I have stopped caring about how wrong other people are. It is not my concern if they are delusional, they will just carry on into the walls, or where ever they end up. Dead likely. We all end there anyway. Let us look at the extreme case, so that we can see this more plainly.
They may continue to use drugs, as much as they want, live in delusion and why should I care, they do not hear a word I say, so why should I care? If they wish to use fentanyl and/or carfentanil, why should I care, just prepay the funeral cost and get on living. It is as Epictetus suggests, "when you kiss your child good night, reminder yourself that this may be the last time" or some such negative visualization, and then you will not be hurt as much when or if it really happens. So what if the case is just a delusion?
I have learned there is no god, but it is not my place to teach this to others unless they start pushing their beliefs, and then I rebel. Any public ...."Let us pray" ... is a assumption that we all are christian or something. They as well should sacrifice a chicken, then we could eat at least. In the public setting, That is an invitation to respond in a negative way, a non christian way. Face backwards, or east, or sit or something. Yet why go into a christian house and refuse in an obvious way. If you go into a christian home willingly, behave as acceptable to a christian even if you do not believe.
There is no god. the only god exists in the mind of the believer as a delusion, for there is no evidence of one existing. Yet saying that I am atheist seems to be an open invitation for the evangelist to try to change or correct my view. Not any more, for I shall stand my ground. Give me physical proof or fuck off.
Monday, June 26, 2017
Saturday, June 24, 2017
wysiwyg
Pronounced: wizzy wig
What you see is what you get. This was a term from the early days of computer and html editing. It also applies to atheism. It is reality, no life after death, no afterlife, no judgement, no god, no soul. WYSIWYG. That it, that's all. It is up to any religion to prove there is more before I could believe.
I meant to save not post, oh well. WYSIWYG, what more need to be said. It says it all. The whole world of concepts is just that, a world of concepts, ideas, day dreams. Religion have the same foundation as do comic books, graphic novels, fiction of any kind, and the like. The bible and quran mix in some history, so they become historic novels. So if it is not real, it may fiction, mixed with a few true facts, but how does one separate facts and fiction presented as fact. Then, on the other hand, what does history have to do with our present actions? We see how other did something, and what was the outcome? Tomorrow? Did they all survive to see another day? Were they the same people, or were they forever changed and not for the better? Those two "holy books" are filled with vial actions and deeds, which should not be repeated. That is the secrete lessons in the books. Never do what is written about. WYSIWYG.
WYSIWYG is a real philosophy. It is the philosophy of atheism, there is no god, and as proof, WYSIWYG. There is no soul, WYSIWYG. There is no afterlife, WYSIWYG. It is up to the religious to show me otherwise.
You can fuck with the brain by concentrating on one thing for extended time, or practice talking to an imaginary friend or council until you think they are real. These are not WYSIWYG. Learning critical thinking, ABCDEFG, and most people do not get beyond B for biases, WYSIWYG leads to clean thinking and all the way to G, good, goal, the plan, virtue as the old greeks called it. It is all dependent on what you think.
What you see is what you get. This was a term from the early days of computer and html editing. It also applies to atheism. It is reality, no life after death, no afterlife, no judgement, no god, no soul. WYSIWYG. That it, that's all. It is up to any religion to prove there is more before I could believe.
I meant to save not post, oh well. WYSIWYG, what more need to be said. It says it all. The whole world of concepts is just that, a world of concepts, ideas, day dreams. Religion have the same foundation as do comic books, graphic novels, fiction of any kind, and the like. The bible and quran mix in some history, so they become historic novels. So if it is not real, it may fiction, mixed with a few true facts, but how does one separate facts and fiction presented as fact. Then, on the other hand, what does history have to do with our present actions? We see how other did something, and what was the outcome? Tomorrow? Did they all survive to see another day? Were they the same people, or were they forever changed and not for the better? Those two "holy books" are filled with vial actions and deeds, which should not be repeated. That is the secrete lessons in the books. Never do what is written about. WYSIWYG.
WYSIWYG is a real philosophy. It is the philosophy of atheism, there is no god, and as proof, WYSIWYG. There is no soul, WYSIWYG. There is no afterlife, WYSIWYG. It is up to the religious to show me otherwise.
You can fuck with the brain by concentrating on one thing for extended time, or practice talking to an imaginary friend or council until you think they are real. These are not WYSIWYG. Learning critical thinking, ABCDEFG, and most people do not get beyond B for biases, WYSIWYG leads to clean thinking and all the way to G, good, goal, the plan, virtue as the old greeks called it. It is all dependent on what you think.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Craig - Bullshit
William Lane Craig Yada, yada, yada, therefore god is the best explanation. Yada, yada, yada, and we do not know therefore god is the best explanation. We do not know therefore god. For everything god is always a supernatural explanation. It is not a real one. That is the problem. God is not an explanation of anything but a excuse for not thinking. Gods at best are just concepts, but the religious will never admit such. Oh well, turmp and the US can have them.
I find all religion and those forcing their fake supernatural concepts into our faces very off putting. I do not want to even look at some peoples facebook posts because of there religious content. I do not want to speak to many of my religious relatives. It is just so off putting; their total nongrasp of reality. What is a person to do. Walk away from all my relatives? Yes, what else is there?
I find all religion and those forcing their fake supernatural concepts into our faces very off putting. I do not want to even look at some peoples facebook posts because of there religious content. I do not want to speak to many of my religious relatives. It is just so off putting; their total nongrasp of reality. What is a person to do. Walk away from all my relatives? Yes, what else is there?
Monday, June 19, 2017
There Is No God
This note has been assembled in response to two separate requests.
Saying that there is a god does not make it so. I can go long with not questioning something until the need arises, but when the need arises, we need to be able to justify that belief or question it and have a response. Handing the belief to the previous generation may not be sufficient. The time is now to understand and defend your belief in a god, and your belief that there is a god. If you are unable the likely reason is there is no god.
The religions cannot agree on a god, therefore there is a possibility all religions are wrong about the existence of a god. When I examined the question, going back to first principles, and the rules of evidence, working forward with two hypotheses, there is no god vs there is a god, and placing only positive statement, with estimated probabilities, the no god side comes out in front. It is not close, for there is no evidence that points to a god.
In an critical thinking issues, we first need to eliminate biases as much as possible, and become aware of the biases where they cannot be eliminated. We need to eliminate fallacies like "we do not yet know therefore god" arguments, as well as the other forty most common fallacies of logic. At that point we are ready to start laying down the deviation of the dueling hypothesis, one line at a time. Keep in mind that verbosity and time pressure are not part of the logic, when one gets through each argument, for and against, based on logic, nothing remains in the pro god hypothesis. So one is forced to conclude there is no god, logically. There remains a weak possibility of some sixth force out there, after the main four, weak, strong, elector-magnetic, gravity and the fifth, dark.
Existence is the next issue that need definition. Concepts exist, at least in the minds of people, yet have no physical existence and therefore do not in fact exist. If you choose to include concepts in your definition of existence, god exist to you, and if not, gods do not exist. This does not challenge concepts or that belief of concepts can influence the lives of believers, and those around. It only challenges the the physical existence of a god. Those who say god is beyond space and time place there god into the concept field, beyond space and time. So they do not want to acknowledge that there god is just a concept, with real impacts on the lives of believers, but remains a concept only with no physical existence. So if there is a god, it is in the realm of concepts, not physical, so therefore god does not exist, the believers only think that god does exist. It is all quire logical by confusing as the existence depends on if concepts are included or excluded.
So is your god a concept or a physical object? That is the dividing line of faith verses reality. Once one decides, god is either a concepts, or the hard truth of reality, no god. If you chose to say that there is a god and he is real, then you are living in a fairy land; an untruthful world of not understanding and separation of the details of logic.
All reality can be divided in to actions, physical objects and concepts.
The religious typically will not take on this argument. First there "holly" books cannot be use, only logic from starting hypothesis from first principals and without the fallacies of logic. They also like distraction and verbosity, flooding the field with much noise and verbosity, and no logic. When they lose, they cannot accept it and they just go away. Without settling this what is god issue, the foundation of any religion is like Ron Hubburt or J Smith or whoever.
Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.
And here is a list of what atheists are not: http://godlessmom.com/9-things-atheist-does-not-mean/
Saying that there is a god does not make it so. I can go long with not questioning something until the need arises, but when the need arises, we need to be able to justify that belief or question it and have a response. Handing the belief to the previous generation may not be sufficient. The time is now to understand and defend your belief in a god, and your belief that there is a god. If you are unable the likely reason is there is no god.
The religions cannot agree on a god, therefore there is a possibility all religions are wrong about the existence of a god. When I examined the question, going back to first principles, and the rules of evidence, working forward with two hypotheses, there is no god vs there is a god, and placing only positive statement, with estimated probabilities, the no god side comes out in front. It is not close, for there is no evidence that points to a god.
In an critical thinking issues, we first need to eliminate biases as much as possible, and become aware of the biases where they cannot be eliminated. We need to eliminate fallacies like "we do not yet know therefore god" arguments, as well as the other forty most common fallacies of logic. At that point we are ready to start laying down the deviation of the dueling hypothesis, one line at a time. Keep in mind that verbosity and time pressure are not part of the logic, when one gets through each argument, for and against, based on logic, nothing remains in the pro god hypothesis. So one is forced to conclude there is no god, logically. There remains a weak possibility of some sixth force out there, after the main four, weak, strong, elector-magnetic, gravity and the fifth, dark.
Existence is the next issue that need definition. Concepts exist, at least in the minds of people, yet have no physical existence and therefore do not in fact exist. If you choose to include concepts in your definition of existence, god exist to you, and if not, gods do not exist. This does not challenge concepts or that belief of concepts can influence the lives of believers, and those around. It only challenges the the physical existence of a god. Those who say god is beyond space and time place there god into the concept field, beyond space and time. So they do not want to acknowledge that there god is just a concept, with real impacts on the lives of believers, but remains a concept only with no physical existence. So if there is a god, it is in the realm of concepts, not physical, so therefore god does not exist, the believers only think that god does exist. It is all quire logical by confusing as the existence depends on if concepts are included or excluded.
So is your god a concept or a physical object? That is the dividing line of faith verses reality. Once one decides, god is either a concepts, or the hard truth of reality, no god. If you chose to say that there is a god and he is real, then you are living in a fairy land; an untruthful world of not understanding and separation of the details of logic.
All reality can be divided in to actions, physical objects and concepts.
The religious typically will not take on this argument. First there "holly" books cannot be use, only logic from starting hypothesis from first principals and without the fallacies of logic. They also like distraction and verbosity, flooding the field with much noise and verbosity, and no logic. When they lose, they cannot accept it and they just go away. Without settling this what is god issue, the foundation of any religion is like Ron Hubburt or J Smith or whoever.
Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.
And here is a list of what atheists are not: http://godlessmom.com/9-things-atheist-does-not-mean/
Saturday, June 17, 2017
Equal Rights
I do not have a problem with equal rights, I do have a problem with others telling me what I am going to do, and believe. There is no gods, no souls, no afterlife. You can believe what ever foolishness you wish to believe, but do not try to force it on me, or put it in my face, else it will be back onto you, hard.
Equal right for the gays is fine, but what they want is not equal but superior. The two spirited peoples make up something less than 10% of the population, and are not going anywhere. If they wish to play at marriage, well, it is easier to let them than resist, as marriage has become something that most do not take seriously anymore anyway. Originally, it was intended as one of the method of better odds at reproduction and survival of the children. The other plan of nature is to spread lots of " seed " and hope for the best. The second is looked down on by the more stable agrarian cultures but preferred some cultures and individuals. To which do you belong?
The idiot muslims seem to thing that they have the right to push their views onto others, and christians also to some extent. They are wrong, that simple. We also have the right to resist and to strike back. But they do not have those rights; equality and equal rights makes that right impossible, else we will be at war. Muslims want all us non believers dead, according to there quran. Oh well, there is no god, no souls, no afterlife. It is all just superstition and old cultures.
So the next question is should those of us who have been freed from the chains of religion, and move on, be around those who are still stuck in those old cultures? Should we stick them every time they push their beliefs out in public or at us, or be polite and keep quite? When they praise their god publicly, we can ridicule them, I think. They raised the concept, pushed it on us, so we push back. That is equal rights.
Equal right for the gays is fine, but what they want is not equal but superior. The two spirited peoples make up something less than 10% of the population, and are not going anywhere. If they wish to play at marriage, well, it is easier to let them than resist, as marriage has become something that most do not take seriously anymore anyway. Originally, it was intended as one of the method of better odds at reproduction and survival of the children. The other plan of nature is to spread lots of " seed " and hope for the best. The second is looked down on by the more stable agrarian cultures but preferred some cultures and individuals. To which do you belong?
The idiot muslims seem to thing that they have the right to push their views onto others, and christians also to some extent. They are wrong, that simple. We also have the right to resist and to strike back. But they do not have those rights; equality and equal rights makes that right impossible, else we will be at war. Muslims want all us non believers dead, according to there quran. Oh well, there is no god, no souls, no afterlife. It is all just superstition and old cultures.
So the next question is should those of us who have been freed from the chains of religion, and move on, be around those who are still stuck in those old cultures? Should we stick them every time they push their beliefs out in public or at us, or be polite and keep quite? When they praise their god publicly, we can ridicule them, I think. They raised the concept, pushed it on us, so we push back. That is equal rights.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Race vs. Culture.
https://the-orbit.net/progpub/2017/06/11/racism-round-6-10-17/
Races are different and do exist. That is a fact. Different cultures behave differently. Race and culture are consistent, interlocked within a community. So is it a racial issue or a cross culture issue? How do we separate the two? Culture is a function of habitual behaviors, generational behaviors, and usually within one race. So when we say it is a racial issue, is it a racial or a cultural issue? I suggest that the US black/white issue is cultural as is the Canadian white/Indian problem. As a white who has been "run off a reservation", I will say that the Indian culture is an old and non adaptive culture who likes to think that being here first, well at least a few of there ancestors, gives them special status, and the right to be kept. Our ancestors agreed with there ancestors, but then they reproduced like rabbits. Now there is a problem. Can we afford to support the Indians in a style to which they would like to be accustom?
The government can sit back an import any number of groups, Syrians, or Boat People. They do not mix, but rather establish ghettos or enclaves. These separate culture communities, like the Indians are hostile to the surrounding white communities, one culture, one religion, one race. Race is used as a visual identifier. Some we can spot a mile off, as soon as we can see them. When the Indians cause problems, we do not want to be around them. The government has different rules for handling them so we and they do not mix, willingly. Our Indians have a light fingered culture, it is there culture. It is also there culture to like the drink, and to trust the predators and take risks. And then they wounder why so many of there ladies turn up dead. Predators exist, and there culture will suffer until they individually take responsibility for themselves. Is that racist or reality?
The white culture is vial, brutal, aggressive, no compassion, no understanding, but we are the dominate culture. The business person must be so to survive. Bigger companies and government are more humane, for they need employees to survive. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.
Races are different and do exist. That is a fact. Different cultures behave differently. Race and culture are consistent, interlocked within a community. So is it a racial issue or a cross culture issue? How do we separate the two? Culture is a function of habitual behaviors, generational behaviors, and usually within one race. So when we say it is a racial issue, is it a racial or a cultural issue? I suggest that the US black/white issue is cultural as is the Canadian white/Indian problem. As a white who has been "run off a reservation", I will say that the Indian culture is an old and non adaptive culture who likes to think that being here first, well at least a few of there ancestors, gives them special status, and the right to be kept. Our ancestors agreed with there ancestors, but then they reproduced like rabbits. Now there is a problem. Can we afford to support the Indians in a style to which they would like to be accustom?
The government can sit back an import any number of groups, Syrians, or Boat People. They do not mix, but rather establish ghettos or enclaves. These separate culture communities, like the Indians are hostile to the surrounding white communities, one culture, one religion, one race. Race is used as a visual identifier. Some we can spot a mile off, as soon as we can see them. When the Indians cause problems, we do not want to be around them. The government has different rules for handling them so we and they do not mix, willingly. Our Indians have a light fingered culture, it is there culture. It is also there culture to like the drink, and to trust the predators and take risks. And then they wounder why so many of there ladies turn up dead. Predators exist, and there culture will suffer until they individually take responsibility for themselves. Is that racist or reality?
The white culture is vial, brutal, aggressive, no compassion, no understanding, but we are the dominate culture. The business person must be so to survive. Bigger companies and government are more humane, for they need employees to survive. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.
Friday, June 2, 2017
trump, Climate Change Denier
trump Climate Change Denier, I will no longer give trump any respect, Christopher Higgins did to god.
I do not understand his position.
He is unwilling to chance economic damage from addressing the whole climate change issue? The remainder of the world will be screaming "go home Yankee" once more. This attitude of bullying is not going to help them in the least. The future of the world is at steak and you are looking out for yourself. You can die alone, as no one will buy your products.
He does not believe human activities are increasing Co2 levels. Just look at our production of Co2, and the take off in the mid 1960. Co2 is proportional to the population, at least crudely so. Green technology will be the future in some form. Conservation, and green energy production, along with life style requiring less carbon footprint.
He does not believe warming climate is caused by rising Co2 levels. Science proved this in 1974.
So I do not understand trump. If we as a civilization are going to recover, or perhaps even survive, we will need to act together, tolerance, and education of the third world level peoples, even those living as the third world in Canada, Natives and street peoples. Welfare are not included, even though they have nothing, they live with heat and water, sanitation, communications, and the like. I just do not understand trump. He has the right to do as he likes, but bad press gets him Kathy Griffin pictures.
What is there to understand about the irrational beyond they are irrational. So who is the leader of the free world now? Not trump. Angela Merkel? Not Theresa May.
I do not understand his position.
He is unwilling to chance economic damage from addressing the whole climate change issue? The remainder of the world will be screaming "go home Yankee" once more. This attitude of bullying is not going to help them in the least. The future of the world is at steak and you are looking out for yourself. You can die alone, as no one will buy your products.
He does not believe human activities are increasing Co2 levels. Just look at our production of Co2, and the take off in the mid 1960. Co2 is proportional to the population, at least crudely so. Green technology will be the future in some form. Conservation, and green energy production, along with life style requiring less carbon footprint.
He does not believe warming climate is caused by rising Co2 levels. Science proved this in 1974.
So I do not understand trump. If we as a civilization are going to recover, or perhaps even survive, we will need to act together, tolerance, and education of the third world level peoples, even those living as the third world in Canada, Natives and street peoples. Welfare are not included, even though they have nothing, they live with heat and water, sanitation, communications, and the like. I just do not understand trump. He has the right to do as he likes, but bad press gets him Kathy Griffin pictures.
What is there to understand about the irrational beyond they are irrational. So who is the leader of the free world now? Not trump. Angela Merkel? Not Theresa May.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)