy Bowman at 4:53pm February 27

Well of course it's subjective, as is happiness, and what makes people happy, but I am inclined to agree with your latter sentiments. Most people, however, don't know themselves, so these things will bother them.

 Steev Young at 7:09pm February 27

I think you should be worrying what that means for our future.... that last headbutt really hurt... thank you.....lol... i had to put it out there..other than that i really have nothing to say. thank you for your time.

 Billy Bowman at 2:52am February 28

Damnit Steev, I want my time back.

 Steev Young at 3:36am February 28

Do you want the unicorns back too? Because those are two things that aren't going to happen. sorry.

[173] Some People Fill Out Surveys

Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:12pm

I got bored and tore apart his letter.

Last year I went to some "arbitrary title for god" presentations over a five day period. I got caught up talking to this guy named Tim who shows up at this years rehashing of the same thing. I spent the next few months "debating" this guy and frankly refuse to keep going. He goes nowhere, he doesn't study what he's talking about, and he likes to think that presenting his position with someone else's title above his makes a valid argument. Both he and the main presenter hold these notions about violence and death and this being "the bloodiest century ever" somehow supported by the bible as well. Here's his last email to me after I sent him this video:http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

If you want to find a time waster, please watch the video, read his response, and then ask me why I spent months of my life in correspondence with him.

Hey Nick,

First of all, thanks again for coming to the meetings and speaking with us.

I finally got a chance to look at the Pinker video on Wednesday (recall my slow connection and the fact that I have to view these at the public library).

It was interesting. I agree with him that technology has brought the world together to some extent and that it can (when used wisely) be used for peaceful and cooperative purposes. However, it is not always used wisely. [This statement has no bearing on the point of what this discussion; referring to "20th Century being the "bloodiest"] Both technology and education in and of themselves have not demonstrably solved the core problems of human existence, but have in fact in many instances added to them, i.e. nuclear weapons, technological warfare, computer viruses and internet abuses including pornagraphy and exploitation, etc. Thus the continued need to address the issues of morality . . .[Someone tell me the relevance of porn]

Regarding the issue of the history of violence: Actually very little of his presentation was devoted to provding evidence for his thesis that violence is decreasing.[His entire presentation was predicated on this question.] Most of it was about providing the reasons for why he thinks it is so. [Statistics, graphs, historical figures, all sound like opinions to me.] Where his evidence was lacking was in the extrapolation from a isolated population of a group who was particularly violent and drawing conclusions based upon percentages. [Please tell me what "isolated population" who was "particularly violent" that was used to skew the data] What would be needed would be a more representative cross section of the world population of all cultures and all previous centuries and a shown marked decrease. This was not done.[One, you can't get recorded data in areas of the world and time periods where they don't/didn't record things. Two, the purpose of the percentages is to level the playing field when making comparrisons as well as get a general idea of how and why people were dying in those more remote populations. Three, Pinker does a deliberate job starting from a millenium scale and extrapolating down to show indeed that violence/death do go down. To say this was not done is simply a lie.]

Another problem was isolating windows of time and place, i.e. Europe and the Middle Ages. [Please reference this point in the talk to discern for yourself how this was "misleading." One would think that detailing just how misleading it was and how would lend credence to the statement.] Also misleading were the statistics from "deaths from armed conflict" as if this is how all violent deaths occur, and that this provides evidence for general improvement. This is not so. Deaths in concentration camps are not in "armed conflict". Deaths in Siberia and Gestapo or KGB raids, or terrorism are not "armed conflict." [One, "armed conflict" is not what Pinker particularly addresses over death due to violence in general. Two, to isolate "armed conflict" (which after watching the video four times I can't seem to see where he spends a significant amount of time espossing) is to again misrepresent and lie about the presentation. Three, Pinker made very direct points about including the deaths from the World Wars and genocides both past and current in his analysis. Is this man deaf, retarded, or clinically admissable for denial?]

The statement at issue by Justin (and many others) is that the 20th century has been the bloodiest in history (this is not just about war). I didn't find evidence that contradicted this in the video. [Neither Justin or Tim provide evidence of thier claim. They barely "site" examples like the holocaust, the wars, the genocides, etc. to which when directly addressed by Pinker's video, they seem to pretend doesn't work.] Also misdleading was his quoting of Bible passages out of context and mentioning torturous practices of the past. [Tell me jury, when eras of people use the bible to justify they're violence, and a presentation on violence alludes to the same passages used then as are sometimes even used today, is this "out of context?" Also, please grant to Tim that they were used out of context and ask him what the "appropriate" or "right" context therefore is, because he won't tell you anymore than he told me.] As if people don't torture animals for entertainment today! [Torturing animals today because of sick pleasure or mental instability is not the same as making a show in the middle of a French square, laughing and applauding, but this difference is wasted on Tim.] As if the Nazis didn't torture sadistically! As if torture is not common today in certain societies![There is no point in bringing up torture. I never made a claim about torture, the video is not on torture. The only thing that could be said about torture is that the amount of it is assuredly going down, not that it doesn't still exist or should somehow be non-existent if we were getting better as a society. This is what Tim implies, and in case you havn't talked to him whole heartedly believes]

David Fraser noticed some of the same things I did:[Who the hell is David Fraser? I'm not refuting David Fraser]


"This presentation proves that selective use of readily available data can create anything but a history. The pattern of violence (too narrowly defined by Pinker) is more on the order of an inverted U curve: low among hunters-gatherers, much more common among horticulturalists (which are the groups from which his examples came--and even then from the most violent examples among those), peaks in agrarian societies and then begins a gradual, though extraordinarily bloody decline in modern industrial orders. What is missed in his presentation is that the 20th century is the bloodiest century of human history on the scale of killings (the major and minor wars; the civil conflicts; the revolutions; the terrorists). Even norming it by the percentage of population does a disservice to the state-induced killings. One wonders whether 20th century genocides, the deaths from conflicts in the lake region of East Africa, southern Sudan, the "honor" killings in Islamic societies, the violence of the drug trade or the trafficking in human flesh, the forced labor of children, the deaths from toxic pollution by major industrial concerns, the death of women at the hands of abusive husbands -- and whole spectrum of violence was included in his reckoning.
What to say of then of his ethnocentric treatment of biblical material? As though legal statements were enacted practice. Taking texts and even practices out of their socio-cultural context and time and ridiculing them does not amount to proof of levels of violence. How many instances are recorded of any of the provisions of the Mosaic legislation he mentions? What were the customs of the surrounding ancient middle East?
I do not find this presentation to be credible in its argument. It should be titled a brief modern "myth" about violence. Its Euro-centric and ethnocentric presentation of selective data minimizes the extraordinary violence of the present and maximizes the past, unfairly."


Regarding empathy: Granted we have impulses of empathy. We also have impulses for self-preservation. What is the third impulse which tells us we should empathize and do the right thing even at our personal peril? [Still empathy, as well as group selection]

Examples: Save the drowning man even though you are endangering yourself.[No one ever qualifies the people that don't in fact try to save this drowing man when they themselves can't swim or will obviously go down with him. Throw somone into Niagra Falls, place Tim on the edge, tell me if this analogy is still workable.]
Wistle blow on the corrupt company though you lose your job and even your family in the process.[Because we knows this happens all the time]



Why have all societies (regardless of religion) recognized adultery and sex before marriage as wrong[STOP. Such an unbearably ridiculous statement shouldn't have to be tolerated in an intelligent discussion/"debate." Most societies, including ones alluded to in the bible through god's will fucked everything that moved as often as they could as early as the girl had a hole to put it in. If anything our modern understanding of sex shows that it is both normal and healthier to have sex when your horny, safely, and often, if your both consenting] when according to evolution [get ready for it] the idea for men was to "spread his seed around" to as many women as possible?[Evolution is the change in species over time. It doesn't say a damn thing about males spreading their seeds in as many women as possible. What mythical air he pulled this from is beyond me. If anything haveing hundreds of bastard children you couldn't take care of would lead to many of them being unprovided for and therefore unfit to carry on your genes.]

Many acts are known to be wrong though they have no bearing [They may and do] on the survival of the individual or the supposed benefit of the race as a whole: To murder [Murder the people who are going to murder you. Methinks this will make you live longer], commit adultery [How this is violent, leads to death, is relevant, or is viewed as wrong in more ways than meager infidelity is still beyond me], steal [If stealing food means you get to eat, your going to live longer], lie,[When you like to the SS about where your hiding your Jews, they get to live longer] or cheat[This word implies you are working within a sustainbale and just system] are all known to be wrong regardless of the ostensible survival benefit for the individual or society as whole.

But why should someone even care about society as a whole if it conflicts with his personal survival or interests? [As a social non-retarded animal, we understand our survival is intertwined with how well our enviornment(society) runs. Who really needs this fucking explained to them?] Where did we get this idea that we should put others before ourselves and not be selfish? [Probably from people who understood the mutual benefit of cooperation, another grotesquely complicated idea I know.]


Indeed, the "benefit of society as a whole" can become very subjective and problematic when moral absolutes are ignored and disregarded.[Or maybe when you impose moral absolutes where none have ever existed.] This is in fact what has precipitated many of this century's bloodbaths.[Of course.] With the disregarding of moral absolutes, power fills the vacuum. Communism, Nazism, and other genocides have all been precipitated upon the idea of "what is good for society as a whole", or the "survival" of the nation or the individual.[Would anyone with even a meager understanding of a social contract or any other "ism" explain that they are not genocides. Also, tied in with any "ism" is a consordium of social factors, psychology questions, extenuating circumstances, misunderstood phenomena, etc that play into the "simple" words of Communism or Nazism] Without an absolute law defining what is evil, it's up to anyone's whim. But many societies still accept the idea of certain moral absolutes and have believed that the nations and individuals who perpetrate attrocites are in fact actually doing evil, regardless of their own excuses for doing so: thus there are war crimes tribunals, international law, etc.[Because we have no other reason to say they are wrong than "because they are wrong" obviously.]

Without moral absolutes, morality is subjective.[Tell me what about our history and individual liveds doesn't tell you this is true to at least some extent especially when considering different circumstances.] When it is subjective, anyone can define it for their own selfish and evil purposes. [As selfish and evil are synonomous] Why should we not be selfish and evil? We've come full circle. Our consciences[Tim's abstract voice in his head that tells him more or less how he thinks is reasonably reasonable to act in certain situations depending on his beliefs about those situations and the people involved not to mention imbued with the "knowledge" that if he is more disposed to certain behaviors an infinate reward is in order] tell us that morality should NOT be subjective, that the Nazis and Communists and Pol Pot and all the rest should have known better[And a wag of my finger to them], that they too know what is right and wrong but chose to do what is wrong.[Again, understanding what is "wrong or right" and doing otherwise doesn't say a thing about moral absolutes the second one and only one person comes to a different conclusion based on the same evidence or situation your theory is refuted. We like to believe we have good reasons to call things like murder right or wrong given the situation. As if we could predict the future...]

Blessings,

Tim

[79] Leave It Up To Scrutiny

I want to clear up my view on things as watching a Beyond Belief 2006 session raised a good point about where people could have a confusion about what I'm against concerning religion.

I am in no way against someone in pursuit of answers. I just don't like it when people think they've found their answers and now its their job to inform the rest of us just how wrong we really are. We are all in the dark when it comes to a lot of things. One thing that makes you feel warm at night doesn't become justified simply because it does that for you. Personally I probably feel more and more "lost" the more and more I realize how much there is to think about. This attests to my disbelief more than any speculations you could make about my pride.

It bothered me to hear about my friend praying for someone who was gay and then flirt with her, jokingly, in class. I was really confused on what she actually thought about this girl. Was her immortal soul in danger and about to burn if she didn't change and so by praying for her it was the ultimate act of humanity and humility? Perhaps it was just going through the motions. "O ya, gay is supposed to be bad so gimme a minute while I show God i did my h/w, (proceeds to kneel)." (please don't get angry of u read this girly lol)

It stems from childhood the need to feel like the center of the universe. All the attention is constantly showered on you every time you cry or get hurt. Your parents may be by your crib when you wake up in the morning. Then you grow up and move out into the world and you learn that not only are you small in relation to the world, but then science comes in and tells you your almost, if not, infinitely insignificant in relation to the cosmos. Obviously not the most agreeable idea. This is what I think people should feel their genuine sense of humility about though. Any time you implement fear, which almost all religions do, you take away from that very real feeling you get by contemplating these uncomfortably humbling ideas.

From what I surmise people believe in anything as long as they feel it pertains to the well being and proliferation of their lives. That seems like an obvious point, but I think it needs to be noted that getting to that status of feeling good about your actions is dramatically different for different types of people. I just watched a neuroscientist talk about his studies done with split brain patients who's right side believes in God and left side is an atheist. When I try to explain to people that the power to feel what you want literally exists in their own mind I'm not trying to be philosophical or talk from a pious and egotistical opinion. It literally is and is being proven.

You could take two hours of your life to watch some documentaries or read a book entitled "Misquoting Jesus" to open so many questions. Again, its not about me converting you, it is about questioning. I could beat you over the head with a dictionary, but if you didn't care to learn English..... Its not the inability to "feel god's love" that makes me angry, its the squandering of opportunity. I hate when I do it, but especially hate when its done after the all the resources are handed to you and are still easily, more haphazardly, ignored in the name of faith.

When people ask about the existence of God my first impulse is to say "Who cares?" If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin you'd still love your family. Whether God stopped you from being hit by a car or not you'd know it was a good thing to feed starving kids. Who really cares? Let's think, if God did exist and embodies all the things people try to attribute to him now lets organize it.

God creates man to be striking close genetically to different animals. He wrote a book, ehem, inspired a book, with mistranslations, horrific depictions of human injustice, historical inaccuracies, and plain animalistic human behavior. He is everything and nothing to someone or another at all times. He is coincidentally always a HE. Anytime he wants to provide evidence for his significance its through a miracle that doesn't stand up to investigation, doesn't relate to anybody but person proclaiming it (unless its a universally general issue), and it groups him into a bunch of sayings that people make about Santa. When you've got all that baggage on your name why is it referred to as intelligent, loving, and omniscient?

The difference between me and the religious is I say prove me wrong, compel me to believe you, convince me of something I may never want to accept. I want more than anything for that to happen. No one depressing life story is proof. No ones miracle is proof. No one book, because it says so IN the book, is proof. People need to take their subjective reality way the hell out of their objective one so we can stop arguing whether or not God told you to minister to someone, and instead about what logical, historical, personal, and brainy scientific reasons are behind that "unknowable voice or feeling."

[78] Random Haikus

My screaming heart aches
Longing, for I do not say
How it torchers me.

Fear the thinking man
Notions spread like a virus
Simple divine eye.

Goddamn butterflies
Insescent chruning insects
Nothing goes away.

Why I am so wise
Too cliche to write at night
Who's missing a clue.

Allah or Buddha?
Jesus is the one true God
You don't love Yourself.

Haiku about love
You will never surmize it
Pleasantly haunting.

__ __ go away
__ words escape __ lips
__ __ hold my hand.

Is there such as bliss?
Never found by looking for
It must just be shy.

Has my ego gone?
Toss the fatty and ugly
No, here, safe and sound.

Expect one to judge
It's all they can hold dearest
a shield for the heart

If God does exist
He most certainly won't sleep
To many grand thoughts.