25 June 2008

I thank the god I do not believe

I thank the god I do not believe in for all the efforts all have taken to even try, whatever their motives. My tears are real and honest and I am not ashamed. Some of that which I have seen is proof of the wonderfulness of the universe, however horrible it has been for me personally. Some are just so “perfect” I am thusly made certain that the world is good for humanity and not an enemy of human existence, however morbid my own situation. I am gladly assured that my final end is to leave behind my futilities and die happier knowing there are the wonders of the world’s greatness physically demonstrated by the very existence of human beauty. There is no intelligent design for beauteous perfection. The world is beauteously self-provident. It needs no more than its own beauty by itself to represent its selfless beauty all the time in the human form, however imperfect, forever, &c, amen.

24 June 2008

Believe it ... or not !!

Science is not a rejection of Religion. Science is not a rejection of God. The notion of our human physical origin from other life forms is derived from the fact that we are made of the same stuff, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other atoms, and are made of living cells, and so on, that we do physically require substenance, and that we can reproduce our selves. It is not based on a belief in that. Since we were not always here we must have started somehow and what of but out of the material we are made up of. If God stuck us here fully formed then God made us all made up of that same stuff all other life is made up of. Now I really do not care, personally, if "God did it" or if "it" was a result of "nature" or "something else". We are made up of the same stuff.
We act rather differently than other life forms. And other life forms act differently from each other which is how we know there are different forms of life. But we are physically made up of the same materials.
God is not made up of any of that stuff. That is why science can not study God as a physical thing. God can be studied only as a study of beliefs, as a study of one out of the very many beliefs human beings have. Since God is not made up of atoms and not made up of any physical "stuff" we cannot study God as if God was a frog in dissection class.
I do not know how we got here except as a phenomenon of one of a variety of sexual acts, the several that leave male sperm in a female vagina, although, actually, sexual action on the part of the human participants is not necessary: all that is required is the introduction of sperm and egg and that THEY join. God is not involved in any of that. God is not necessary in any of that.

Believe it or not!

Teaching evolution is useless in the teaching of physical reality. Seeing animals fornicate and knowing that such behavior is what human physical creatures also do is shocking enough. "WOW! That is what mommy and daddy did!"
The evolutionists are not "wrong", just irritating. The God made us people are not "wrong", they are just not useful. And: who, really, cares, anyway? Is it evolution that f'd in the bedroom or the back seat or was it God back there f'ing around? Sorry folks, neither one works. "God wasn't there and there were no apes! Honest, honey, it WAS mommy and it WAS daddy!"

What does love have to do with it? That's another story.

12 June 2008

“Intelligent Design” Basic “Theory”

“IT” is the result of intelligent design and no further explanation is required, say the intelligent design believers. Explained simply, Intelligent Design is the assertion that the problems encountered in understanding things in the universe can be explained by the intelligent design that intelligently designed the unexplained things. There is no need for any reason to explain anything further. As anything else is explained, such as by further experimentation and observation and study, intelligent design requires no study, no experiments, no getting the hands dirty with any of that! OH! NO!! The intelligent design solution can be applied to anything not explained. “IT”, whatever the “IT” may be, is “explained” as having intelligent design being the explanation. Therefore, if you do not know anything about some “it” you can assert that the unexplained “it” is “explained” by the intelligent design which “designed” “it” and that is all you really need to “know”. Therefore, for all and any thing that exists, then for every “it” that exists, “it” is explained as being intelligently designed by intelligent design. You need know nothing nor work for any explanation nor even bother searching for one.

The most extreme version of intelligent design is the assertion that the universe and everything in it, especially life but not excluding anything else, is too complicated to have anything but an intelligent design having designed it. It, whatever it may be, was intelligently designed. Intelligent design is considered the sufficient and necessary cause for the existence of anything and thereby everything. Intelligent design is considered the sufficient and necessary explanation for the existence of anything and thereby everything.

If there is the commission of murder of a hundred people by torture and rape and mutilation, each lasting for each of the deceased twenty days or so, you could always say that the reason “it” was done has too complicated an explanation and that “it” all must have been intelligently designed. Adolf Hitler and his henchmen did not kill four million or whatever number of Jews and Gypsies and whoever else. OH! NO! It was all intelligently designed, you see. “IT” did “IT”. Stalin, Mao, the Red Brigades, any serial killer can use this explanation. “I couldn’t have done such a thing! It’s too complicated for me to have done it. It did it!”

No god is even required! No god, no devil, no agent of destruction, no voices, no dog barking from a hole in the wall is necessary.

10 June 2008

Socializing versus Politicizing

People are trained to think of politics as being about government. Politics is usually considered about government officials. Politicians are considered to be such as: elected officials (from the justice of the peace to national president), advisors, the IRS, lobbyists, judges, and ambassadors. People in politics are not necessarily in government. And political people may never have ANYTHING to do with civil government.

Consider the top powers in General Motors and IBM: they did not get there by being good at installing automobile side panels or writing good programs for computers. They were good at wheeling and dealing stock values and investments and setting up departments which made money, showing up those with new ideas who were too slow to get there first, getting and keeping the right ears, as examples. In short, they were actively political. They worked at it and their jobs too, and the two were made part of each other. They were also aware that they were being political. The leaders of church groups did not get to lead by being good at prayer. The science fiction book club will have the one who wants the floor and their ideas to top out all the others and win the praise if not the prize. And in the chess club there is the chess player who simply will win and win more often. And they use all the participants and necessarily use them for they are a group who share each other to get to whatever is the top if they can. Little League Baseball has its stars every year beyond the game itself as so and so is announced as having got so many girls’ emails (as if no one else got any for none others were so mentioned) and another is announced as being wanted at 13 years old to coach his school’s senior baseball team at home, as two examples I saw.

There is nothing wrong in any of this. It is as natural as being the best at or at the top of whatever you can do. It is as natural as you making useful friends who can do you favors or introduce you to the right people versus the other friends you have. Such “other” friends just might be to talk to and let off steam. They also might just come up with ideas you can use. And you would naturally and you would be right to use the ideas. Yes, use their ideas for your own use with those useful friends and make yourself useful to them, quid pro quo, or on your own. And: this is politics. Like it or not.

I have met homeless people and street bums and YES they have their cliques, in-fights, victories, top dogs, enforcers, bullies and victims, smooth talkers, manipulators, whores, fringe members, and more, as any other group of people anywhere.

You MUST be political, wither you be successful or an abject failure, as a street bum or as a student or a teacher, for good, ill, mediocrity, at your loss, even to your destruction: You WILL take political action because you as a social being MUST make political choices and thereby by that alone if nothing else take or make political action. The decision to not rock the social boat and to socially conform is a political decision. To decide to change minds and rock the boat and convince others and get “them” to go along and live and let you live differently is a political decision.

As someone somewhere pointed out long before me, even the reclusive total loner on the mountain top had to leave a social group to be alone. And the loner has to go and get a meal somehow from somewhere now and then and presumably from someone else ... I add here: the loner made a choice and is also left alone by those who know of the reclusion, a decision, or maybe a lack of one, a choice made by at least one group of OTHERS in the know ...

07 June 2008

If the universe is required to have a creator

If the universe is required to have a creator it is we ourselves for there is no universe unless we ourselves experience it and we ourselves experience ourselves living as a part of it and come to know that. If we are not then there is no universe for there is no knowing it nor knowing anything. If any universe-creator exists within the universe then any universe-creator will of necessity be known as we come to know the world we are a part of. If any universe-creator does not exist within the universe then there can be no knowledge of any universe-creator and there is nothing to say about the unknown and the unknowable except that the unknowable is never to be known and the unknown is already unknown. Arguments to the contrary are necessarily arguments and are not knowledge. Arguments for or arguments against the existence of that which is unknown and, or, or unknowable yield no knowledge.

Belief, opinion, point of view, argument, faith, assumption, and conjecture: none of these are knowledge.

There is the assertion that there was that which predated our human presence in the universe and that that makes us as the creators of the ALL an impossibility. There is further the assertion that since we came of non-knowing materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, to name an atomic three, or from non-knowing living entities, such as microbes, animals in general, and some pre-human or simply definitely non-human living material, that therefore we are not our own creators and not the creators of the universe, and that there is “something else” “somehow” “involved” in the creation of humankind and the creation of the universe and not human kind at all.

Even the theologians of the so called dark ages knew better than to give an “intelligent design” “answer” to the existence of the universe, life, or human life. I INSIST THAT IT REQUIRES HONESTY. Honest people know what honesty is and work to be aware of their ignorance and know the limits to their knowledge. Since god was assumed to have created the universe, god then of course created life in all its forms, including, if there is a question, human life. Either version in the Christian book of genesis will do. NO further inquiry is required. Honest theologians even of the so-called dark ages knew the difference between knowledge and belief and faith. God did not “cause” the universe. God CREATED cause and intelligence as god created the ALL, which includes “causes” and "intelligence". Only in human terms is god a “cause”. Since god is not a measly human, ascribing human intelligence and other mere human qualities to god is absurd and done only because we pathetic earthlings are so limited. Honest people know they are being anthropomorphic and know better and that they cannot know god.

Honest people will admit that creationism and intelligent design would be defining the universe in terms of human written versions of creation and of god, to the belief in those writings, and to the faith in the authority, backed by the sword, and that such can yield no answer to any honest question.

The “moments of existence” of human life is yet to be discovered. It is not an answer to say “god did it”. That is a dishonest answer for it assumes that it is an answer and it is not. It is dishonest for it gives no detail as to the how. If the human written version in the Christian books of genesis, or any other, is accepted as a sufficient answer, then, though accepting this as an answer would be dishonest, that is all the acceptor needs and there is nothing more for them to say: they believe and have stopped asking. Such an acceptance is dishonest because it assumes belief is knowledge. Most believers are dishonest for that reason. If this describes any reader as mendacious, if the shoe fits, maybe such a dishonest reader can wear the mendacity shoe.

The universe has the intelligent design only if there are human beings. For humans have the mind to know design. Humans are the intelligence in the universe. There was no intelligent anything before intelligence came to be. As far as we earthlings are aware there is no other intelligence than we ourselves: and none more is required than we ourselves for there to be the “proof” of intelligence: and if there is more, then any of that “more” have their “earth” to deal with, and we two or more have yet to know more than the selves we know.

Honest people stop “iffing” around and get on with living.

02 June 2008

God is not a measly “intelligent”

For god to be “intelligent” we have to assume that god is human. That is blasphemy if I ever heard any. For only human beings are intelligent. If god created the universe then god created intelligence. AND GOD IS NOT SUBJECT TO GOD’S OWN CREATION! To assume an intelligent design to the universe is to assume that there was a post-god creation. To assert a “creative intelligence” causing human life is to assume a creator after god. Even the most darkly aged of the dark ages’ monastery monks would not be so stupid. For god cannot be measured in human terms and is beyond mere measly human intelligence for it was god that created intelligence in the first place! Therefore, there was no creative intelligent design to anything. Except as human beings did it.

01 June 2008

God gave us the freedom to choose, fail or succeed.

God gave us the mind to learn, figure, re-figure, and hypothesize, and come to know. God gave us a physical ability to try, retry, experiment, build, rebuild, and change, to improvise, adapt, and overcome. God gave us a universe to play in, play with, live in, change, re-change, alter, re-alter, and learn from, to adapt to, to improvise meanwhile we overcome its limits on us by changing or changing it. And if we live and die short miserable little lives, well, it is not any fault. It would be reality. It is life and life is what the WE, humanity, makes of it. If we all die out on the earth there are always more where we came from for the world is full of life.

And people insist on a heaven!? And a soul!? And miracles!? And divine interventions!? And an after life!? And a new life after all that!? Such [selfish] creatures do not deserve more that what they have. Humanity shall never get more than what humanity itself creates. It is all there for us. It is all there need be. Anything else is presumptuous and fantasy.

♪♂♫♪♀♫♯♫♪♪“Love is a many-splendored thing!”♪♂♫♪♀♫♯♫♪♪

If the human object of your lust and, or, or love does not reciprocate and chooses else wise and other than you then you should be happy to “let go and let live” and yield to them their space to be free to exercise their choice. If you are not happy about it you need to get over it and get on with your life: you should GET happy about their exercise of freedom to choose even if their exercise of free will breaks your heart. Be honest with the fact that you cannot know better than they do what they want ... even if you believe you actually do “know better”, as if that even matters. What does matter? They won't be really human without acting freely and won't be really free if they must do what you want. Remember Svengali? He said "I could MAKE you love me ... but then: I would only be making love to myself!" ... he was at least that honest! You are being dishonest if you think another way! And then Svengali refused to exercise his power. He was honest enough to admit his utter impotence in the face of reality! You should be so honest! You should try to be better than a fictional character! You should not just “allow” others to be free to make their choices. You should be HAPPY to let them go on and be free. If you dwell on them you forget yourself: you risk being a slave to your passions and you risk forgetting reality and risk the loss of your own freedom. For “Love is a many-splendored thing!”. ♪♂♀♫♯♫♪♪