There are days that I'm pretty okay with living south of the Mason-Dixon line, and then there are days that I get so unbelievably pissed the fuck off that I just want to stab some one in the eye.
Apparently, I'm rather lucky to have kids in the Mississippi public school system right now, because previously there was no Sex Ed curriculum allowed by the state. New this year, they've begun teaching it in 6th grade. Like most of the South, the options were either a completely useless attempt at stopping teen sex altogether or the subject just wasn't mentioned. Neither of which actually addresses the reality of the matter.
Be honest with yourself, how old were you when you had your first sexual encounter... No, really honest. It's okay, there won't be a pop quiz later. According to the Kinsey Institute, the average age for men is ~16 and for women it's ~17, with more than 25% of BOTH having had their first sexual experience by age 15, or younger, and how many of these do we figure are educated? Well, happily, the same study caught that tid bit also. I'm talking about 'Safe-Sex', which in my opinion is kind of a misnomer since there's no such thing as 'safe', just 'safER'.
Let me put my outrage in context for you. I have a 5 year old daughter, and a 9 year old son. If the numbers from this study are correct, then that would imply that out of ten occurrences, my son is going to fuck up twice, and not use a rubber, if he has sex between 14 and 17... on average, and my daughter will be in a much worse boat. ~4 out of ten fuck ups. Well... what the hell does that mean?
Out of every 1000 women in Mississippi, between 15 and 19, about 64 of them will get pregnant. That's the highest teen pregnancy rate in the COUNTRY! Fuck fuck fuck! DOUBLE FUCK! Matter of fact, seven states in the south reported 5% or more of teenage girls would get pregnant before they were 19. Holy SHIT! Now, add to that the fact that the biggest offenders there, are also part of the same group of states that gives NO information about contraception.
Now, as a father, I have two choices while I live in the state of Mississippi... I can either chain my daughter in her room until she's thirty, and vacuum seal my son's penis, or... I can do this weird new thing that folks are trying out... It's called Being A Parent.
Obviously I'm not going to convince my kids to never have sex. The studies don't lie. Kids who make 'virgin' promises are just as likely to have sex as kids who don't. The only difference really, is that the kids who get the proper education and information on the subject are less likely to end up makin' babies, because condom use increases when kids are educated instead of having the subject hidden from them. So I made a power point for them, and I'll update it appropriately as they get older. They already know what to expect from puberty, and once we reach that hurdle, I'll roll out the 'Sex' talk, and include all manner of bland visual aids, just like the ones I had when I went to school, in Washington State... where they started sex ed in the 2nd grade.
It's fortunate that I haven't relied on public schools to provide pertinent and accurate information for the last fifteen years, because if I did this whole subject might come as a bit of a shock to me.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
How is This Still Even a Question?
Well ho-lee shit...
Alright. You know it, and I know it, but apparently some people still haven't figured it out yet. Marriage isn't necessarily a religious rite. As soon as the government began conveying specific benefits, rights and advantages, that was no longer the case. We have this piece of paper, a pretty important piece of paper, that guarantees the separation of religon and government. You call it the Bill of Rights. I call it 'End of Discussion'.
Eventually, at the rate things are moving, the federal government extending those rights to same-sex couples won't even be an issue. Six states, so far (soon to be more) have passed legislation, either in general elections or in congressional sessions, that gives gay couples the same rights as hetero couples. At what point are the scales going to tip, though? When will we, as a country... as a society... hell, as a race, stand up and go "Holy shit, what the hell were we thinking? Why did we ever argue about this?" ... the cynic in me is saying 'Pssht, never... idiot'... I'm not an optomist, so that's pretty much as far as that goes.
The fundamental religous groups like to throw around the notion that, somehow, to be gay is to be particularly and exceptionally promiscuous, yet here is this desire from the gay community to be committed and monogomous to one person... I know... kinda fucks up the party line. How the fuck do we hate people who want to be exactly like us? Well... clearly they're fucking up family values by... uhh... wanting to demonstrate that they have family values.
Then we have assholes like this over here who are just perpetuating a cycle of hate, and worse they're justifying that hate under the guise of religion. The levels on which this pisses me off are manifold.
How the FUCK does two guys stemming the rose, in a committed and monogomous relationship, with a signed court document, violate the sanctity of Jack and/or Shit? I know... that sounds like a rhetorical question... doesn't it?
There are six states, in all, that are putting the issue up this year, my home state of Washington being one of them. Here's hoping all six pass and more states follow suit.
Alright. You know it, and I know it, but apparently some people still haven't figured it out yet. Marriage isn't necessarily a religious rite. As soon as the government began conveying specific benefits, rights and advantages, that was no longer the case. We have this piece of paper, a pretty important piece of paper, that guarantees the separation of religon and government. You call it the Bill of Rights. I call it 'End of Discussion'.
Eventually, at the rate things are moving, the federal government extending those rights to same-sex couples won't even be an issue. Six states, so far (soon to be more) have passed legislation, either in general elections or in congressional sessions, that gives gay couples the same rights as hetero couples. At what point are the scales going to tip, though? When will we, as a country... as a society... hell, as a race, stand up and go "Holy shit, what the hell were we thinking? Why did we ever argue about this?" ... the cynic in me is saying 'Pssht, never... idiot'... I'm not an optomist, so that's pretty much as far as that goes.
The fundamental religous groups like to throw around the notion that, somehow, to be gay is to be particularly and exceptionally promiscuous, yet here is this desire from the gay community to be committed and monogomous to one person... I know... kinda fucks up the party line. How the fuck do we hate people who want to be exactly like us? Well... clearly they're fucking up family values by... uhh... wanting to demonstrate that they have family values.
Then we have assholes like this over here who are just perpetuating a cycle of hate, and worse they're justifying that hate under the guise of religion. The levels on which this pisses me off are manifold.
How the FUCK does two guys stemming the rose, in a committed and monogomous relationship, with a signed court document, violate the sanctity of Jack and/or Shit? I know... that sounds like a rhetorical question... doesn't it?
There are six states, in all, that are putting the issue up this year, my home state of Washington being one of them. Here's hoping all six pass and more states follow suit.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Politics -- I'm throwing my hat in this ring too.
Another Rich White Guy runs for the Republican presidential nomination, and for once I'm not a-Paul-ed (I couldn't help myself) by his platforms. I'm also, happily, not the first to see the media shit-storm for what it really is.
Now, I am, by no means, a Republican, but I'm also not one to continue taking it in the ass from Chocolate Jesus for another four years. Mae West said,“When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before”, and I, for one, agree with her. I'd rather try out a bit of something new and different. Is there a chance that it'll be worse? Yes. Is there a chance that it might get better? Absolutely. Is there a chance that it'll be more of the same self-aggrandizing bullshit that we've heard for the last four years? Not really. I expect all new self-aggrandizing bullshit. It's American Politics, and until we get rid of this stupid fucking two-party system, it's really all we have.
I'm of the opinion that no party gets it all right all the time. The Libertarians want to do away with the USDA, a government body that ensured that my hard working single mother of two was able to feed my brother and I while busting her ass at a minimum wage job she had to drive to, 45 minutes a day in a rusted out 20 year old VW Beetle. The Democrats are limp-wristed pussies who can't even get their shit together on a single polarizing issue long enough to mount a suitable defense of it in their own fucking house. That says a lot about how well the Democratic wagons are circled in defense of Barry 'Chocolate Jesus' Obama. The Green Party is so vehemently 'Green' that they'd rather shoot themselves in the foot than actually utilize the long term energy resources available. And finally, the Republicans... I'm not going to say all Republicans are racist, but ... "If you're racist, you're probably Republican". That said... every now and again, one of these ding-bats hits a home run.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was one candidate, just one time, that you could point to and go 'That motherfucker right there just said everything I've been thinking since I was old enough to stop shitting in my pants'. They say that if you're a Republican before you're thirty you have no heart, and if you're a Democrat after you're thirty you have no brain... What if you've never been either?
Now, I am, by no means, a Republican, but I'm also not one to continue taking it in the ass from Chocolate Jesus for another four years. Mae West said,“When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before”, and I, for one, agree with her. I'd rather try out a bit of something new and different. Is there a chance that it'll be worse? Yes. Is there a chance that it might get better? Absolutely. Is there a chance that it'll be more of the same self-aggrandizing bullshit that we've heard for the last four years? Not really. I expect all new self-aggrandizing bullshit. It's American Politics, and until we get rid of this stupid fucking two-party system, it's really all we have.
I'm of the opinion that no party gets it all right all the time. The Libertarians want to do away with the USDA, a government body that ensured that my hard working single mother of two was able to feed my brother and I while busting her ass at a minimum wage job she had to drive to, 45 minutes a day in a rusted out 20 year old VW Beetle. The Democrats are limp-wristed pussies who can't even get their shit together on a single polarizing issue long enough to mount a suitable defense of it in their own fucking house. That says a lot about how well the Democratic wagons are circled in defense of Barry 'Chocolate Jesus' Obama. The Green Party is so vehemently 'Green' that they'd rather shoot themselves in the foot than actually utilize the long term energy resources available. And finally, the Republicans... I'm not going to say all Republicans are racist, but ... "If you're racist, you're probably Republican". That said... every now and again, one of these ding-bats hits a home run.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was one candidate, just one time, that you could point to and go 'That motherfucker right there just said everything I've been thinking since I was old enough to stop shitting in my pants'. They say that if you're a Republican before you're thirty you have no heart, and if you're a Democrat after you're thirty you have no brain... What if you've never been either?
Friday, January 6, 2012
You're So Fucking Gay
So, enough of these pot shots at Atheists. Like any other group, they have stupid fuckers in their ranks too. It's time to put a different bunch of people up on the firing line...
No, not gay people... I'm talking about the ignorant fuckers behind Prop 8 in California, Fred Phelps, Rush Limbaugh and all those other fuckers who cater to the knuckle-dragging masses. The people who like to quote Leviticus as their reasoning for being hate-mongers.
I'm probably going to end up using 'Fuck' a lot, in this post.
Lets run down the list of things being railed against by the 'Anti' crowd, so I can systematically tear them apart and feel better about myself afterwards. In no particular order:
I think I'll start with some pictures, since the other side of this argument isn't big on reading...
So, what we have here a series of MRI images showing the active centers of four different brains, in response to sexual stimulation. The full study can be found here. In this study, a group of Swedish scientists set about trying to find similarities between the active portion of different brains. 25 heterosexual men, 25 hetero women, 20 homosexual men and 20 homosexual women. What they found is pretty well illustrated above. Now, to a rational human being, this study would be enough to close the argument, but as soon you throw a bible in the mix, or start talking about 'God' people get all misty eyed and rational thinking gets tossed out the window. Happily, though, there are other avenues to this argument that even irrational fundamentalists can't just brush under the rug, even though they try.
Consider the climate in the world today. The average gay person is going to have to endure the kind of hate, abuse, discrimination and general ill-treatment, unheard of since the 1960's. We're talking about beatings, rape, harassment, picket lines at gay funerals (my favorite, since it's so damned classy), social stigma and general suspicion. And so-called 'sympathetic groups' aren't necessarily better, since using 'Gay Issues' is a great way to sway Democratic votes, and parading flaming homosexuals in front of some news cameras is a great photo-op if you're running for public office, and really need the liberals to come out for you. Does this sound like something a person would CHOOSE? And if it's psychological, it's a fucking pandemic of crazy on a scale rivaling the Bubonic Plague. We're talking about something on the order of six million people, in the U.S. alone, that have some kind of martyr complex. Some one said something once about eliminating the impossible to find the most probable solution. I think that applies here.
Family values seems a laughable point, considering who it is that's bringing it up. The guys are basically closet homosexuals, or adulterers, and they're grandstanding about 'Family Values'? Are you fucking joking? Even so, let's look at it seriously. What about two gay men, or women, fucking is so damned threatening to the rest of the world's 'Values'? I'm honestly confused by this argument, because in the same breath they're saying that it's acceptable for the majority to discriminate against, condemn and protest against an entire group of people simply because they don't fuck how we do. Where's the logic here? I know, I'm asking a lot, but... seriously? Which is a greater moral issue? Two adults having sex in a committed relationship, or violating the basic human rights of several million people?
Marriage... we're honestly arguing about this as a culture. Other countries have gotten over it, and moved on. Some states have pulled their heads out of their asses and figured out that the counter argument is bullshit. Despite these facts, there's still a large enough group of people in MOST states to make the idea uncomfortable to address on a national level. So, what the fuck is marriage anyway? I'm going to have to throw out gender, because the issue here is that the people who would be entering into a newly defined form of marriage would both have the same gender. Not that I give a shit about whether or not people have interlocking groins. The most basic definition of marriage is simply a legally binding commitment between two people who love each other who have chosen to say to the world that they're going to be together for the foreseeable future, and aren't going to fuck other people. On a civil level, that little piece of paper also confers a good deal of power and rights to one's partner, as well as allowing the couple to file joint tax returns, access one another's personal information and in the event of some medical emergencies, make important decisions in the best interest of their spouse. Y'know what? Fine... don't call it marriage, call it a 'Civil Union', what ever, but the issue isn't religious. The issue is civil. The religious argument is rendered invalid by the Bill of Rights, and our guaranteed separation of church and state. You don't get to dictate the legislative process with your Bible any more than anyone else does with their holy book.
I've mentioned before that I dabble in anthropology, and I find the idea that homosexuality as some kind of unnatural state to be high humor. Let's forget, for a moment, that I've already argued this point above. Let's ignore the facts I've already laid out... let's look at history for a moment. No, before Christ... No, before Rome... Keep going. Before the Greek city states... Approximately 10,000 years ago, around the time the first humans were making their way into the lower 48, there were gay people, but let's go further back than that. Consider the simple fruit fly. We've all heard anecdotal evidence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, but what if it was scientifically documented, and completely repeatable, in a significantly simple form of life, like Drosophila Melanogaster. Well... go click that link and read up on it. The fact that homosexuality is well documented, historically, in human cultures dating back to our earliest known forms simply cements the idea that, not only is this natural, it's been with us since life began on Earth. Which means homosexuality is an inevitable fact of sexually reproductive life forms.
The homosexuality debate, which really ought not be a debate at all at this point, is one of those cases where one side has facts, evidence, reason, logic, science, rationality and history, and the other side... Well, the other side has howler monkeys, picket signs, chest thumping, propaganda and morally ambiguous spokespeople.
Which side do you figure I'm on?
No, not gay people... I'm talking about the ignorant fuckers behind Prop 8 in California, Fred Phelps, Rush Limbaugh and all those other fuckers who cater to the knuckle-dragging masses. The people who like to quote Leviticus as their reasoning for being hate-mongers.
I'm probably going to end up using 'Fuck' a lot, in this post.
Lets run down the list of things being railed against by the 'Anti' crowd, so I can systematically tear them apart and feel better about myself afterwards. In no particular order:
- Homosexuality is a choice or a psychological defect
- Gay people detract from 'Family Values'
- Allowing same sex marriage would cause <insert horrible thing here>
- It's unnatural
I think I'll start with some pictures, since the other side of this argument isn't big on reading...
So, what we have here a series of MRI images showing the active centers of four different brains, in response to sexual stimulation. The full study can be found here. In this study, a group of Swedish scientists set about trying to find similarities between the active portion of different brains. 25 heterosexual men, 25 hetero women, 20 homosexual men and 20 homosexual women. What they found is pretty well illustrated above. Now, to a rational human being, this study would be enough to close the argument, but as soon you throw a bible in the mix, or start talking about 'God' people get all misty eyed and rational thinking gets tossed out the window. Happily, though, there are other avenues to this argument that even irrational fundamentalists can't just brush under the rug, even though they try.
Consider the climate in the world today. The average gay person is going to have to endure the kind of hate, abuse, discrimination and general ill-treatment, unheard of since the 1960's. We're talking about beatings, rape, harassment, picket lines at gay funerals (my favorite, since it's so damned classy), social stigma and general suspicion. And so-called 'sympathetic groups' aren't necessarily better, since using 'Gay Issues' is a great way to sway Democratic votes, and parading flaming homosexuals in front of some news cameras is a great photo-op if you're running for public office, and really need the liberals to come out for you. Does this sound like something a person would CHOOSE? And if it's psychological, it's a fucking pandemic of crazy on a scale rivaling the Bubonic Plague. We're talking about something on the order of six million people, in the U.S. alone, that have some kind of martyr complex. Some one said something once about eliminating the impossible to find the most probable solution. I think that applies here.
Family values seems a laughable point, considering who it is that's bringing it up. The guys are basically closet homosexuals, or adulterers, and they're grandstanding about 'Family Values'? Are you fucking joking? Even so, let's look at it seriously. What about two gay men, or women, fucking is so damned threatening to the rest of the world's 'Values'? I'm honestly confused by this argument, because in the same breath they're saying that it's acceptable for the majority to discriminate against, condemn and protest against an entire group of people simply because they don't fuck how we do. Where's the logic here? I know, I'm asking a lot, but... seriously? Which is a greater moral issue? Two adults having sex in a committed relationship, or violating the basic human rights of several million people?
Marriage... we're honestly arguing about this as a culture. Other countries have gotten over it, and moved on. Some states have pulled their heads out of their asses and figured out that the counter argument is bullshit. Despite these facts, there's still a large enough group of people in MOST states to make the idea uncomfortable to address on a national level. So, what the fuck is marriage anyway? I'm going to have to throw out gender, because the issue here is that the people who would be entering into a newly defined form of marriage would both have the same gender. Not that I give a shit about whether or not people have interlocking groins. The most basic definition of marriage is simply a legally binding commitment between two people who love each other who have chosen to say to the world that they're going to be together for the foreseeable future, and aren't going to fuck other people. On a civil level, that little piece of paper also confers a good deal of power and rights to one's partner, as well as allowing the couple to file joint tax returns, access one another's personal information and in the event of some medical emergencies, make important decisions in the best interest of their spouse. Y'know what? Fine... don't call it marriage, call it a 'Civil Union', what ever, but the issue isn't religious. The issue is civil. The religious argument is rendered invalid by the Bill of Rights, and our guaranteed separation of church and state. You don't get to dictate the legislative process with your Bible any more than anyone else does with their holy book.
I've mentioned before that I dabble in anthropology, and I find the idea that homosexuality as some kind of unnatural state to be high humor. Let's forget, for a moment, that I've already argued this point above. Let's ignore the facts I've already laid out... let's look at history for a moment. No, before Christ... No, before Rome... Keep going. Before the Greek city states... Approximately 10,000 years ago, around the time the first humans were making their way into the lower 48, there were gay people, but let's go further back than that. Consider the simple fruit fly. We've all heard anecdotal evidence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, but what if it was scientifically documented, and completely repeatable, in a significantly simple form of life, like Drosophila Melanogaster. Well... go click that link and read up on it. The fact that homosexuality is well documented, historically, in human cultures dating back to our earliest known forms simply cements the idea that, not only is this natural, it's been with us since life began on Earth. Which means homosexuality is an inevitable fact of sexually reproductive life forms.
The homosexuality debate, which really ought not be a debate at all at this point, is one of those cases where one side has facts, evidence, reason, logic, science, rationality and history, and the other side... Well, the other side has howler monkeys, picket signs, chest thumping, propaganda and morally ambiguous spokespeople.
Which side do you figure I'm on?
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Atheism: See, now here's the problem with that...
I've never been one to tip-toe around a subject, but it strikes me that I've been doing precisely that for two thirds of my previous posts, so let me get right into this and lay my cards on the table.
Earlier today, I used the following quote to help elaborate on my stance regarding the relationship between science and religion:
"There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance." -- `Abdu'l-Bahá (The full article can be found here)
I think this kind of scratches the surface of the whole 'Atheism v. Theism' debate. As I see it, there are some fundamental flaws in the Atheist position on the matter. First, the argument presented is that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own. (Quoted from American Atheists)Which is often simplified (overly so) to mean 'Since we cannot prove with science that God exists, God must not exist' which is an argument from ignorance, in it's most essential form. Using this logic, we assume that science will never be able to prove that God (in some form or definition) can possibly exist.
As a counter-point to this, I like Arthur C. Clarke's statement on technology and magic... "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Which, in essence, is saying that, any culture which lacks the sophistication to comprehend a thing using logic and reason will explain it in whatever terms it has available. Thus, religion was born to explain those things that logic and reason cannot, and assuming that we have reached the level of technological sophistication to be able to quantify and rationalize every occurrence that has happened, will happen or is currently happening is arrogant in the extreme. We barely understand our own consciousness, much less the universe we live in.
Which brings me to my next point... Stuart Hameroff, a researcher on the subject of Quantum Consciousness, where in the idea of a pre-existant consciousness (proto-conscious) begins to take shape. Now, I'm not a scientist, but I fancy myself as smart enough to comprehend a thing or two. Hameroff presents ideas in the above linked article explaining how and when consciousness might have evolved, and it's a damn sight earlier in Earth's history that was previously suggested. In other circles (nothing I've found suggests that Hameroff himself supports the following) the idea of a pre-existant consciousness is expanded to include the theory that 'God' is not a single omnipotent being with a single omnipresent and omniscious consciousness, but instead that what we grubby creatures refer to as 'God' is actually a collective consciousness made up of every individual consciousness that has ever been, existing as a function of the quantum interactions of the microtubules that make up the smallest pieces of a living brain. Simplified, the universe itself is aware and conscious, and our consciousness is simply the inevitable result of that awareness.
This flies in the face of the Atheist argument, however, because it would mean that the 'Supernatural' is, in fact, 'Natural' and essential to life and the universe. My religious beliefs (interestingly enough) actually dove-tail nicely with the conclusions in the above paragraph.
Now, here's the kicker... My faith teaches me to respect the right to believe as one chooses and to love my fellow man as I love myself, and to never NEVER (under any circumstances) imply that some one else is some how condemned because they believe something different than I do.
On the other hand, in spite of a few beautiful statements and monologues given by some more vocal members of the Atheist community, the prevailing opinion that I personally have encountered is closer to Frank R. Zindler who says things like, "We must revoke the evolutionary curse that nature laid upon us when it created religion," or, even more confrontational statements that I'll also quote. "[Atheism] shall work ceaselessly and with all its energy resources to bring about the liberation of the human mind, to free religion’s prisoners, and to find cures for all the varieties of that most deadly disease, religiosity." How is this less inflammatory than statements made by Fred Phelps? Or Rush Limbaugh? or other members of the fundamentalist religious right? Religion is a deadly disease? No... ignorance, intolerance, hate and discrimination are diseases (communicable and hereditary). Religion is, at worst, used to justify horrible occurrences of these. At its best, religion is a the cure for them. The problem is how the message is interpreted, but too many people of faith choose to let some one else do their reading for them and refuse to draw their own conclusions.
Ignorance, in any form, is a dangerous thing.
Earlier today, I used the following quote to help elaborate on my stance regarding the relationship between science and religion:
"There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance." -- `Abdu'l-Bahá (The full article can be found here)
I think this kind of scratches the surface of the whole 'Atheism v. Theism' debate. As I see it, there are some fundamental flaws in the Atheist position on the matter. First, the argument presented is that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own. (Quoted from American Atheists)Which is often simplified (overly so) to mean 'Since we cannot prove with science that God exists, God must not exist' which is an argument from ignorance, in it's most essential form. Using this logic, we assume that science will never be able to prove that God (in some form or definition) can possibly exist.
As a counter-point to this, I like Arthur C. Clarke's statement on technology and magic... "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Which, in essence, is saying that, any culture which lacks the sophistication to comprehend a thing using logic and reason will explain it in whatever terms it has available. Thus, religion was born to explain those things that logic and reason cannot, and assuming that we have reached the level of technological sophistication to be able to quantify and rationalize every occurrence that has happened, will happen or is currently happening is arrogant in the extreme. We barely understand our own consciousness, much less the universe we live in.
Which brings me to my next point... Stuart Hameroff, a researcher on the subject of Quantum Consciousness, where in the idea of a pre-existant consciousness (proto-conscious) begins to take shape. Now, I'm not a scientist, but I fancy myself as smart enough to comprehend a thing or two. Hameroff presents ideas in the above linked article explaining how and when consciousness might have evolved, and it's a damn sight earlier in Earth's history that was previously suggested. In other circles (nothing I've found suggests that Hameroff himself supports the following) the idea of a pre-existant consciousness is expanded to include the theory that 'God' is not a single omnipotent being with a single omnipresent and omniscious consciousness, but instead that what we grubby creatures refer to as 'God' is actually a collective consciousness made up of every individual consciousness that has ever been, existing as a function of the quantum interactions of the microtubules that make up the smallest pieces of a living brain. Simplified, the universe itself is aware and conscious, and our consciousness is simply the inevitable result of that awareness.
This flies in the face of the Atheist argument, however, because it would mean that the 'Supernatural' is, in fact, 'Natural' and essential to life and the universe. My religious beliefs (interestingly enough) actually dove-tail nicely with the conclusions in the above paragraph.
Now, here's the kicker... My faith teaches me to respect the right to believe as one chooses and to love my fellow man as I love myself, and to never NEVER (under any circumstances) imply that some one else is some how condemned because they believe something different than I do.
On the other hand, in spite of a few beautiful statements and monologues given by some more vocal members of the Atheist community, the prevailing opinion that I personally have encountered is closer to Frank R. Zindler who says things like, "We must revoke the evolutionary curse that nature laid upon us when it created religion," or, even more confrontational statements that I'll also quote. "[Atheism] shall work ceaselessly and with all its energy resources to bring about the liberation of the human mind, to free religion’s prisoners, and to find cures for all the varieties of that most deadly disease, religiosity." How is this less inflammatory than statements made by Fred Phelps? Or Rush Limbaugh? or other members of the fundamentalist religious right? Religion is a deadly disease? No... ignorance, intolerance, hate and discrimination are diseases (communicable and hereditary). Religion is, at worst, used to justify horrible occurrences of these. At its best, religion is a the cure for them. The problem is how the message is interpreted, but too many people of faith choose to let some one else do their reading for them and refuse to draw their own conclusions.
Ignorance, in any form, is a dangerous thing.
Pure Creationism V. Pure Evolotuion: Who's the Bigger Moron
I mentioned in my first post that this is one of those arguments where I fall into an interestingly grey area. On one side of the argument you'll find a great deal of intolerance, ranting, name calling and histrionics... and the Creationists are pretty goddamn ignorant too.
I feel the need to start out with a warning. A lot of the faults and flaws I'm going to bring up are sweeping generalizations. I recognize that there are people in the ID (Intelligent Design) camp that are tolerant, educated and well spoken, but they usually can't be heard over the shouting howler monkeys that take the lead and pound the drums. I recognize, as well, that there are individuals within the Pure Evolution fold who are not militant atheists, and who accept the right of the individual to believe as they choose... They just don't get as much press as, say... Bill Maher. Not that I have a problem with Bill Maher, he's fucking hilarious and I see value in a lot of the arguments he presents on a lot of different issues. Just not on religion.
As a student of anthropology (once upon a time) the necessity of evolution and adaptation are obvious to me. By the same token, as a student of anthropology and of world religions, the existance of some creative 'force' is obvious as well. And while science has yet to be able to prove, with conclusive evidence, in favor of either side of the argument neither side will easily concede that fact. Either that the existance of a 'God' type entity cannot be disproven (because you can't prove a negative), or that the mechanism of evolution could have manifested without an omnipotent nudge in the right direction.
We'll start with Pure Evolution, because these arrogant motherfuckers piss me off to no end.
The crux of this argument seems to be (remember, I said there would be sweeping generalizations) that:
Life + Time = Sentience
Regardless of form, source, basic make-up, the manifestation of sentient life is a forgone conclusion, once the most basic form of life manifests. As a counter argument to creationism, this seems flawed. First, it gives no basis for a denial of a 'creator' entity. It's a simple enough formula, and leaves a lot of unanswered questions. We know that single celled organisms adapt over a few million generations, to suit their environment. Long-term adaptation by an individual species is fact. The fossil record proves it. It's repeatable. We can see it in a few months with bacteria that reproduce at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than multi-cellular life, we'll call this micro-evolution. The problem is, with multi-cellular life, as an organism becomes more complex, the apparent signs of adaptation takes longer, we'll call this macro-evolution. Micro-evolution takes days, months, and years. Macro-evolution takes thousands of years, at the minimum, in order for natural selection and adaptation to a new environment to become obvious to the observer. I've digressed, but there's the essence of it. So what about this pisses me off? Well... the simple answer is... nothing, really. It's logical, it's simple, and it's elegant. With this basic idea, I have no problem with the idea that life evolved in all its current forms from simpler forms, back to the muck that spawned the first wriggly amoeba.
What galls me is the idea that acceptance of the science of evolution apparently precludes religious faith. I've had arguments, vehement and vitriolic arguments, with militant atheists who insisted that I could not possibly believe in God and accept evolution at the same time. Like some how the two are mutually exclusive ideas. These are the people that I loathe. A closed mind is an ignorant mind, regardless of education or beliefs. Fine! Fuck it! You don't believe in God. Good for you. Welcome to America. Now shut the fuck up and put on your goddamn helmet.
One of the beautiful things about living in the time we live in, especially those of us who enjoy citizenship in countries that have legislation guranteeing religious freedom, is that we are free to believe (or not believe) whatever the fuck we want. You can believe in nothingness after death, and random chance as being responsible for everything that happens. That's fine, but don't tell me that I'm being irrational because I choose to believe in a creative force in the universe that predates creation. The theory of evolution, in this case macro-evolution, can be no more solidly proven than the existance of a 'God-Construct', for lack of a better term, which actually has a number of serious scientists working on it. The difference is, my belief has the potential to be proven. Yours doesn't, because a negative can't be proven with scientific method. Again, though, I digress from my point.
The other side of this matter doesn't win any prizes in my head either. There's nothing I can say to redeem a group of people who will shout themselves red-faced, prostelatizing that 'God Did It!' or that dinosaur fossils are here to test our faith, or worse, that cave men rode them. Vehemently rejecting an idea does not make you right.
Once again, the crux of this argument, from my point of view, seems to be:
God + ??? = People
Now, I'm no math major, and I fucking hate algebra, but even from where I'm sitting there's obviously something out of place here. I understand that 'Faith' by definition requires some one to believe in something without NEEDING proof. I'm fine with that, but not being able to reconcile one's faith with irrefutable science makes you look like a screetching gibbon. Complete with poo-flinging and chest thumping. Belief in a creator entity is all well and good. Hell, I'm a man of faith myself, but my faith tells me that science and religion not only can agree, but MUST agree.
My favorite quote on the matter is: "There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance." -- `Abdu'l-Bahá
Anyone who cares to make a salient argument with me might do well to research the source of that quote, and get back to me.
In essence, what you're pounding on is becoming superstition, because you refuse to accept that there might be an alternate explanation to what some guy in a dress told you was so. News flash... clergy aren't special. They're just people. Even the Pope is just 'Some Guy'. Granted, he's 'Some Guy' in a pretty epic hat, but he's still just a guy... AND EVEN HE ACCEPTS EVOLUTION! How is this even still an argument. The highest ranking member of the largest single religion on Earth accepts evolution... End of argument! If you're still up in the air on this, I'd like to offer you some real estate under some high voltage electrical wires... Hopefully they sterilize you.
Once again, an closed mind is an ignorant mind. I don't care if you believe in Allah, Buddah, Zoroasterism, Juddaism, Christ, Muhammed, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or nothing at all. If you let that BELIEF (yes, even Atheism is a belief) prevent you from accepting an alternate point of view that can be supported with logical and well formed ideas... you're showing your ignorance. The Atheist chest thumping AGAINST religion is no less ill-concieved than the Religious Fundamentalist chest thumping FOR religion... but that's a blog for another day.
In the end, believe what you want, but accept that you don't know everything, and that neither science nor religion has managed yet to fully explain everything.
I feel the need to start out with a warning. A lot of the faults and flaws I'm going to bring up are sweeping generalizations. I recognize that there are people in the ID (Intelligent Design) camp that are tolerant, educated and well spoken, but they usually can't be heard over the shouting howler monkeys that take the lead and pound the drums. I recognize, as well, that there are individuals within the Pure Evolution fold who are not militant atheists, and who accept the right of the individual to believe as they choose... They just don't get as much press as, say... Bill Maher. Not that I have a problem with Bill Maher, he's fucking hilarious and I see value in a lot of the arguments he presents on a lot of different issues. Just not on religion.
As a student of anthropology (once upon a time) the necessity of evolution and adaptation are obvious to me. By the same token, as a student of anthropology and of world religions, the existance of some creative 'force' is obvious as well. And while science has yet to be able to prove, with conclusive evidence, in favor of either side of the argument neither side will easily concede that fact. Either that the existance of a 'God' type entity cannot be disproven (because you can't prove a negative), or that the mechanism of evolution could have manifested without an omnipotent nudge in the right direction.
We'll start with Pure Evolution, because these arrogant motherfuckers piss me off to no end.
The crux of this argument seems to be (remember, I said there would be sweeping generalizations) that:
Life + Time = Sentience
Regardless of form, source, basic make-up, the manifestation of sentient life is a forgone conclusion, once the most basic form of life manifests. As a counter argument to creationism, this seems flawed. First, it gives no basis for a denial of a 'creator' entity. It's a simple enough formula, and leaves a lot of unanswered questions. We know that single celled organisms adapt over a few million generations, to suit their environment. Long-term adaptation by an individual species is fact. The fossil record proves it. It's repeatable. We can see it in a few months with bacteria that reproduce at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than multi-cellular life, we'll call this micro-evolution. The problem is, with multi-cellular life, as an organism becomes more complex, the apparent signs of adaptation takes longer, we'll call this macro-evolution. Micro-evolution takes days, months, and years. Macro-evolution takes thousands of years, at the minimum, in order for natural selection and adaptation to a new environment to become obvious to the observer. I've digressed, but there's the essence of it. So what about this pisses me off? Well... the simple answer is... nothing, really. It's logical, it's simple, and it's elegant. With this basic idea, I have no problem with the idea that life evolved in all its current forms from simpler forms, back to the muck that spawned the first wriggly amoeba.
What galls me is the idea that acceptance of the science of evolution apparently precludes religious faith. I've had arguments, vehement and vitriolic arguments, with militant atheists who insisted that I could not possibly believe in God and accept evolution at the same time. Like some how the two are mutually exclusive ideas. These are the people that I loathe. A closed mind is an ignorant mind, regardless of education or beliefs. Fine! Fuck it! You don't believe in God. Good for you. Welcome to America. Now shut the fuck up and put on your goddamn helmet.
One of the beautiful things about living in the time we live in, especially those of us who enjoy citizenship in countries that have legislation guranteeing religious freedom, is that we are free to believe (or not believe) whatever the fuck we want. You can believe in nothingness after death, and random chance as being responsible for everything that happens. That's fine, but don't tell me that I'm being irrational because I choose to believe in a creative force in the universe that predates creation. The theory of evolution, in this case macro-evolution, can be no more solidly proven than the existance of a 'God-Construct', for lack of a better term, which actually has a number of serious scientists working on it. The difference is, my belief has the potential to be proven. Yours doesn't, because a negative can't be proven with scientific method. Again, though, I digress from my point.
The other side of this matter doesn't win any prizes in my head either. There's nothing I can say to redeem a group of people who will shout themselves red-faced, prostelatizing that 'God Did It!' or that dinosaur fossils are here to test our faith, or worse, that cave men rode them. Vehemently rejecting an idea does not make you right.
Once again, the crux of this argument, from my point of view, seems to be:
God + ??? = People
Now, I'm no math major, and I fucking hate algebra, but even from where I'm sitting there's obviously something out of place here. I understand that 'Faith' by definition requires some one to believe in something without NEEDING proof. I'm fine with that, but not being able to reconcile one's faith with irrefutable science makes you look like a screetching gibbon. Complete with poo-flinging and chest thumping. Belief in a creator entity is all well and good. Hell, I'm a man of faith myself, but my faith tells me that science and religion not only can agree, but MUST agree.
My favorite quote on the matter is: "There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance." -- `Abdu'l-Bahá
Anyone who cares to make a salient argument with me might do well to research the source of that quote, and get back to me.
In essence, what you're pounding on is becoming superstition, because you refuse to accept that there might be an alternate explanation to what some guy in a dress told you was so. News flash... clergy aren't special. They're just people. Even the Pope is just 'Some Guy'. Granted, he's 'Some Guy' in a pretty epic hat, but he's still just a guy... AND EVEN HE ACCEPTS EVOLUTION! How is this even still an argument. The highest ranking member of the largest single religion on Earth accepts evolution... End of argument! If you're still up in the air on this, I'd like to offer you some real estate under some high voltage electrical wires... Hopefully they sterilize you.
Once again, an closed mind is an ignorant mind. I don't care if you believe in Allah, Buddah, Zoroasterism, Juddaism, Christ, Muhammed, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or nothing at all. If you let that BELIEF (yes, even Atheism is a belief) prevent you from accepting an alternate point of view that can be supported with logical and well formed ideas... you're showing your ignorance. The Atheist chest thumping AGAINST religion is no less ill-concieved than the Religious Fundamentalist chest thumping FOR religion... but that's a blog for another day.
In the end, believe what you want, but accept that you don't know everything, and that neither science nor religion has managed yet to fully explain everything.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Fuck You Al Gore ...
We all know who he is, and we all remember some of his memorable moments: Claiming to have invented the internet. Sitting like a wooden statue through 8 years of the Clinton Administration. Somehow earning a Nobel Prize for a Power Point presentation.
Fuck that guy.
Don't misunderstand, I'm quite aware that without Al Gore helping to spearhead legislation, today's internet would probably be a very different place. He really was instrumental in getting us to where we are today. I also know that he did the Climate Change movement a great service by slapping his name onto 'An Inconvenient Truth' and parading around like a dancing bear. Despite these things, I'll say it again... Fuck you Al Gore.
Here we are, hip-deep in what has been theorized to be the most critical point in preventing the eventual warming effect that will result in wide-spread flooding and the eventual end of life as we know it, and this chuckle-head is on a no-name network, being a talking head for the Iowa Caucuses, which begs the question...
What happened to climate change?
Did the Republican Presidential nomination suddenly take precedence over the planet? Did we fix it and no one bothered to tell me?
It's actually moments like this that I'm proud to distance myself from both sides of that aisle. I don't have to tow either party's line, and I can sit here and point out the flaws in all of them.
In the conservative ranks, there's a huge call to simply ignore the possibility that we (humanity) has broken the planet. Climate Change is just junk science anyway, right guys? There's no evidence to support it... except that it's not, and there is.
On the liberal side of the political island, the leadership is too damned limp-wristed to act on any of the facts already in evidence. Fantastic! A former VP stood up and gave a speech a bunch of times... how about some legislation, fellas? Why didn't you folks make use of that majority you had in Congress and force the legislation through. No where is Congress required to have 2/3rds majority. Except when the Democrats have the reins.
All we ever get out of any of the asshole politicians are excuses. "We can't because of X, Y, oh and don't forget about Z and baby Jesus, because God told us we could." I've read the bible, and I don't remember anything in there saying that some white assholes begin given permission to rape the planet into another ice age.
It's a sad fact of how Americans are raised to see the world that, unless something directly impacts us in a major way, we really don't get up in arms about it. People in the Great Lakes region didn't get pissed off about Katrina, or the Oil Spill last year, or the outbreaks of tornadoes this past spring. People in California didn't shed a tear for the New England region when a hurricane caught them grossly unprepared.
Maybe if we hosed down every front yard in America with crude oil, or flooded everyone's living room, then they'd get the goddamn message. Until then, I don't think the capitalist machine is going to slow down. It'll just keep on dry humping the atmosphere until the damned thing goes dry as a tired hooker, who is so tired of being abused that she pulls out her .38 and empties all six chambers into the sick fucker who called her a whore for the last fucking time.
Which reminds me of a joke...
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
...
OH MY GOD!! PLEASE DON'T KILL ME!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PUT THE KNIFE DOWN!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHH!!
Fuck that guy.
Don't misunderstand, I'm quite aware that without Al Gore helping to spearhead legislation, today's internet would probably be a very different place. He really was instrumental in getting us to where we are today. I also know that he did the Climate Change movement a great service by slapping his name onto 'An Inconvenient Truth' and parading around like a dancing bear. Despite these things, I'll say it again... Fuck you Al Gore.
Here we are, hip-deep in what has been theorized to be the most critical point in preventing the eventual warming effect that will result in wide-spread flooding and the eventual end of life as we know it, and this chuckle-head is on a no-name network, being a talking head for the Iowa Caucuses, which begs the question...
What happened to climate change?
Did the Republican Presidential nomination suddenly take precedence over the planet? Did we fix it and no one bothered to tell me?
It's actually moments like this that I'm proud to distance myself from both sides of that aisle. I don't have to tow either party's line, and I can sit here and point out the flaws in all of them.
In the conservative ranks, there's a huge call to simply ignore the possibility that we (humanity) has broken the planet. Climate Change is just junk science anyway, right guys? There's no evidence to support it... except that it's not, and there is.
On the liberal side of the political island, the leadership is too damned limp-wristed to act on any of the facts already in evidence. Fantastic! A former VP stood up and gave a speech a bunch of times... how about some legislation, fellas? Why didn't you folks make use of that majority you had in Congress and force the legislation through. No where is Congress required to have 2/3rds majority. Except when the Democrats have the reins.
All we ever get out of any of the asshole politicians are excuses. "We can't because of X, Y, oh and don't forget about Z and baby Jesus, because God told us we could." I've read the bible, and I don't remember anything in there saying that some white assholes begin given permission to rape the planet into another ice age.
It's a sad fact of how Americans are raised to see the world that, unless something directly impacts us in a major way, we really don't get up in arms about it. People in the Great Lakes region didn't get pissed off about Katrina, or the Oil Spill last year, or the outbreaks of tornadoes this past spring. People in California didn't shed a tear for the New England region when a hurricane caught them grossly unprepared.
Maybe if we hosed down every front yard in America with crude oil, or flooded everyone's living room, then they'd get the goddamn message. Until then, I don't think the capitalist machine is going to slow down. It'll just keep on dry humping the atmosphere until the damned thing goes dry as a tired hooker, who is so tired of being abused that she pulls out her .38 and empties all six chambers into the sick fucker who called her a whore for the last fucking time.
Which reminds me of a joke...
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
...
OH MY GOD!! PLEASE DON'T KILL ME!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PUT THE KNIFE DOWN!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHH!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)