“I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavor” - Walden, Henry David Thoreau
"Yes, not only humans but also every other organism in the cosmos, as well as the planets or moons on which they thrive, would not exist but for the wreckage of spent stars. So you're made of detritus. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?" - Living Space, Death By Black Hole, Neil deGrasse Tyson
Robyn Durrell Burns
I believe in what created the universe,the stars,and Carl Saegan.Again I say,Bernie,your going to tell me,or Carl's is gonna explain,how a star created dna,our unique and individual fingerprints,our Brain,(CONSCIENCE),our hearts and our reproductive systems.I have listened to what his theories are.Will not,ever,ever,not for a second,believe these ridiculous theories.I don't care what he says.Here you can believe what this guy says,which sounds Crazy,but you can't explain what came here before all these things.Who or what created the first life force?Carl, nor you, can explain why so many experience the same vision,when having a "near death "expierence.It is not lucid dreams! What Carl says does not add up,any of it! A star created our flesh and bones?Pleeeeease Bernie,Carl,Give me a break!
Flash Kellish
you're right Robyn, of course all these guys are lying. and because we don't have the answers to everything, it stands to reason a god poofed everything into existence.
you believe what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs and much of your comments. THAT my friend is blind faith.
this statement alone //What Carl says does not add up,any of it!// proves to me 1 of 2 things, either you have never listened to anything Carl SAGAN has said, or you are being willfully ignorant in making such claims.
i'd say both.
sorry, but it's true.
Robyn Durrell Burns
I think that of you to.You have never to my satisfaction explained dna, finger prints,conscience,and the rest of it.So basically,you are going to tell me everyone who has had "near death"experience,and had simular visions,that they are all lying too?See,it works both ways.This was brought up a while back,and I'm not going to go round and round on this.I don't CARE about the theories.Did you think I would read all this and go Poof,now I believe Bernie?
Gerald Bogan
Robyn, Dr Sagan didn't just suddenly one day dream that stuff up. He studied these things all his life and corroberated with other very accomplished scientists all over the world to come to these conclusions. These are the same scientists who formulated the theories that make such things possible as magnetic ressonance imaging, electroencephalography, X-ray spectroscopy, genome sequencing, planetary exploration, as well as numerous theories that allow you to send real time communication data thousands of miles using electro-magnetic radiation travelling through amorphous silicon dioxide fiber to emerge at it's destination completely legible (some more than yours) and translated automatically into numerous languages of one's choosing. These scientists know what they are talking about. Obviously you don't.
Flash Kellish
why not? your god went poof and all this was here right? there is a BIG difference between scientist's careers, reputations, and theories and the stories of humans who have had delusional experiences brought about by traumatic situations.
i know you don't care about theories, because scientific theories deal with EVIDENCE and FACTS, things you obviously don't care about either. no Robyn, your faith is what is important because i choose not to do your research for you and present evidence that would answer your questions as thoroughly as science can today and that you would still scoff at.
btw, a little help for you, let me explain what a scientific theory is...
//A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.//
so though it can be disproven, it takes EVIDENCE to do so as it has more evidence to support it being fact than there is evidence to dismiss it as not.
you keep trying to get me to explain to you how the mind works, and i keep explaining to you that just because my knowledge of the brain is limited, it doesn't mean someone somewhere doesn't know or that your 'god did it' if know one does yet. it also is ironic that you are attempting to 'get me' by using the lack of knowledge about the brain, yet you have no problem attempting to use extraordinary circumstances created by the brain in times of great stress as 'evidence' to support your faith. would you really put your life on the line based on the testimony of someone who was most likely hallucinating? you are going to base your beliefs on the tales of human experience in times of distress rather than the evidence of reality and the laws of physics?
which is more likely Robyn? that all those who have 'shared' experiences are hallucinating? or that they are telling the truth? and which is more believable? that vast majority of the greatest scientists and minds on this planet are lying? or telling the truth based on as much evidence as possible because their very livelihood depends on it?
any schmo can make up a story about how they "saw god", they don't have to support it with anything but "believe me because i said it" and 2000 years of ignorance. meanwhile, if a scientist says that we "are made of stars", they better be able to support it with evidence...and you know what?
they do.
just beacuse you ignore it doesn't make it any less true.
evidence + LOGIC=truth
Christopher Hand
@ Robyn Durrel Burns - You are far more likely able to be able to understand the concepts of DNA, fingerprints, consciousness (which is different than Conscience, but that can be explained to), and "the rest of it" by looking up the individual experts who know about such things than by trying to convince someone who is not a scientist to explain the views.
However, with that being said, the very basic description for the quote I posted is as follows:
[Something Starts Everying] - This is where we primarily differ in opinion. You believe (I presume) a "god" did this. I do not. Let's agree to disagree and just say "Something Started It All."
Now, moving beyond that, Neil expertly and concisely explains the theory behind the idea that "We are made of stardust" in his book "Death by Black Hole." I suggest buying it or borrowing it from a library. It is easy to read and has great concepts in it written by a gentleman that is not satirical or angry at religion.
Continuing, "Something Started It All." What then?
Well, according to Mr. deGrasse Tyson, the Big Bang is predicated on the idea that a supernova of such extreme proportion exploded outward, sending out the materials of the universe.
Lots of time goes by.
Individual stars begin to form as Hydrogen (the most abundant element in the known universe) begins to collect together, bonding in chemical processes that are quite easily replicated in a lab. Eventually, over a very, very long time (millions of years) these Hydrogen molecules bind so closely and in such quantity that they begin to collapse on themselves. Pressure creates heat. Heat expands the material. These molecules collapsed together until they created so much heat that they expanding back outwards in explosive manner.
When they explode back outwards, their molecules and bonds change to create Helium. You may notice that Helium is the next on the Periodic table.
This process continues again and again and again until it reaches a stabilizing point when crafting, I believe (referencing his book) Iron.
You know what, I will simply just refernce what he has to say on the matter below:
Christopher Hand
"A star's core, after having converted its hydrogen supply into helium will next fuse helium into carbon, then carbon to oxygen, oxygen to neon, and so forth up to iron. To successively fuse this sequence of heavier and heavier elements requires higher and higher temperatures for the nuclei to overcome their natural repulsion. Fortunately, this happens naturally because at the end of each intermediate stage, the star's energy source temporarily shuts off, the inner regions collapse, the temperature rises, and the next pathway of fusion kicks in. But there is just one problem. The fusion of iron absorbs energy rather than releases it. This is very bad for the star because it can now no longer support itself against gravity. The star immediately collapses without resistance, which force the temperature to rise so rapidly that a titanic explosion ensues as the star blows its guts to smithereens. During the explosion, the star's luminosity can increase a billionfold. We call them supernovas, although I have always felt that the term 'super-duper novas' would be more appropriate.
Throughout the the supernova explosion, the availability of neutrons, protons, and energy enable elements to be created in many different ways. By combining 1) the well-tested tenets of quantum mechanics, 2) the physics of explosions, 3) the latest collision cross-sections 4) the varied processes by which elements can transmutate into one another, and 5) the basics of stellar evolutionary theory, Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler, and Hoyle decisively implicated supernova explosions as the primary source of all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium in the universe."
Note, Carl Sagan did not come up with this process. He simply extrapolates on it quite elegantly.
Christopher Hand
Really, this argument comes down to one simple conversation:
Do you believe in Evidence as capable of explaining concepts in the Universe? Do you believe that we are capable of testing said evidence and coming up with scientific theory? If not, you will not accept anything based on science. If so, you will.
Caveat: I have to assume that you are willing to accept SOME evidence or you would quite simply ignore basic reason, be unable to function in society, and not be able to understand the simple concept that walking off a building is dangerous. I merely want to expand your acceptance into a higher realm. You can test all the theories yourself with proper training. That's the beauty of science.
Gerald Bogan Awesome post Christopher. This elemental process is termed nucleosynthesis and it should be noted that theory holds that the universe would be required to cycle through at least two generations of stars in order to form the elements that make up the rocky planets such as our own.
Christopher Hand I definitely didn't come up with it. I've just been reading this awesome book recently and reviewing interviews/debates/conversations with Neil deGrasse Tyson. It's phenomenal.
3 hours ago · Like
Gerald Bogan And this is how we learn, at least some of us. Kudos
3 hours ago · Like
Christopher Hand It makes me quite excited. I'm an English Major and I am seriously considering going back and attempting a second bachelor's in physics after I finish this one just to get a different side of things.
3 hours ago · Like
Gerald Bogan You go man! English major eh. Please don't scutinize this "flunky's" posts too carefully. Lol
Robyn Durrell Burns
Gerald,if this were the absolute case,and you use the term theories! there is still many more believers in the world,that are not convinced of science,THEORIES or Mr Sagan,I am one.I am,and Bernie knows this.Did you or he think that despite these,I'd say,up, that's it,I'm convinced,now I don't believe any more.Still haven't heard any explanation of "near death",and why so many say they have had the same experience.God explained why men are to procreate longer,and why they were designed that way.What is Mr.Sagan's theory on this,and why and how are men and woman made differently,dna,CONSCIENCE!etc?.Does Mr.Sagan explain all of these down to the minute detail?Mr.Bogan,believe me I have taken time,read,and watched many shows about these different theories,and Mr.Sagan.Yes they are compelling.But I ask the question,where did the universe come from?We all would have had to have been there from the beginning,and not just take Mr.Sagan's words for it,to know the real truth.If that again was the case,then more would stop believing,and that hasn't happened,has it?Sorry, and I'm not ignorant.I'm not convinced.I am,and always will be a BELIEVER.That's it,and I am not going to plead my case.There is no point in you pleading yours either.Bernie and I have gone around on all of this.Like I told him,it doesn't matter what you believe,this is what I Believe.That is my perogative.(Not sure about spelling)Good night gentlemen,I have to get up a 5am!
Christopher Hand
@ Robyn Thank you for effectively answering my question. You are not, in fact, willing to accept information based on evidence unless it pertains to your religion. This means that there can be no real discussion.
No matter how much evidence is laid before you, no matter how compelling the argument, you are instead going to fall back on the argument that words written, nearly 2,000 years prior, by men who had no knowledge of what we are talking about, the medium in which we are talking about it, or any real knowledge about science whatsoever is more credible.
This is your decision. It is an unfortunate one, but still, it is your decision. The only true regret here is that you are likely to teach your children not to "trust science" or listen to "theories" and you will, quite frankly, be lying to them about the nature of the world.
As a quick aside, you do realize that the word Theory, in science, doesn't just mean "random guess that we can't figure out" right? It refers to a tried and tested method that applies to everything and has not, as of yet, been disproved. It utilizes far more data and evidence than you could possibly imagine.
If you wish to test a scientific theory, I highly suggest tempting Gravity by finding something as tall as possible and examining firsthand.
Flash Kellish
//God explained why men are to procreate longer,and why they were designed that way.//
i'm sorry...but what does this even mean?
//We all would have had to have been there from the beginning,and not just take Mr.Sagan's words for it,to know the real truth//
and yet you take the bible verbatim...hmmmm
//If that again was the case,then more would stop believing,and that hasn't happened,has it?//
uh, yes...actually it has, and moreso everyday. but once again you are either unaware of it or ignorant to it.
//I'm not ignorant.I'm not convinced.I am,and always will be a BELIEVER//
which means trying to convince a stone wall would be just as possible. at least a stone wall has a good excuse.
Gerald Bogan
Robyn you take a very child-like approach to these arguments. Lets be clear about something. Science does not negate gods. What science does is explain the natural world with no concern watsoever with the supernatural. Your supposed rejection of scientific achievement is more than a little pretentious if you use modern medicine, communicate through various electronic devices, find your way using GPS, or eat processed food available through advanced agricultural techniques.
Think about this for just a minute. "God" hasn't interacted directly with humans since claims made during biblical times. How do you or anyone know anything about "God"? Through Biblical teachings right? The Bible claims leprosy can be cured by the killing of doves and a lamb and anointing the leper in their blood. You know this is ridiculous. The Bible claims to produce spotted (increased worth) livestock, one need but place a striped stick in the pregnant mothers' view. You know better. The sun stops in the sky? No it doesn't-ever! Move mountains with faith? How many times have you seen that done? What I'm getting at here is the Bible isn't a reliable source of information. So where did your "idea" of God come from? You made it up! Your God is exactly who you want him to be. Someone to turn to in times of strife. Someone to promise this isn't all there is. Some people need this assurance and I understand. The last thing I want is to convince you otherwise. The problem with "beliefs" you see, is not you, as an individual. You seem harmless enough. It is with those who would impose their version along with all the doctrinal ideology on the rest of the populace if given an inch. This is why I and others seem judgemental and condescending toward unsupported assertions. Just as the above posters pointed out there will yet be another generation of "believers" indoctrinated to the worlds' various religious factions, where atrocities will continue, children will be enslaved and abused and innocent people will die, all in the name of pleasing some fictitional deity.
It is time for this to stop!
Christopher Hand
Absolutely eloquent, Mr. Bogan.
The primary issue, Robyn (and others) is not that atheists or secularists or scientists are trying to remove your faith or repeal it or in any way diminish the feeling that you get by having faith. The issue is that you value, along with that faith, a book and literal words/ideas from that book that are out-dated and verifiable as wrong.
What's more, those ideas harm others and it is hypocritical to state that you do not agree with "science" because of your faith. The two are unrelated in terms of what they are supposed to accomplish.
For example, I can achieve a feeling of love, loyalty, trust and happiness, wonder and awe, humility and outright rage all without scientific backing (though most of those emotions can easily be explained away when I am experiencing them I am generally NOT focused on science). I have faith - faith in human beings and faith that is tested by observable condition (I know if I can trust someone or if someone is loyal by observing their actions).
I have chosen not to need a god to explain or not feel fear of death. I have the notion that I am "one with the Universe" (yes, even you!) and that to the Universe I will return. My death will be just like what I felt before I existed (was born) - nothingness.
It is the life we live that matters, not the death that we prepare to face.
19 February 2012
Congratulations to Jason Weeks and Jennifer Nolan
The engagement was beautiful - I hope the marriage will surpass it in every way.
27 December 2011
Regarding Atheism (from Facebook)
Regarding Atheism (please feel free to ignore):
Someone asked me today to define why I "believe" in atheism instead of God, like they do. I'm certain that anyone, when asked why they follow a philosophy, set of views, religion, etc. immediately feels the same rapid-fire thought process go through their head as did mine. This process primarily focuses on the idea of exactly how ridiculous it is to try and respond to such a question quickly, shortly, or succinctly. You cannot describe why you believe in god/gods/spirituality/etc in 5 minutes any more than I can describe why atheism is for me.
That being said, for those who want a quick and dirty, here goes.
First, atheism is not a set of beliefs. It is the lack of belief in god/gods/etc. For me, specifically, atheism is simply an easy term to represent a wide range of philosophical views. Just like saying that one is a Christian is not a definitive answer, saying I am an an "atheist" is not definitive. We would need to discuss on a larger scale to get across all the beliefs.
Second, atheism is about logic, rationality, reason, and testable, provable information. Because it is about these things, it is also about change.
This is where some people are surprised. Atheism is about change. An atheist of 2,000 years ago would have held different views than one of today. Things change. What we know changes. What we don't know expands as rapidly, if not more so.
The most important aspect of change? If you are able to present irrefutable evidence that can be tested on the same scale as every other major piece of information/philosophy in history and PROVE IT, a "typical" atheist will be forced to change his mind.
This means that if you can prove god or he somehow proves himself to me, I will change my mind. On a dime. In a heartbeat. Without hesitation.
[Bruce Haskin] There is no proving it...that's why it is called Faith
Third, atheism, for me, is about distrusting authority that doesn't explain itself suitably. You would no more follow a government decision that told you that you had to give up 3 hours of every day to picking up garbage in your nearest city street without some kind of explanation than I will follow a belief that dictates every aspect of my life without some kind of proof of its existence.
Authority should be earned. In some cases, yes, it is acceptable for authority to act and demand without complete explanation - especially if a quick decision MUST be made for the good of all. But at some point, hopefully as soon as the DIRE in the dire situation is no longer valid, explanations must be made.
This means that atheism naturally questions aspects outside of god and mythology as well as within. I want to know exactly why we still allow lobbyists to effectively "pay off" politicians in this country. I want to know why congress is literally exempt from many of the laws it requires us to follow. I want to know why our country spends more money on "Defense" than ALL (yes, that is meant literally) other countries in the world, combined, yet we are downsizing the size of our forces and worrying about paying our troops.
Authority should be earned. With that in mind, what greater authority is there than one that dictates how you should live every aspect of your life? Morality should not be simply demanded of you without explanation. Morality should be explained and backed up. You should come into it with knowledge of WHY as well as HOW.
Thank you, Sgt Haskin. I wanted to address that as well. Faith.
Fourth, Faith. Faith, to me, is a cop-out word that means you no longer have to think about something. Instead of attempting to understand why something exists, many people "take it on faith." Instead of actually reading the book(s) that their "religion" is founded upon, they allow someone else to read it to them, tell it to them, or simply pick and choose as they will.
Instead of analyzing how and why your religious book came to me, you simply assume that what people have been telling you is true: that it IS true and was written by god and is infallible. This is despite the fact that the book(s) CANNOT be infallible as they were written by men.
One cannot examine any work of religious doctrine without almost immediately finding enormous contradiction in the work. When presented with these contradictions, most "believers" simply state that it is not, in fact ,a contradiction, or that you are "reading out of context" or that you are misreading. Yet, these same people cannot offer a real explanation outside of you must "have faith."
Testing faith: If you were told by a doctor that, when you went in for a flu shot, your leg must be cut off in order for this particular flu shot to work on your particular metabolism and then, when asked for an explanation, you were told to simply "have faith," would you trust that person? No, you would not.
Given that, why do you trust any one or anything that says you must dedicate your ENTIRE LIFE to a philosophy with no other reason than Faith?
Fifth, death. Well, what happens when you die? I don't know.
I don't know IS an acceptable answer. In fact, I don't know is an answer that most people SHOULD use instead of saying "You go to Heaven." YOU CANNOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DIE. You haven't died. No doctrine agrees on what happens when you die. There is no evidence to prove, in any way, that you have a soul, that you have a separate part of you that travels beyond this world into another.
What happened before you were alive? With you, I mean? Nothing. You were non-existent. This is the same thing that happens when you die, EXCEPT, you get to leave behind legacy. You can leave people, friends, memories, great or terrible works, or simply a mediocre life. That is all. It confuses me as to why this is something most people dislike and can't accept. I LOVE the idea ta this is my only chance at life. It makes me want to try harder in this life.
If you believe you are going to live forever in eternity and that to get there all you must due is follow a certain set of rules, then you are at terrible risk of not living up to a greater moral value in this world.
But I digress. I promised that this would be brief and I have already lied. I apologize.
I'll finish by saying this:
I do not MEAN to offend you when I say that I cannot believe in your way of philosophy. My primary purpose in asking about your belief or discussing my own is to share information. Exchange knowledge and try to understand one another. Following any belief, even atheism, without understanding why you follow is dangerous in the extreme.
I, as I am certain this applies to most "atheists" simply want the same even footing as every other way of thinking. However, in order to have that we must stop assuming that EVERYONE believes in some form of "faith based" existence. We don't. You don't. The field must be even. You must separate secular and spiritual and practice in your privacy. In fact, in one of the many, many contradictions of the Bible (specifically the New Testament here), we see that we are told:
Matthew 6
King James Version
1Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
I posted the build up to show that I was not taking it out of context.
If you want to know why this is a contradiction and you are a Christian, then you should read more of your Bible.
Alright. I'm done. For now.
The very, absolute, last thing I want to say is this:
Please feel free to post on my board about what you believe as long as you understand that if you annoy me (just like if I annoy you) I reserve the right to remove it.
That being said, I am not easily annoyed in this regard. I like this type of discourse. I consider it of absolute and utmost importance.
• Christopher Hand
As a slight aside, another person I suggest discussing this matter with is Jeremiah Sager. He actually has a degree in discussing things like this (Philosophy) and is a highly intelligent person. He makes me think about the things I have stated above and is one of the people that will probably argue the heaviest about 90% of what I posted both with and against me.
For more famous people, look at Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett (Not late at all), the Amazing Randi, Penn Jillette, Tim Minchin, George Carlin, Thomas Jefferson (regarding some of my points, not all), etc. There are many, many more, but in the interest of brevity (ironic in stating that in my ...9th response?) I will stop.
17 hours ago • Like
• Jeremiah Sager Thank you Christopher Hand. I do welcome the opportunity to discuss these topics with anyone that wants to.
17 hours ago • Like
• Jeremiah Sager
To follow up though. You do take some leaps in your argumentation that i wouldn't follow you with though. The doctor analogy, although well reasoned, misses the point of what an educated theist would respond with. Their god isn't a doctor they just meet. It's a trusted family friend they've known forever, that gives them guidance and grace. I still don't buy faith as typically understood in the least, but i'm not sure if you set up a straw man inadverently. Also, i don't know that i would quote the King James Version. It is treated as a near canonical text these days, but both of us know it was specifically and purposely altered. What i do find beyond interesting is that i spent a great deal of time thinking about this very thing today. A statement of disbelief, if you will. I do think it would be an awesome experiment for both of us to agree to a size, and format limitation to compare notes. Dealing with topics of why different religious formations, or beliefs are lacking.
• Christopher Hand
I think you would likely easily "win" such a debate because of prior knowledge, but I am constantly striving to learn more and am definitely willing to participate if, for no other reason, than to understand and learn.
Also, I typed all that really fast and didn't really put a good argument forth regarding the doctor analogy. I'd have to fix it.
Lastly, regarding the biblical quote, I used King James because most religious people would consider it the "most valid" but I DID take the few minutes out to compare it (albeit, yes, on a website I Googled) to other versions of the Bible so as not to let it be easily dismissed.
17 hours ago • Like
• Jeremiah Sager Also, the stories of the creation of holy books. They different. The beginnings of the Quran are quite different that those of the bible as an example. A muslim is, in my opinion, better able to argue faith in the infallibility of their text.
15 hours ago • Like
• Stacy Baer Good reading guys...please do continue...
11 hours ago • Like
• Jessica 'Bertke' Huff That is in no way "short"
10 hours ago • Like • 1
• Christopher Hand ~smirks~ When compared to what I could type on the subject, it really is short. But I understand what you are saying. I just kind of...got into what I was doing.
6 hours ago • Like
• Bruce Haskin Well, while I am not offended, as everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, I do hope that one day you find God. I truly do.
5 hours ago • Like
• Christopher Hand As surely as one day I hope you realize the error of following a belief and encouraging in others a view that holds no rational explanation.
Rick L Backhouse
Atheism may not be a 'set of beliefs' but it is a belief system. It is the belief that God does not exist or the belief that there are no deities. It really isn't used to describe a 'wide range of philosophical views'. It is used to describe a lack belief in deities. So .. "I am an atheist" is, actually, pretty definitive.
Second: Atheism is *not* about logic, rationality, reason or testable, provable information. It is about not believing in any kind of deity. As a philosophy, atheism is no more provable than a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Any reasonably honest atheist will admit this. How you *justify* atheism is not the same as 'what it is about'.
Third: Well, okay, you used the magic phrase 'for me', which pretty much negates further argument. Bear in mind, however, that what you are saying is "This is my personal opinion and should in no way be confused for a definition of atheism."
In essence: You distrust authority and are attaching that to your attitude towards religion whether or not it has any place being there. (It doesn't, btw but kudos on trying to confuse people and good luck in your military career!)
Fourth: Oh, this is too easy, Chris. Atheism is the retreat of a lazy philosopher. When confronted with the question "Why?" the atheist says "Don't know, don't care, don't believe." You think that *FAITH* is a cop out when you refuse to look further than the and of your nose and ridicule those that don't agree with you? HAH!
Fifth: Yes ... "I don't know" *is* an acceptable answer. You repeatedly use words like *evidence* and *proof* and then slip in "I don't know*. Why the f**k not? I have to say, you sound more like a beligerrent agnostic than an atheist.
You quoted the Bible ... and?
I do have to ask, though .... why do you even *care* what others believe? You obviously do. You even go so far as to make insulting posts against specific religions. Why?
Do you need a hug? (Sorry, had to do that)
• Rick L Backhouse P.S. I know Christians with doctorates in Philosophy. Doesn't make them right.
about an hour ago • Like
• Rick L Backhouse @Jeremiah ... I am somewhat surprised that you would say that "A muslim is, in my opinion, better able to argue faith in the infallibility of their text" as there are holes in the 'logic' of the Quran that one could (metaphorically) drive a truck through. Perhaps you just have a very negative opinion of the Bible.
about an hour ago • Like
• Christopher Hand Hi Rick! I enjoy your additions to the conversation as well. The primary reason I asked Jeremiah to chime in and suggested that others talk to him as well is that he, without the degree he has, is a very intelligent and open individual. He enjoys learning and he is one of the most well-spoken individuals I know. More importantly, Jeremiah is very accepting of different viewpoints and is less...obnoxious about some of his views than I am. He's calmer and more intelligent. Also, he will be the first to tell you that he is not right about a great many things.
I won't answer FOR Jeremiah regarding the Quran, but I think the point he was trying to get at is that the Quran, while it has many contradictions itself, is younger and has less than the Bible. Which is true, especially if you combine the Old and New Testaments which are in themselves GIANT contradictions in many ways.
Regarding Atheism: The word Atheist merely means a lack of belief in god/gods in the most general review of the word. That being said, it is firstly amusing that one HAS to describe that view. You do not have to say that you don't believe in Santa Claus (for real), it is just assumed.
That aside, there ARE just as many differing types of philosophical views within what would be considered an Atheist structure as there are out of it. It IS a wide range of philosophical views. In fact, in my opinion, any good Atheist is goign to review a WIDER range of philosophical views and determine what they truly believe than will almost any person of religious views. Once you have your own religious view you no longer have to explore others.
Granted, Atheism itself is not ABOUT anything, but nearly every atheist I have come into contact with has valued rationality, reason, logic, etc as their basis of beliefs. However, you are right - atheism itself is not about these things. Then again, being a Christian, Muslim, etc does not necessarily mean that you follow common beliefs.
Regarding Authority: First, please don't be a dick. Saying "kudos for trying to confuse people" when that is not at all what I intended (as you should know) is dickish. I don't appreciate it.
Second, I stated "for me" because I understand that all philosophical beliefs are ultimately what YOU yourself make of them. On a broader sense I DO believe whole-heartedly and feel there is ample support for the idea that religion is closely tied to control via authority. One need only look at the history and the actions within various churches, organizations, etc to see the control religion exercises over the people who follow these beliefs.
From Rick: "Fourth: Oh, this is too easy, Chris. Atheism is the retreat of a lazy philosopher. When confronted with the question "Why?" the atheist says "Don't know, don't care, don't believe." You think that *FAITH* is a cop out when you refuse to look further than the and of your nose and ridicule those that don't agree with you? HAH!"
Faith is a cop-out that many use to not have to answer questions better determined through other means. In fact, the average believer does not even know the history and creation of THEIR OWN belief system. The average Christian, for example, does not know that their beliefs arose from heavy Greek influence (in more ways than the Platonic ideals). That is what I mean when I say faith is a cop-out.
Also, you say that "I don't know" means "I don't know, don't care, don't believe" when that is very much NOT what I was saying. I don't know is an acceptable answer and is an honest answer when confronted with something one does not know. Instead of supplying a ready answer (as does religion) one can say "I don't know" and follow that up with "but we can find the fuck out!" Religion does not do this. Religion assumes things on false knowledge. Religious people proclaim to know exactly what happens when you die, exactly how God wants you to act, etc. Despite the fact that god is not real, even if he were, how the hell can you KNOW the mind of god? How can you KNOW what he desires? And if you say "because it is in this book he wrote for me" you need to be able to back up why that book(s) is self-contradictory (which you KNOW it to be in many, many ways).
I quoted the Bible showing that the book itself proclaims (in one spot at least; this is contradicted elsewhere) that you should not go out and project your faith on others. It is arrogant. It is not something i necessarily agree with, but it is there.
Lastly, I care about what other people believe not out of any misguided sense that I want to change the way they think for THEM, but because THEIR belief, especially on a large scale, can and is often detrimental to me. Very detrimental in many, many ways. Scientific advances are stymied by religious views. Political standpoints are made using religious views. The fact that YOU believe in these things dramatically alters the way that MY LIFE functions. I dislike that.
Also, I honestly believe that anyone who actively questions their faith will at the very least learn how better to tolerate and understand the faiths of other people. Most people who proclaim a belief in god(s) do not do that. They find what fits for them and try no further.
And if I make insulting posts against specific religions that is because I find those specific aspects of those religions to be insulting. I try not to be terribly insulting myself, but it happens. I am an insulting indvidiual in some ways and for that I do apologize. I want people to review their belief, not turn away because I pissed them off.
• P.S. I always love hugs. Preferably from women with fantastic boobies.
3 minutes ago • Like
• Christopher Hand Now,with all that said, I do have a question for you. Can you respond with what you DO believe? Quick and dirty or long and detailed if you like. I am really very curious as to how a person goes from being "spiritual" to believing in Christ. Especially an indvidual that I consider to be intelligent, like yourself. Please. Share with us.
Someone asked me today to define why I "believe" in atheism instead of God, like they do. I'm certain that anyone, when asked why they follow a philosophy, set of views, religion, etc. immediately feels the same rapid-fire thought process go through their head as did mine. This process primarily focuses on the idea of exactly how ridiculous it is to try and respond to such a question quickly, shortly, or succinctly. You cannot describe why you believe in god/gods/spirituality/etc in 5 minutes any more than I can describe why atheism is for me.
That being said, for those who want a quick and dirty, here goes.
First, atheism is not a set of beliefs. It is the lack of belief in god/gods/etc. For me, specifically, atheism is simply an easy term to represent a wide range of philosophical views. Just like saying that one is a Christian is not a definitive answer, saying I am an an "atheist" is not definitive. We would need to discuss on a larger scale to get across all the beliefs.
Second, atheism is about logic, rationality, reason, and testable, provable information. Because it is about these things, it is also about change.
This is where some people are surprised. Atheism is about change. An atheist of 2,000 years ago would have held different views than one of today. Things change. What we know changes. What we don't know expands as rapidly, if not more so.
The most important aspect of change? If you are able to present irrefutable evidence that can be tested on the same scale as every other major piece of information/philosophy in history and PROVE IT, a "typical" atheist will be forced to change his mind.
This means that if you can prove god or he somehow proves himself to me, I will change my mind. On a dime. In a heartbeat. Without hesitation.
[Bruce Haskin] There is no proving it...that's why it is called Faith
Third, atheism, for me, is about distrusting authority that doesn't explain itself suitably. You would no more follow a government decision that told you that you had to give up 3 hours of every day to picking up garbage in your nearest city street without some kind of explanation than I will follow a belief that dictates every aspect of my life without some kind of proof of its existence.
Authority should be earned. In some cases, yes, it is acceptable for authority to act and demand without complete explanation - especially if a quick decision MUST be made for the good of all. But at some point, hopefully as soon as the DIRE in the dire situation is no longer valid, explanations must be made.
This means that atheism naturally questions aspects outside of god and mythology as well as within. I want to know exactly why we still allow lobbyists to effectively "pay off" politicians in this country. I want to know why congress is literally exempt from many of the laws it requires us to follow. I want to know why our country spends more money on "Defense" than ALL (yes, that is meant literally) other countries in the world, combined, yet we are downsizing the size of our forces and worrying about paying our troops.
Authority should be earned. With that in mind, what greater authority is there than one that dictates how you should live every aspect of your life? Morality should not be simply demanded of you without explanation. Morality should be explained and backed up. You should come into it with knowledge of WHY as well as HOW.
Thank you, Sgt Haskin. I wanted to address that as well. Faith.
Fourth, Faith. Faith, to me, is a cop-out word that means you no longer have to think about something. Instead of attempting to understand why something exists, many people "take it on faith." Instead of actually reading the book(s) that their "religion" is founded upon, they allow someone else to read it to them, tell it to them, or simply pick and choose as they will.
Instead of analyzing how and why your religious book came to me, you simply assume that what people have been telling you is true: that it IS true and was written by god and is infallible. This is despite the fact that the book(s) CANNOT be infallible as they were written by men.
One cannot examine any work of religious doctrine without almost immediately finding enormous contradiction in the work. When presented with these contradictions, most "believers" simply state that it is not, in fact ,a contradiction, or that you are "reading out of context" or that you are misreading. Yet, these same people cannot offer a real explanation outside of you must "have faith."
Testing faith: If you were told by a doctor that, when you went in for a flu shot, your leg must be cut off in order for this particular flu shot to work on your particular metabolism and then, when asked for an explanation, you were told to simply "have faith," would you trust that person? No, you would not.
Given that, why do you trust any one or anything that says you must dedicate your ENTIRE LIFE to a philosophy with no other reason than Faith?
Fifth, death. Well, what happens when you die? I don't know.
I don't know IS an acceptable answer. In fact, I don't know is an answer that most people SHOULD use instead of saying "You go to Heaven." YOU CANNOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DIE. You haven't died. No doctrine agrees on what happens when you die. There is no evidence to prove, in any way, that you have a soul, that you have a separate part of you that travels beyond this world into another.
What happened before you were alive? With you, I mean? Nothing. You were non-existent. This is the same thing that happens when you die, EXCEPT, you get to leave behind legacy. You can leave people, friends, memories, great or terrible works, or simply a mediocre life. That is all. It confuses me as to why this is something most people dislike and can't accept. I LOVE the idea ta this is my only chance at life. It makes me want to try harder in this life.
If you believe you are going to live forever in eternity and that to get there all you must due is follow a certain set of rules, then you are at terrible risk of not living up to a greater moral value in this world.
But I digress. I promised that this would be brief and I have already lied. I apologize.
I'll finish by saying this:
I do not MEAN to offend you when I say that I cannot believe in your way of philosophy. My primary purpose in asking about your belief or discussing my own is to share information. Exchange knowledge and try to understand one another. Following any belief, even atheism, without understanding why you follow is dangerous in the extreme.
I, as I am certain this applies to most "atheists" simply want the same even footing as every other way of thinking. However, in order to have that we must stop assuming that EVERYONE believes in some form of "faith based" existence. We don't. You don't. The field must be even. You must separate secular and spiritual and practice in your privacy. In fact, in one of the many, many contradictions of the Bible (specifically the New Testament here), we see that we are told:
Matthew 6
King James Version
1Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
I posted the build up to show that I was not taking it out of context.
If you want to know why this is a contradiction and you are a Christian, then you should read more of your Bible.
Alright. I'm done. For now.
The very, absolute, last thing I want to say is this:
Please feel free to post on my board about what you believe as long as you understand that if you annoy me (just like if I annoy you) I reserve the right to remove it.
That being said, I am not easily annoyed in this regard. I like this type of discourse. I consider it of absolute and utmost importance.
• Christopher Hand
As a slight aside, another person I suggest discussing this matter with is Jeremiah Sager. He actually has a degree in discussing things like this (Philosophy) and is a highly intelligent person. He makes me think about the things I have stated above and is one of the people that will probably argue the heaviest about 90% of what I posted both with and against me.
For more famous people, look at Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett (Not late at all), the Amazing Randi, Penn Jillette, Tim Minchin, George Carlin, Thomas Jefferson (regarding some of my points, not all), etc. There are many, many more, but in the interest of brevity (ironic in stating that in my ...9th response?) I will stop.
17 hours ago • Like
• Jeremiah Sager Thank you Christopher Hand. I do welcome the opportunity to discuss these topics with anyone that wants to.
17 hours ago • Like
• Jeremiah Sager
To follow up though. You do take some leaps in your argumentation that i wouldn't follow you with though. The doctor analogy, although well reasoned, misses the point of what an educated theist would respond with. Their god isn't a doctor they just meet. It's a trusted family friend they've known forever, that gives them guidance and grace. I still don't buy faith as typically understood in the least, but i'm not sure if you set up a straw man inadverently. Also, i don't know that i would quote the King James Version. It is treated as a near canonical text these days, but both of us know it was specifically and purposely altered. What i do find beyond interesting is that i spent a great deal of time thinking about this very thing today. A statement of disbelief, if you will. I do think it would be an awesome experiment for both of us to agree to a size, and format limitation to compare notes. Dealing with topics of why different religious formations, or beliefs are lacking.
• Christopher Hand
I think you would likely easily "win" such a debate because of prior knowledge, but I am constantly striving to learn more and am definitely willing to participate if, for no other reason, than to understand and learn.
Also, I typed all that really fast and didn't really put a good argument forth regarding the doctor analogy. I'd have to fix it.
Lastly, regarding the biblical quote, I used King James because most religious people would consider it the "most valid" but I DID take the few minutes out to compare it (albeit, yes, on a website I Googled) to other versions of the Bible so as not to let it be easily dismissed.
17 hours ago • Like
• Jeremiah Sager Also, the stories of the creation of holy books. They different. The beginnings of the Quran are quite different that those of the bible as an example. A muslim is, in my opinion, better able to argue faith in the infallibility of their text.
15 hours ago • Like
• Stacy Baer Good reading guys...please do continue...
11 hours ago • Like
• Jessica 'Bertke' Huff That is in no way "short"
10 hours ago • Like • 1
• Christopher Hand ~smirks~ When compared to what I could type on the subject, it really is short. But I understand what you are saying. I just kind of...got into what I was doing.
6 hours ago • Like
• Bruce Haskin Well, while I am not offended, as everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, I do hope that one day you find God. I truly do.
5 hours ago • Like
• Christopher Hand As surely as one day I hope you realize the error of following a belief and encouraging in others a view that holds no rational explanation.
Rick L Backhouse
Atheism may not be a 'set of beliefs' but it is a belief system. It is the belief that God does not exist or the belief that there are no deities. It really isn't used to describe a 'wide range of philosophical views'. It is used to describe a lack belief in deities. So .. "I am an atheist" is, actually, pretty definitive.
Second: Atheism is *not* about logic, rationality, reason or testable, provable information. It is about not believing in any kind of deity. As a philosophy, atheism is no more provable than a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Any reasonably honest atheist will admit this. How you *justify* atheism is not the same as 'what it is about'.
Third: Well, okay, you used the magic phrase 'for me', which pretty much negates further argument. Bear in mind, however, that what you are saying is "This is my personal opinion and should in no way be confused for a definition of atheism."
In essence: You distrust authority and are attaching that to your attitude towards religion whether or not it has any place being there. (It doesn't, btw but kudos on trying to confuse people and good luck in your military career!)
Fourth: Oh, this is too easy, Chris. Atheism is the retreat of a lazy philosopher. When confronted with the question "Why?" the atheist says "Don't know, don't care, don't believe." You think that *FAITH* is a cop out when you refuse to look further than the and of your nose and ridicule those that don't agree with you? HAH!
Fifth: Yes ... "I don't know" *is* an acceptable answer. You repeatedly use words like *evidence* and *proof* and then slip in "I don't know*. Why the f**k not? I have to say, you sound more like a beligerrent agnostic than an atheist.
You quoted the Bible ... and?
I do have to ask, though .... why do you even *care* what others believe? You obviously do. You even go so far as to make insulting posts against specific religions. Why?
Do you need a hug? (Sorry, had to do that)
• Rick L Backhouse P.S. I know Christians with doctorates in Philosophy. Doesn't make them right.
about an hour ago • Like
• Rick L Backhouse @Jeremiah ... I am somewhat surprised that you would say that "A muslim is, in my opinion, better able to argue faith in the infallibility of their text" as there are holes in the 'logic' of the Quran that one could (metaphorically) drive a truck through. Perhaps you just have a very negative opinion of the Bible.
about an hour ago • Like
• Christopher Hand Hi Rick! I enjoy your additions to the conversation as well. The primary reason I asked Jeremiah to chime in and suggested that others talk to him as well is that he, without the degree he has, is a very intelligent and open individual. He enjoys learning and he is one of the most well-spoken individuals I know. More importantly, Jeremiah is very accepting of different viewpoints and is less...obnoxious about some of his views than I am. He's calmer and more intelligent. Also, he will be the first to tell you that he is not right about a great many things.
I won't answer FOR Jeremiah regarding the Quran, but I think the point he was trying to get at is that the Quran, while it has many contradictions itself, is younger and has less than the Bible. Which is true, especially if you combine the Old and New Testaments which are in themselves GIANT contradictions in many ways.
Regarding Atheism: The word Atheist merely means a lack of belief in god/gods in the most general review of the word. That being said, it is firstly amusing that one HAS to describe that view. You do not have to say that you don't believe in Santa Claus (for real), it is just assumed.
That aside, there ARE just as many differing types of philosophical views within what would be considered an Atheist structure as there are out of it. It IS a wide range of philosophical views. In fact, in my opinion, any good Atheist is goign to review a WIDER range of philosophical views and determine what they truly believe than will almost any person of religious views. Once you have your own religious view you no longer have to explore others.
Granted, Atheism itself is not ABOUT anything, but nearly every atheist I have come into contact with has valued rationality, reason, logic, etc as their basis of beliefs. However, you are right - atheism itself is not about these things. Then again, being a Christian, Muslim, etc does not necessarily mean that you follow common beliefs.
Regarding Authority: First, please don't be a dick. Saying "kudos for trying to confuse people" when that is not at all what I intended (as you should know) is dickish. I don't appreciate it.
Second, I stated "for me" because I understand that all philosophical beliefs are ultimately what YOU yourself make of them. On a broader sense I DO believe whole-heartedly and feel there is ample support for the idea that religion is closely tied to control via authority. One need only look at the history and the actions within various churches, organizations, etc to see the control religion exercises over the people who follow these beliefs.
From Rick: "Fourth: Oh, this is too easy, Chris. Atheism is the retreat of a lazy philosopher. When confronted with the question "Why?" the atheist says "Don't know, don't care, don't believe." You think that *FAITH* is a cop out when you refuse to look further than the and of your nose and ridicule those that don't agree with you? HAH!"
Faith is a cop-out that many use to not have to answer questions better determined through other means. In fact, the average believer does not even know the history and creation of THEIR OWN belief system. The average Christian, for example, does not know that their beliefs arose from heavy Greek influence (in more ways than the Platonic ideals). That is what I mean when I say faith is a cop-out.
Also, you say that "I don't know" means "I don't know, don't care, don't believe" when that is very much NOT what I was saying. I don't know is an acceptable answer and is an honest answer when confronted with something one does not know. Instead of supplying a ready answer (as does religion) one can say "I don't know" and follow that up with "but we can find the fuck out!" Religion does not do this. Religion assumes things on false knowledge. Religious people proclaim to know exactly what happens when you die, exactly how God wants you to act, etc. Despite the fact that god is not real, even if he were, how the hell can you KNOW the mind of god? How can you KNOW what he desires? And if you say "because it is in this book he wrote for me" you need to be able to back up why that book(s) is self-contradictory (which you KNOW it to be in many, many ways).
I quoted the Bible showing that the book itself proclaims (in one spot at least; this is contradicted elsewhere) that you should not go out and project your faith on others. It is arrogant. It is not something i necessarily agree with, but it is there.
Lastly, I care about what other people believe not out of any misguided sense that I want to change the way they think for THEM, but because THEIR belief, especially on a large scale, can and is often detrimental to me. Very detrimental in many, many ways. Scientific advances are stymied by religious views. Political standpoints are made using religious views. The fact that YOU believe in these things dramatically alters the way that MY LIFE functions. I dislike that.
Also, I honestly believe that anyone who actively questions their faith will at the very least learn how better to tolerate and understand the faiths of other people. Most people who proclaim a belief in god(s) do not do that. They find what fits for them and try no further.
And if I make insulting posts against specific religions that is because I find those specific aspects of those religions to be insulting. I try not to be terribly insulting myself, but it happens. I am an insulting indvidiual in some ways and for that I do apologize. I want people to review their belief, not turn away because I pissed them off.
• P.S. I always love hugs. Preferably from women with fantastic boobies.
3 minutes ago • Like
• Christopher Hand Now,with all that said, I do have a question for you. Can you respond with what you DO believe? Quick and dirty or long and detailed if you like. I am really very curious as to how a person goes from being "spiritual" to believing in Christ. Especially an indvidual that I consider to be intelligent, like yourself. Please. Share with us.
Restarting Blog
Going to attempt to restart portions of this blog with information that I write in other places.
Please understand that previous posts might be completely unrelated to new content. If I ever make money or intend to make money off of my writing I will clean up what I am posting publicly to be more attractive.
-Chris
Please understand that previous posts might be completely unrelated to new content. If I ever make money or intend to make money off of my writing I will clean up what I am posting publicly to be more attractive.
-Chris
13 November 2010
The Nature of Things
What important thing do you want to do with your life?
Do you want to make a million dollars?
Do you want to create a new idea that spreads across the country or the world?
Do you want to save a life?
Do you want to make a life?
Do you want to be remembered by many or cherished by few?
Do you want to write the Great American Novel?
Do you want a million friends on Facebook?
Do you want love eternal?
Do you want to found a religion?
Do you want to determine the meaning of life?
Do you want to disprove someone else's meaning?
Do you want to create or destroy?
More importantly: What are you going to do about what you want to do?
On an unrelated note:
How do you like where you are? Are you constantly complaining about how much your current situation sucks and that if you could just move somewhere else, just go somewhere else, just be sent somewhere else, things would be better?
If you stop to think about where you are and what is wrong with things and why you hate what is going on SO much, you will probably realize, if you are at all observant, if you have any perception, that it is not the place.
It is the person.
The person determines the enjoyment and the annoyance. Of course, the people you are around are going to affect how you like where you are, but you create your own world. You create your own mess.
You are the creator of your own life.
The flip side of that is that you are also the destroyer.
Moving to a new place can be cathartic. But if you soon begin to feel the same pangs and longings and pains and hates in the new place as you did the old, then the realization should strike true. You are the problem.
Your outlook is the issue.
Your way of perceiving needs to change.
Perception is almost everything. Substance is required, some of the time. But perception is where the ideas come from; it is where people turn to when they think.
You don't think in facts. You think in ideas and opinions.
You don't know about cats. You know if you like them or if you hate them or if you are allergic to them.
Some of this last bit is rambling.
I'm tired and I want to go to bed.
The nature of things is that you will always want what you don't have and you will always be disappointed when you get it. Despite that, I want to exist outside of my job and my bank account. I want to be known by someone for something. I want to be together with other people and, above all, I do not want to be alone.
Writing the Great American Novel would be a bonus.
Do you want to make a million dollars?
Do you want to create a new idea that spreads across the country or the world?
Do you want to save a life?
Do you want to make a life?
Do you want to be remembered by many or cherished by few?
Do you want to write the Great American Novel?
Do you want a million friends on Facebook?
Do you want love eternal?
Do you want to found a religion?
Do you want to determine the meaning of life?
Do you want to disprove someone else's meaning?
Do you want to create or destroy?
More importantly: What are you going to do about what you want to do?
On an unrelated note:
How do you like where you are? Are you constantly complaining about how much your current situation sucks and that if you could just move somewhere else, just go somewhere else, just be sent somewhere else, things would be better?
If you stop to think about where you are and what is wrong with things and why you hate what is going on SO much, you will probably realize, if you are at all observant, if you have any perception, that it is not the place.
It is the person.
The person determines the enjoyment and the annoyance. Of course, the people you are around are going to affect how you like where you are, but you create your own world. You create your own mess.
You are the creator of your own life.
The flip side of that is that you are also the destroyer.
Moving to a new place can be cathartic. But if you soon begin to feel the same pangs and longings and pains and hates in the new place as you did the old, then the realization should strike true. You are the problem.
Your outlook is the issue.
Your way of perceiving needs to change.
Perception is almost everything. Substance is required, some of the time. But perception is where the ideas come from; it is where people turn to when they think.
You don't think in facts. You think in ideas and opinions.
You don't know about cats. You know if you like them or if you hate them or if you are allergic to them.
Some of this last bit is rambling.
I'm tired and I want to go to bed.
The nature of things is that you will always want what you don't have and you will always be disappointed when you get it. Despite that, I want to exist outside of my job and my bank account. I want to be known by someone for something. I want to be together with other people and, above all, I do not want to be alone.
Writing the Great American Novel would be a bonus.
17 March 2010
11 January 2010
The Complexities of Love, Lust, and Infatuation
I have recently entered into what could be termed as a "Relationship". This makes me quite happy due in no slight amount to the fact that I despise being alone with every fiber of my being.
However, this is not simply an affair made to keep me from realizing loneliness. The girl is inspiring, entertaining, intelligent and frighteningly efficient. We hit it off in such a short order that were this to continue for years and years we could say it was at least "Infatuation at first sight" if not love.
It interests me to see my own reactions to this. Usually, lust is the primary feeling and prominently controls my actions. However, as I have gotten older (and I know that I am neither very old nor very young anymore) I have begun to change my responses, attitudes, and reactions.
I am very attracted to the girl. I don't think any relationship could exist without mutual attraction. I find her conversation appealing and constantly seek to engage her mind in new and interesting ways.
I am infatuated. I am, quite possibly, in the early stages of more than simple infatuation. Lust does not seem to be playing its former fantastically large part. I do desire her, no doubt, but in most previously relationships lust decided and dictated a great deal.
I'm typing this mostly to myself. I don't have the time right now to sit and truly write. So I am entering my thoughts here and there for later perusal. I want to see later what I am like now. Hindsight and all.
However, this is not simply an affair made to keep me from realizing loneliness. The girl is inspiring, entertaining, intelligent and frighteningly efficient. We hit it off in such a short order that were this to continue for years and years we could say it was at least "Infatuation at first sight" if not love.
It interests me to see my own reactions to this. Usually, lust is the primary feeling and prominently controls my actions. However, as I have gotten older (and I know that I am neither very old nor very young anymore) I have begun to change my responses, attitudes, and reactions.
I am very attracted to the girl. I don't think any relationship could exist without mutual attraction. I find her conversation appealing and constantly seek to engage her mind in new and interesting ways.
I am infatuated. I am, quite possibly, in the early stages of more than simple infatuation. Lust does not seem to be playing its former fantastically large part. I do desire her, no doubt, but in most previously relationships lust decided and dictated a great deal.
I'm typing this mostly to myself. I don't have the time right now to sit and truly write. So I am entering my thoughts here and there for later perusal. I want to see later what I am like now. Hindsight and all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)