The Wonders of Science, or the Wonder of God?

The fact is, the Christian god is a limited deity. By the reasoning of these worshippers, god is a very personal god, one who has no center of calm, who jumps down a person's throat with the swiftness of a major temper, who cannot tolerate any kind of independent thought, whose omnipotence and omniscience is stifled by his own petty jealousy and fear that his adherents will seek out "forbidden" knowledge against his will.

But it's not just the Christian god who holds such limited power--many, many other gods, of one culture or another, seem to have similar shortcomings.

If there were indeed some "deity" that existed, I would never put faith in anything less than the creator of our universe, and any others that might exist. Such a creator would not be confined to planet earth or its environs, but who would continue on its infinite journey, perhaps unaware of who or what it has created along the way.

But it doesn't matter. Whether we choose to believe in something beyond our own borders in the galaxy, the fact remains: science and the knowledge we acquire through it, beats any kind of conscious thought, even if its that of an alleged deity.

Look--there's a rainbow! Beautiful, isn't it? The visible spectrum, fresh and lovely, it shines only after the rain ends, and holds us in its grasp even if it's limited in how long it lasts. Do you feel more awe believing that a god created it, or if there is a scientific explanation for it? Isn't it more hypnotic knowing that it can be repeated, and isn't just a "miracle" that a god created on a whim?

The aurora borealis, a sunset, the green earth, flowers, Grand Canyon, or a tree--the science behind each of these things makes it not only repeatable, but also taken for granted at times. But science knows that all these things, from a rock to a living creature has an origin, and has an explanation for its presence.

There is no hand of god working magic, there is no simple beginning shrouded in mystery. The god is something that ancient cultures created because they could not relate to deeper and more complex origins. If there was a storm, the gods were angry. If someone got killed by lightning, they had been wicked. If someone had "displeased" god, they would end up dying relatively soon.

But there was no science to explain why a storm starts, why lightning strikes, and why someone could have a heart attack, suffer a stroke, die from cancer, or even be pummeled by a brain aneurysm. Medicine was, at that time, and for a long time afterwards, be limited to battlefield first aid, and little else.

I have heard people talking about "god's miracles" and felt uncomfortable thinking someone has more awe of what a gpd might create, than what science has helped to define.

A "fingerprint of god" fills me with less wonder than knowing that I can enjoy something over and over again because I understand how something occurs, and how often I can be assured that it won't be the last time I see that wonder.

Atheism vs. New Atheism

Until a couple of days ago, I had never known that term. But after I heard it, I had to research it. Appears the term relates to the more recent line-up of atheistic writers--Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Stenger--and their more aggressive, in-your-face style of trying to discount all religion, and pretty much trying to make those who believe in some element of faith in their lives, and with the intent to tell everyone to grow the fuck up, and get rid of religious practices altogether.

Okay, so I'm an atheist/agnostic. I've been one for years now, and that was something I talked about with few people until I joined FB. And while I despise the radical religious right, the luddites who want to believe that the earth was created 10,000 years ago, who choose to believe mega-church preachers will be welcomed with warmth through the pearly gates, my focus has never been to disarm people of their inherent right to believe in whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't try to make their beliefs the beliefs of a country, try to teach hare-brained ideas to children that cripple their fruitful brains, or harm anyone, I could give a rat's ass as to what someone believes.

I have many friends who worship quietly, without pushing anything on others. And I try to respect that aspect of our freedoms. I find the thought disquieting to be as extreme as the hard religious right, but on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think calling anyone who has religious beliefs to be "off their rocker" (except for those mentioned above) is going way beyond the rules of etiquette and decorum, and is, just incredibly nasty.

A friend of mine once told me that she believed that everyone is here for a reason--everyone's life--or death--is a calling to, as she said, a "higher power." I personally feel she might be right in some ways. For this friend, I know the last seven years of her life were spent with the fervent hope that her terminal illness resulting from sleep apnea could help someone else avoid the problems she had. She used her faith to advocate for an action on the people she met. With some people, they believe their lives are destined to move in one direction, and not another. She never preached her faith, but showed people that her beliefs lead to something good, something she could actually relay to people.

Religion isn't really about who your god is, how to pray to him or her, or even how to follow the faith. It's about interpretation, and how a person views the world as a result of whatever connection they have to others, to themselves, and to their lives. If you believe in a god, and were raised within a belief system, it's one of the ways you practice what you've been taught. Depending on what value system you have, you will learn how to respect others, acknowledge their ideas and ideology, and become a worthy person. But once you begin to believe that you're better than someone else because of your belief system, you end up hurting someone, and you become a person who can't see others for themselves.

New atheism is a crock--a vehicle--as bad as the values of the radical religious right, or as bad as any group that chooses to put themselves first, and others second, and last.

Petulant Pubs need to grow up

While it's been obvious for awhile now, Pugs are babies
I think we need to do a few things in the next month or so to make changes to their behavior.

Johnny B needs a new pacifier to make him stop his bawling all the time.
Little Eric needs to be given a "time out" in the corner to stop his aggression. I think his parents have to take his checkbook away from him so he's not trying to bid against his own country and get away with profiting from it.

Young Michelle B needs to be getting more homework if she can't read the material she is supposed to already know. Pop quizzes might help, but she might have to take summer school. And tell her that it's definitely bad manners when her husband talks out of school about things he hasn't even studied yet.

Miss Sarah P is bullying some of the other kids already. She's going to be in detention for quite some time if she doesn't get in line.

Mitchie M has been caught in a few whopping lies, and he's going to be sent to the principle's office for it. He could be suspended if the principal thinks the charges are grave enough.
Ricky P is another bully. I suggest someone give him a few raps on the knuckles for corporal punishment seeing how eager he is to allow capital punishment.

Little boys and girls like these are not mature enough to be allowed to speak for the country. If we don't punish them for their behavior, I have to wonder what kind of grown-ups they are going to be.

I don't know how these people can pose as adults, seriously. The only problem is how so many of our citizens are just as immature. They aren't falling for it so much as identifying with it.

I think most Americans are emotionally crippled, stuck in their whiny years for the rest of their lives. I think there has to be some punishment for these people, but I'm afraid we would end up with collateral damage on people who are acting like the real adults.

Comic book morals

Just the other day, I was reading an article on LA Times about a book recently published on the "superhero" philosophy and in particular, Green Lantern. Coincidentally, Green Lantern is opening next week as a highly anticipated summer film, and should, in true Variety fashion, do boffo business. http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/06/08/green-lantern-and-philosophy-heroic-talk-with-the-ring-of-truth/

I wrote a reply to that article, but got frustrated by the site's rejection of my post because it was too long--I figured out a long time ago that the Twitter mentality of using only a limited posting length was going to be the death of me, so I finally gave up on my attempt.

So here it is--my post to the above given LA Times link on heroism, comic books and all that stuff.

As Green Lantern was my favorite character growing up, I was always more drawn to his alter-ego than to what he (Hal Jordan) could do as a superhero. Between GL and Flash (my second favorite), their respective human identities were brilliantly flawed and yet filled with heroism even of the ordinary kind. Both gained their powers in the course of their civilian work identities, so they were both already working in some work which tested them, but were both deeply grounded in their beliefs. Becoming heroes was therefore not unknown to them, but finding out they could do a lot more with their powers was a bonus to them.

Heroism, in real life, is never so black and white. As the authors remind us, action will often compel the "good" man to do nothing if he/she sees it strictly in an either/or frame--moral ambiguity can force all of us to back down if we are put into such a position. Hal Jordan was chosen as a ring-bearer not because he was considered "a good man" but because he was "fearless." Goodness can really be a time waster--a person who is "good" might waver back and forth over options, while a person who knows any action is better than no action at all, is apt to get more things done.

In the early 70s, when GL teamed up with Green Arrow, it was then that there were more than black and white issues began to show up in the DC comic universe, unless the superhero had already crossed that road a lot earlier. Green Lantern hadn't been out in the "real" world much--he had never examined that life, busy with his career and superhero work.

I grew up with the 60s and 70s comics world, mainly that of DC. I always thought the morals of the characters as pretty much the ethics I followed. (I was a kid when I read them) I now feel, in today's world where I am now an atheist, that I didn't have the need for a "something in the sky" to make mostly correct choices and be an ethical person. Comics were always a good way to spell things out in a non-preaching manner, allowing us to be moral, but still allowing us to make our own choices.A

Violence needs to be curbed, not sex!

For fuck's sake, this is absolutely ridiculous. The US is more concerned about some Rep's sexual behavior than it is on the amount of violence in TV, movies and games.

They care more about a presidential candidate's mistress than they do about whether that man had any good ideas for government.

The idea of someone getting a blow job in the Oval Office is far, far more important than a president and his VP starting a war in another country by lying about how many weapons there were in that country.

This country is so fucking screwed up, I'm getting embarassed to live here.

Violence doesn't seem to matter to these fools. Only anything related to sex, which is supposed to be a natural thing, and is legal in all states.

I have always pondered this--why does the simple act of sex make all these fucking right-wingers so jumpy?

As far as Weiner and his weiner, his wife is the only one--repeat, ONLY ONE-- who should be included in any kind of discussion on this issue. Anyone who goes on and on about it, or any other person's ability and right to have sex, I call you out as far more conservative than you would like to admit.

Sex is not a crime. The only way it becomes an issue is if a minor is involved. Or if it's outside marriage and one of the parties opposes it. Beyond that, it aint' a crime.

Violence is far worst than sex. When we harm others, we are exerting our will over them, making them appear weaker than ourselves. Men like to beat women and children, especially when they drink or do drugs. They come from a long line of other offenders, other abusers. When children engage in a violent manner, they are simply continuing a long cycle of such actions. Children who have been beaten in turn beat animals, kill them and harm those who are smaller than they are. Children who have been abused will not fail to utilize fear and violence in their own world, and as they grow older, their techniques will get even better. Violence is, by far, far worse than any consensual sex of any kind.

People who have any kind of life--obviously leaving out the religious right--know this, even if they won't admit it. We, homo sapiens, came up from that kind of rabble--the strongest genes survived for thousands of years before we advanced another milestone in our development--but it doesn't mean we need to stop here. It seems to me that looking at the whole world, the mutant genes of compassion, appreciation of beauty and youth, the chromosomes of understanding higher science, mathematics and wisdom have managed to gain a foothold, but those who don't have an iota of them keep trying to destroy them, knowing that once those people who represent all of these great things have a greater presence than themselves, they will be lost to history.

They tend to beat up in numbers, just like regular bullies. Not one of them is strong enough to upset the cart individually, but in numbers they attack. They prey on the sensibilities of many--the fear of what might--or might not--come. They are evil, greedy, power-humgry and they want to keep the people enthralled, preferably as pliant as possible. And they make the people hate sex, love violence--the natural opposite of the way life should be lived.

Anthony Weiner is fighting for his political life right now, based on a sex related topic. There should have been no need for him to do so--in the correct version of the world, he should have been able to talk to his wife about the incident, then they should have been able to laugh it away, in the privacy of their homes. There should never have been an outcry about it, and there is no way in fucking hell it should have been smeared all around the world, making a moral judgement on him and his family.

Just as there shouldn't have been a moral outcry about Bill Clinton. Just as there shouldn't have been ono about Gary Hart. Just as there shouldn't have been about any other person.

And so why, some might ask, do we make such a big deal when Republicans do it? Because Republicans are hypocrites. We don't make a big deal about what sex games they choose to engage in--we only care when they tell the rest of us how to live, and can't live up to those goals themselves.

I say let's shut the hell up and not act like Republicans. We are supposed to be understanding, so let's act like we are. Sex is part of every single person's world, in one way or another, and it can't be wrong if people don't get harmed from it. If people get harmed, then it's wrong--like rape, pedophilia, or child porn. And among consensual adults, it's fun, healthy and filled with lots of good things.

Noone should try to dictate to any other adult what they should or shouldn't be able to do. And if someone does try to legislate sexual laws beyond those that hurt people, they should be taken out of the places of laws and put into the stocks where people can throw rotten vegetables at them and call them the fools that they really are.

Philosophy

Philosophy: We are all human, no one was created any better than any other. We all have a given amount of time here, and if you were born, you're going to eventually die. So whether you believe in a god or not, you get the same breaks, the same world as everyone else. Why sacrifice your one life on something as assinine as worship, when it's logical that you shouldn't be shooting for the hereafter, but for the here and now. Thousands of years now have seen the peasants still trying to get to heaven, while their masters and academics are finding pleasure in other....pursuits. Why waste time "believing," when there is no time to waste?

100 years ago, a petty man was born.

He had an enormous ego, though, and he had some general good looks, but there really wasn't a terribly large muscle in his head, so he learned to use his voice, a smattering of rhetorical skills, and some charisma to move himself up in the political branch of the world of entertainment, since he knew instinctively that he was not really good at acting, other than reading lines, sometimes so obviously that his producer bosses cringed.

Because his inherent skills taught him that looking someone in the eyes, pretending to give a shit, and honing dramatic cues for more than just reading those stupid lines made him a lot more powerful in the long run, he had no problem in learning to be a grifter--all politicians are grifters, some worse than others.

He found being a politician was actually something he felt good at. He had all the fame and adulation he wanted, so now he started to bank on his power, and see how far to the top he could go. And go to the top he did. And millions of Americans were brainwashed into believing that this actor, this travesty of a human being, this truly apathetic asshole had changed the landscape of the USA, and brought people like James Dobson, Karl Rove, and their ilk out of the woodwork, raping the country, and selling us all down the river for a long time to come.

Hoping you're not resting in peace, mofo.


(And this is the fucker they want to put on a dime?)


And this post follows the first, after someone said Reagan wasn't ALL bad:


People are always prone to take the easiest way out of any situation. They fail the test of humility, and become drawn to things which distance themselves from the general populace. They become greedy, apathetic, hard, cold. They no longer have the ability to empathize or care. They justify their new nature as a "sacrifice" of a sort. Money means more to them than people. They can't fail, because failure means going all the way back to the beginning, and the struggle and pain in their lives. They no longer have the choice to change their ways, because the person they are in the end is all that they know anymore. In faith-based vernacular, they have sold their soul to the devil. In reality, they have had the taste of power, and it is a heady feeling. They will do anything which keeps that sense of exhilaration, of commanding the actions of life or death.

In life, they have chosen the oldest path--that which requires the least amount of actual work. They are not unique at all--this path is one which most people do, but some are just able to grasp the brass rings they find along the way. Extraordinary people always follow the more difficult path, the road less traveled, as Robert Frost said. Most of us have found that path, tried it for a short while and diverted back to the path of least resistance. It's okay--we're not all capable of the hardness, the racing in the wind or swimming against the tide. Humans rarely are able to finish that path because it's more difficult to find all the conditions which favor it. It's against human nature in general to accept the inevitable losses which come with heroism and complete self-sacrifice. But in life, we can recognize some of those people as true leaders--Gandhi, Mandela, Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin, Jimmy Carter.

Human beings are not wired all the way to exercise the best of intentions all the time. Very few have the ability to ignore their own needs and put the needs of others ahead of them.

But Reagan was not a hero and never a man of the people. His own selfishness and desire for power were fueled by his ego and his overwhelming desire for power. The more power he had, the less of a human being he became.

Anyone who eulogizes Reagan needs to step back and look at the whole picture, of the horrible things he did while he was in office--things he did to satisfy his own ego, and for essentially "photo ops" for the history books.