Monday, August 13, 2018

Universal Evaluation of Self.

  1. You have a great need for other people to like and admire you.
  2. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself.
  3. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage.
  4. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them.
  5. Your sexual adjustment has presented problems for you.
  6. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside.
  7. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.
  8. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.
  9. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof.
  10. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others.
  11. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved.
  12. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic.
  13. Security is one of your major goals in life."
(from "The Evolution of Religion: How Religions Originate, Change, and Die" by Alex Shelby)

I will add:
We have difficulty handling the unknown, after we realize that we do not know:

In the beginning, it was cold, dark, and there was nothing. 
A small area warmed to slightly above absolute zero due to slight variation.
The Higgs field started to exist.
The reaction is spontaneity and exothermic, and does not stop once started.
The forces split, the lower quarks and quirks came into existence.
Many met with there counterpart and annihilated, producing heat.
It became very hot, forming plasma, and expansion started.
Later electrons, protons, neutrons, formed and grouped into atoms of hydrogen, helium and a little bit of lithium as cooling around the edge started.
Radiation started to leave at the speed of light.
It is unclear if this makes more space or expands into space, nothingness.

Thursday, August 9, 2018

Speaking to the Religious

Once we realize that there are no gods, no supernatural, and there is no admissible evidence of a god, then all religions are just pitching woo. There are no objective or traditional ethics or morals, they are just handed down, as from mystics. But morals, ethics, and values are therefore subjective and have no foundation other than logic. Whats more, they are adaptive; that is they change with the situation, whether we realize the reasons or not. When we start looking at the reasoning, we realize that now. more than ever, religions are pitching woo.

Religions prime motivation is to grow the religion. Big families are/were the surest way; but now that we humans have overpopulated the globe, human life on the fringes has much less value. That makes abortion just fine, and birth control required. Morals are adaptive.

Fraud must be considered to be a serious crime. It was not in biblical/Sumerian time, hence all the old codes do not outlaw it, so like computer crimes, it is a relative newcomer to the crimes of the world. The government needs to catch up and prosecute these as much as theft.

Once we realize there are no gods, then religion becomes fraud; selling something they cannot deliver. There is no life after death, no miracles, no help to come through prayer, well only self deception, perhaps some value in self talk. Community is a separate item, some churches build community, and some split community. Oh well, there is little community in the fast changing urban environment, especially for the low social people. 

So to go from a well developed nihilist like myself, to a religious is not rational. To define a nihilist: a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles, but rather adopts humanist, or existential ethics, morals, values while painting on a purpose or meaning to life, while recognizing there is no universal purpose or meaning... Even talking to the religious is difficult since they do not have a clue about what an atheist really thinks... and yet they want to gloss over the fact that there is no evidence for a god.   

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

give us a handout

I had to call it something.

  • "He who interferes in what does not concern him finds what does not please him" from the Muslim culture, but there needs to be limits. If we are aiming at world government, then there must be uniformity... yet culture, ethic, morals, values are adaptive and subjective. There is nothing physically wrong with eating horse and dogs, or humans for that mater. Killing, on the other hand is wrong for it is violence against others and will be reciprocated.   
  • Mind your own business. This must be one of the collateral of ethics. It is necessary in a diverse population, and yet it is not right either. We need to allow the idiots to be idiots, but if the idiots are doing harm to others, we should not permit it either. But what is harm? Teaching children to follow a wrong belief system; Creationism, for example, or believing in witch craft or herbal medicine, holistic treatments for serious diseases. How about human driven climate change deniers. An idiot is an idiot, and should we make efforts to correct them or just leave them to do as they please. 
  • Mind the greater good. This must also be a collateral issue, especially in earth over population control, but the religions are pushing population growth. The greater good is to reduce population to some manageable level, and we may already go over the turning point in climate warming, a nuclear winter may fix the problem, or a major volcanic eruption, or an asteroid. Slow heat and crop failures may be the way we go, or the next extinction event goes. Complete of partial, it does not matter much. 
  • A statement of belief will be necessary. There are no gods, no afterlife, no supernatural. Physics dictates the reality. On a conceptual level, all must be consistent with the physical facts that exist. If it is not consistent with the physical facts, it is likely not true. Reality rules. But people and the relationship between people is beyond my understanding.

Sunday, August 5, 2018

and more again

give us a handout to revive us again. beats an ear worm.


So ethics are subjective; or opinion sort of. (and thinking makes it so)  After the first few bit of logic, I want to live in peace, prosper, reproduce... well I need to foster suitable conditions for that in myself and in others, demand reciprocity, and we arrive at some subjective plus logic premises. After that, well not so much is either logic or objective.

It is reasonable that every child should not be handicapped at birth by inbreeding, therefore it is logical to have a probation mating with relatives. If a child is to grow up in a home where both parents are present, than monogamous relationship is required in our culture. We are not evolved enough of culture for much else main stream: learned behavior of most of us requires to pass on our genes, and not provide for others gene lines.

Culture is survival adaptive often. Marriage, commitment to one's partner and offspring, does not allow for jealousy, which, to some extent is a trained in cultural characteristic. The Inuit get around this by one women marrying a family of boys often. One women, several related brothers. No one is sure who is the father. It took many males to provide for a family. The unwanted young and handicapped old were exposed to die or left in permanent camps, where such existed, to live as long as they were able, and when the next visitation to the permanent camp occurred...

Multiple wives were common in warring tribes, were many young men went away to fight and die. We, in Europe and North America are in an overpopulation situation. Is that the drive that is causing homosexuals to increase? I do not know.

So our ethics, morals, values are likely subjective and adaptive to our cultural and genetic survival, but we can also refine these by common adoption of a new standard, thereby create a new cultural norms.    

Friday, July 27, 2018

and more

  • Each person should have the freedom to believe whatever they want or do believe, even if it is wrong. Traditional beliefs may be wrong.  They should not have the right to impose wrong information on the young, next generation. They have no right to impose that information onto anyone else, or even to aggressively prosthesis. Anything belief without evidence should be treated as suspect, and not given much weight in reality.

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Atheist Code of Ethics

Atheist Code of Ethics... a work in progress

Is there a universal code of ethics?  Well, not yet. Someone might try to hold us to them. And there are issues.

All ethic codes are subjective, there are no objective codes. There can also be legal codes, best practices, and collective codes. Anything that is agreed upon can become a ethical code. 

Right and wrong, for many things could be looked at as a nine point scale, where right and wrong are the extreme poles of such a scale. Can ethics be looked at in the same manner?

Well, before we get there, we need to consider subjective ethics and objective ethics. But wait. There are no objective ethics, only subjective; there may be a few near objective premises, so perhaps subjective - objective should be the poles of a nine point scale. But if we could all agree on some points, we could have a universal code aggregated together, those points we all agree on being declared to be universal, just as a legal system defines what is not acceptable in a society.  The most we can do is to lay out a few precepts.

  • Always tell the truth. Truth is the absolute foundation of any code of ethics. Correct understanding of the words must also be included. Truth does not include the unknown, only those things that we know to be true, not those things we believe are true. If we consider false (1) to be low end of a nine point scale, and true to the 9, neutral to be 5, then only an 9 is true. Or should that be 8 and nine. Lets say 8 and 9 for now.  
  • Equality of life, not in starting position, nor gifts. Equality of rights is the concept, yet even this has problems. It is not the same as the human rights for that goes too far. It allows freedom of religions, and religions are often the problem. Most religions have components that violate truth and equality clauses.
  • Right to life. Life should not be threatened by any state, yet how else does one prevent invasion or annihilation by the competition?
  • Right to own property, and the right to defend that property. Why work if a thief is allowed to take that property? Canada has taken away this right to some extent, and that is going to be more of a problem in the future as our already over-populated world gains more people.
  • Right to produce the next generation up to the limit of our Quota. The world is overpopulated, as evidenced by the rise in Co2 levels. A limit in reproduction is required, perhaps a one child limit. 
  • Right to die, to do what is necessary to look after one's own life, first. Equality does not attach until birth and survival.  
This is a first draft of the concept only.

Will this stimulate discussion?   

Sunday, July 22, 2018

Life or Boredom

Sometime we just need to make changes and move on. Being an atheist can be as simple as there is no god, no afterlife, no miracles, no supernatural. All religion is just quackery, more or less.

It is not the event, but what we think about the event; our mind tells us what is real to us, if we let it. Or we can chose what we know to be real. Life is all that is of absolute value, all else is just relative value. We can adopt an ethic, and live that ethic without fear of anything beyond the law and the potential of a crazy doing something crazy that effects us. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

We can study ethics until we realize that there are few absolutes, beyond survival and equality is required for survival, life and satisfaction, a bit of simple pleasure, a means of livelihood, or the Buddhist Eight, Stoic thinking, the virtues or virtue ethics, or life by the Analects. Beyond the traditions and rituals, what would be the differences? Not much. Some value truth above tradition, others value tradition over truth and reality. I have become truth seeking... and that has placed me at odds with the religious... because of the truth that there is no admissible evidence of a god, but if you believe there is great comfort, consolation and pleasure to be had for no cost, other that accepting tradition over truth. That is as simple as it gets. Do you place a higher value of truth or tradition?

Consolation over the loss of family should not be underestimated in value. This has been observed to drive many people to their religion, and yet from the outside we can see that it is wrong. I would not deny anyone their consolation, however they seek it, yet from the outside I know that it is wrong. So how does one handle the grieving?

There is the next topic, death, consolation, and no god. Seneca may be the place to start that study. And yet it remains, it is not the event, but our thinking about the event. Reality vs what we think reality is. To the individual, it is our mind that controls our reaction. We become smaller or fade until we disappear mentally. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

Carbon content of the atmosphere tells the story of the health of our economy, and of the health of the planet. We are burning ourselves to death. We are too many, for out life style. People do not give up a high carbon dioxide production lifestyle easily, it will need to be pried from our cold dead hands. That is what the earth will do, over our dead bodies. The end is coming, yet it will not be a complete extinction, but rather a life becoming more difficult until the correct for the earth population size is realized, at some time in the future...  Oh well....