My One Wish

If I had but one wish.  And in that one wish I could have anything at all.  I would wish that all who believe in an afterlife would be taken to something resembling there imagined afterlife immediately.  I would wish that they would disappear from this earth for all time, never to return.  And that no one who believed in an afterlife would ever live here again.

And if the meant that I would stand alone, as the only human inhabitant of Earth for the rest of my days then I would be OK with that.  And if it meant that there would be just be others here on Earth who believe that this is the one and only life they will ever live, I would take my chance with them before I would live as we do now.  Because I believe that the world would be a better place without gods, without belief in gods, without belief in a life after death.

We ain't so smart

Much like the difference between the linear processing used by a computer and the, let’s say ‘holographic’ thought process of the human brain, which has kept computers from out ‘thinking’, read that as processing if you like, us and kept us from having to recognize robots and their computer brains as anything close to human.  The Aliens that have the ability to get to Earth have no reason to recognize us until we get our physics together.  We know a lot about our physical world but a unified theory of physics isn't even on the horizon.  In comparison to alien life forms that have the ability to travel between galaxies we are in physics infancy.  It seems obvious to me that there is a level of physics understanding that has so far alluded us.

The interstellar Aliens may be keeping an eye on us but they probably don’t have to.  Once we figure out physics, come up with the unified theory and start inter galactic travel, it will be obvious that we have ‘come of age’. 

And there is no reason for aliens to ‘take over the Earth’ when there are millions, if not billions of unpopulated, habitable planets out there, for adventurous Aliens that have mastered intergalactic travel, that don’t have the pollution problems they find here.

If we end up killing ourselves off they may wonder down to pick through the rubble, but I doubt it.  ‘There’s nothing to see here folks.  Now just move along.’

Advise

Do not invest in the installation of mega electronics projects, because by the time they are completed they will be obsolete.

Instead invest in small tools that accomplish big things because they are very rare.  In general it takes big tools to accomplish big things.

If you don't like the way something is done search for small tools.

Metaphor

I have been reading "A Kierkegaard Anthology" edited by Robert Bretall.  It's just bits and pieces of stuff SK wrote, put more or less in chronological order, but it is an easy way for me to get a feel for what SK thought.

One selection in the anthology is titled 'Purity of Heart' and in it SK writes: 

"When a man meets his death by drowning, as he sinks, without being quite dead he comes to the surface again.  At last a bubble comes out of his mouth.  When this has happened, then he sinks, dead.  That bubble was the last breath, the last supply of air that could make him lighter than the sea.  So with that remark.  In that remark the last hope of salvation expired.  In that last remark he gave himself up."  

And in the next paragraph he continues:

"But this coolness is still more horrible: that, in the anxiety of death, a man should not cry out for help, "I am going under, save me"; but that he should quietly choose to be a witness to his own destruction!"

I was struck both by how SK described death without salvation and his amazement that it happens.  It seems to haunt him.

I hope you enjoyed my selection.

What If

What if there were no humans, no belief in the infinite, no passion?   Would god exist?  Is belief in god, god’s existence?  Does god exist because someone believes, because someone prays?  Is god’s existence merely subjective faith?  What does the existence of humankind mean to god?

Or is there an objective god and if so what purpose does faith serve?  It seems to me that if there is an objective, all powerful god which created everything, such a god would have had to have been here before time began and surely it would also have to continue to be here once time ends.  An objective, all powerful god should know everything, all that has ever been and all that will ever be.  Or is the objective god limited, evolving, just a more advanced expression of humanity?  And in all that this objective god knows, are there multiple outcomes for my life?  If so, this could mean that there are more outcomes than can be imagined by my, or any other comparably puny human mind.  Or does the objective god only know the one outcome of each life.  Is the single fate of every tree, every dog, every grain of sand, known?  What if your prayers do not amend the outcome of your life?  And if there is an objective god why is faith even an issue?  Why wouldn’t an objective god make itself known and stop sectarian violence?

If there is only one outcome for each life, why pray?  If you pray, you believe in free will and the power of prayer to influence the future.  If there is only one outcome for each life, is prayer merely an avowal of faith to a subjective god?  And if prayer is merely an avowal of faith in a subjective god, doesn’t god already know whether or not you believe and nothing is gained by prayer?  I understand why it is written that praying to a false idle is condemned but I don’t understand why ‘not praying at all’ is also condemned.  Is it because if no one prays, believes, has faith, god ceases to exist?

What if humans, as the only fully rational and self-aware creatures on Earth, are a mistake, an aberration, a miscalculation, a screw up, a fluke, an evolutionary faux-pa, a squinch in a world created for some other purpose, a destructive byproduct, a side effect?  What if rational thought is just an implied space, a side effect of something useful that is in itself destructive and/or counterproductive, an experiment gone badly, if you will?  What if the real purpose of existence is the balance of all life on Earth?  And what if it can only be recovered once all humans are gone?

What if we cannot know if something is true?  How would we know that we do not know and even cannot know truth?  What if truth is more or maybe less than just congruence between what we think and what we experience?  If we can know truth, how would we know that we do know truth?  If facts are true, are there truths that are not facts, subjective truths?  What if it does not matter if we know truth?  What if it does not matter what we believe?  What if it does not matter what we have faith in?

It is one thing to believe in or have faith in something that you know to exist, like “I believe the sun will rise tomorrow”.  But having faith in the absurd; in that which you cannot know to be true, cannot experience, cannot prove, is quite another thing.

One of Ten

"There are perhaps ten people who have the patience to read what I have expounded above, and scarcely one man in the kingdom who would take the trouble to compose anything like it; which last, however, in one way consoles me, for if everybody can do it, if the work is mere routine, contract-writing by the sheet, then it becomes precisely my merit to have done what all can do (this is the humiliating feature of it for the weak human heart), but which no one else cares to do." Soren Kierkegaard CONCLUDING UNSCIENTIFIC POSTSCRIPT TO THE "PHILOSOPHICAL FRAGMENTS"

Faith in the Absurd is Comforting

Believing in an omniscient, ever present being makes life easier.  Belief; steadfast, ever-present belief in god, is a subjective and unchangeable focal point that calms.  This focal point does not vary.  It does not change. It is the constant that can always be counted on.  Without this focal point, life is precarious, unstable, out of control.  Without this subjective focal point there is much to fear.  All can be lost in an instant.  Everything of value, everyone you hold dear can be taken from you without recompense.  In an instant you can be abandoned, alone without subjective faith.

Why Does Good Always Win?

Good people and the ‘good’ societies/cultures/communities, they make up, treat other good people as they wish to be treated.  This good relationship is the foundation for the community.  One outcome of giving others the respect they deserve is that it makes it more likely the respected people will do as asked without their compliance being dependent upon coercion.  An additional benefit to being good to others within your group is that it adds to the cohesiveness of the group.  Cohesive members of a good community are easily motivated, with honest facts, to the support of a good cause.

If you lead as though others are replaceable objects or non-rational animals; beasts, if you will, your followers will only do what you want so long as they believe doing so affords them an advantage.  Dehumanized subjects will not do as you ask for altruistic reasons.  They may carry out your orders for a bribe or maybe they will do what you want just for the payment of services rendered.  Once you run out of rewards, people who feel objectified and/or disrespected (you are not treating them as you expect to be treated) have no further reason to do as you demand.  The same goes for trading their work or goods for promises of power or valuable objects, they will only trade their services or goods for what you can deliver not just what you promise.

The advantage objectified people see, in doing what you want, may be their continued good health; you may be able to threaten them or their loved ones with social ridicule, unacceptable levels of anxiety, injury, or death, to get them to comply with your wishes.  But if they find a more powerful overlord they no longer have a reason to do as you ask and they may even exact retribution for the threatened or actual harm you have done them.

Oppressed people may find incentive to do as you demand in the form of a common threat you make them aware of.  The threat can be either real or something you have imagined, and if all you have to control them is this threat, once the threat no longer exists, either because a real threat has been overcome or because a fictitious threat has been revealed as existing only in your mind, your coerced underlings will move on.

A group motivated by coercion often takes the initial advantage because it is quicker to buy or bully followers into supporting a cause then it is to gather followers through the spread of true information and good will.  But coerced groups are unstable and fall apart as soon as the perceived benefit is gone or the leader is removed.

Coerced groups are very expensive to maintain, consuming far more resources than a group of altruistic, true believers.  A group built on truth and mutual respect is stable and can easily grow with little cost. A group built on lies and coercion, misrepresented facts or fantasy, is impossible to maintain for long without a huge outpouring of resources.

Bribes, threats, lies, punishments all can coerce people into action but they cannot buy ongoing, altruistic loyalty the way truth and respect does.  Negative treatment cannot induce the altruistic sacrifice of one’s life.  Against a coerced group that has a temporary advantage, the fight of the ‘good’ people for their ‘good’ cause, can prevail even if their numbers never reach the level of their foes because the good people will willingly fight to their death in support of the truth.

If the leader of a coerced group is removed the next in line will be difficult to select because the old leader’s ideology will become fragmented as the old ideology is reinterpreted by others and the new rules are made clear by the new leaders.  Once the old leader is gone the group will break off into small factions and those factions will go their own way.  On the other hand, who the leader of the true believers is, to a certain extent, is inconsequential.  The group is not fulfilling the leader’s goals; the leader is helping the group to fulfill their goals, regardless of what the leader may want.  True believers merely need an individual to organize the cause and in fact there may be no individual leader of the true believers.  There may just be a group of people chosen for their individual skills that guides the group to its goal.

There has never been and can never be a large, cohesive, and homogeneous group that is based upon class, gender, race, religious belief, economic standing or regional affiliation.  There will always be outliers, dissenters, egomaniacs and people who merely feel marginalized by the leaders.  There will always be people who do not fully support the ruling members of these artificially defined groups.  And if these outliers are forcibly removed, others, who were marginally aligned with the ruling class but now question that alignment, will also leave.  They saw value in the people who were removed and they will shy away from the powerful because of their act of violence against people who some believe have done nothing to deserve such harsh treatment.  As the ruling class becomes more cohesive this shedding of marginal members will continue until there is a full-fledged revolt or the ruling class may become the minority and then they can be removed or made irrelevant by the new power elite.

The only principles that will never disappear are those built on facts and the humane treatment of one person for another.  And to the extent that respect for each individual is extended to all of humanity the group following these principles will grow and prosper.  Think of it this way, if you belonged to a powerful group and the leader killed or at the very least, censured or banished someone that you felt close to.  Someone you knew was basically a good person, would you feel safe?  Wouldn’t you feel like you were also in danger of exclusion?  Would you follow or even want to belong to this group when you have every reason to believe that you could be next to be purged?  When one group of people or the leader of a group treats a good person as an object, it threatens everyone in the group, and no one can feel safe.

There are present-day examples of societies built on fear, like North Korea.  It is a totalitarian state where even the relatives of the leader are not safe.  And there are other examples of the abuse of good people, such as the LGBT community in Russia, India and Uganda, where they can be imprisoned or killed for their sexual orientation, or even their support of the LGBT community, it’s the law.  There are other examples of abuse in the Far East, Middle East and Africa, where women and female children are oppressed, abused, mutilated and murdered, legally, it’s the law.

My point isn’t that there are no, nor have never been any, abuses of human rights, or even that today, there are none in our country, I’m not so naïve as to believe that or that there will ever be a time when all individuals treat others inhumanly.  I am trying to build a case for the eventual demise of all inhumane leaders, groups and societies.  Slowly, very slowly, the oppression of minority beliefs, individuals and groups is withering under the global scrutiny of those who treat all humans with dignity, who treat all humans as they, themselves wish to be treated and then expect just treatment for others in return.  In this day of instantaneous, global, electronic media; local, abusive laws, rules and customs are coming under review by the free world and the oppressed are gaining recognition as people who are not being treated as equals.  The marginalized people within these communities are seeing that there is a path to freedom from oppression because they see others being respected and they are speaking out against their inhumane treatment and that of their fellow citizens.

When I treat you as I wish to be treated I give hope to every oppressed person who observes my actions.  And when the oppressed see my actions they begin to believe that they too deserve, and can someday get, respect and the opportunity to live in peace.  When our leaders speak out against inhumane treatment and support equal treatment for all, they give hope to all the oppressed who hear their voice.  And those oppressed people will fight for equal treatment for themselves and more importantly they will fight for equal treatment for their children and grandchildren.

The global expectation of equal treatment for all will come.  Not today or tomorrow, not this year or next year.  I do not expect it in my lifetime or my children’s lifetime or even during the lifetime of my grandchildren.  But humane treatment for all will come.  Before this happens many people will be imprisoned.  Many people will die.  Many people will be tortured.  Many, many people will be abused.  But this inhumane treatment does not go unnoticed and in the end, the good people who treat others with respect will win the ultimate battle as they always have won the lesser.  And in this new era where the humane treatment for all is expected and enforced, attempts to start new, abusive cultures, where one group treats another as objects, will not and cannot come into being, from the ashes of the old.

Everyone who reads this knows the qualities attributed to the angles from above.  And most have been asked to respond to the ‘angles of their better nature’ if not by Lincoln then by someone.  This means you become a calm, joyful person, who turns to the person next to you and then you treat them as you wish to be treated.  This is all it takes to be a good person.  It is simple, but it is not easy.

All life is not sacred.  Cows are not sacred.  Trees are not sacred.  But your life must be sacred, to you.  A person who respects their own life is powerful.  The relationships you make and maintain ARE sacred and stronger than any bonds that are coerced.

If you want to protect a tree from being removed climb it and live in it.  Your relationship to that tree demands it.  If you find a stray and you want to save its life.  Do so, and have a relationship with that stray that demands that you now honor your relationship.  If you go to war and you want to save the person next to you even though it puts your life in danger of paying the ultimate sacrifice, do so, how you feel about yourself demands it.  We must honor our own life and what we choose to do with it but we can’t impose our life’s needs on others.  Each of us must find the best use for our time on earth.

Good people always win, because they have mutually observed, sacred bonds with others.  Bonds built on trust and value.  Value your life.  Value the life of those around you and you will be on the side of the good.  And you will help good win.  If you break sacred bonds you will be alone.  No one will trust you.  And you will be lost.

Thank You John Locke

The rule of nature asserts that a human can protect themselves and their family by whatever means necessary and use the natural resources they find, to promote and protect themselves and their family.  This is all well and good while there is only one family on earth, and even then it becomes complicated when there is more than one child in that family.  If there is only one adult human on this planet and that adult is accompanied by a single partner it is unlikely that they will fight over resources.  Hopefully the Earth holds enough for the two of them to coexist peacefully.  If those two adults have four children, two male and two female, and the four children form partnerships and have children, it is still unlikely that the sibling couples will fight over resources, again, with the entire world to gather from.  But if they do, I think it is fair to assume that they can go to their parents to help them successfully resolve their disputes.  But as the years pass and the children’s, children’s, children’s, children whatever, become embroiled in disputes, at some point the Great-great-great-great-etc. first ever parents will be dead, or at the very least overburdened with duties, so they will not be able to settle every dispute, and at this point rules/laws will have to be laid down and judges will have to be appointed/elected and committees formed and punishments meted out and things will be very complicated.

Today, every inch of land is spoken for and all of the earth’s resources are coveted, and the rule of nature is no longer viable.  Today, to be safe and successful and to protect your family and the products of your labor you can’t just rely on yourself or your family, you have to belong to a group.  And to be accepted into a group you have to go by the group’s rules.  You can change groups if you wish but you can’t just ignore the group’s rules and expect them to protect you, and you can’t live on your own and make up your own rules.  It’s too late for that, even if your name is Adam and/or Eve.

So chose a group, learn the rules and work within the system to change what you disagree with or feel is no longer applicable, or just plain don’t like.  But don’t try to make up your own rules.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is being human different from being any other animal? Humans are born free, and humans believe that the rest are here to either serve humans or be resources for the promotion and well-being of humans.  Humans are born helpless and remain so for many years.  Like animals, humans are born irrational.  Because humans are born helpless children should expect to be sheltered, fed, protected and educated until they reach the age of reason.  All other animals are born irrational and to a great extent, stay that way.  As the product of their parents the burden of bringing up a child falls on the parent’s equally.  It is up to the parents to restrain and correct children when they act on their irrational impulses.

Adults are humans that have reached the age of reason and are expected to be rational.  They are responsible for themselves but can neither take their own life nor let someone else take their life.  Adults have the right and the duty to take what they need from nature to prosper and protect themselves and those in their care.  Irrational adults, acting as animals, can and should be incarcerated, punished and even executed to protect rational adults and children.  If you treat rational adults as objects, if you act like an animal, (an irrational, instinct driven brute) then you can be treated like one.

Humans group together because the many are stronger than the one.  The purpose of groups, therefore, is to protect and provide for the few (the minority) and the weak against irrational brutes.  This act of coming together for strength makes for complications.

The wealth and physical well-being of the individual is supplemented by their labor.  The addition of labor to natural resources changes them and makes them more valuable and the enhanced natural resource now belongs to the laborer.

A small group is cohesive.  Conflicts within the group are adjudicated by someone everyone trusts.  The group comes together to protect itself from outside forces, to be stronger than any one individual could be.  When groups grow too large for an individual leader to effectively command they need written laws and appointed or elected; leaders, representatives, and judges.  If the group grows large enough these positions become full time jobs and the people in them need to be supported by the group.  The rules that govern the group are there to protect the individuals not restrain them.  The rules protect the individuals rights not take them away.  Surplus can be either an undesirable or desired complication of large groups.  An isolated person, family or small group generally struggles to survive and would never waste the time to produce a surplus that would go to waste.  Waste is irrational and serves no purpose.

Child Care Hierarchy

Most primitive –      Young are born fully formed and on their own from birth.

                             Young are protected for a few days.

                             Young are protected and fed by mother.

                             Young are protected and fed by both parents.

                             Young are protected, fed and taught survival skills.

                             Young are protected etc. for two or three years.

Humans-                Young are cared for until the age of reason.

Reasonable (rational) adults want to be treated with respect and treat others they way they want to be treated, but what we consider reasonable depends upon what we were taught as we grew to the state of reason.

Slavery: no one would put themselves into a state of slavery.  Slaves have no control over their life and no one can be born into slavery, we are all born free and are not indebted to anyone for the actions of our parents or guardians.  The only way to rightfully become a slave is to start a war and loose.  Once conquered, the losing individuals give up their right to freedom.  They acted irrationally by starting an unprovoked war and are held accountable for it but the children and nonparticipating spouses of the enslaved warriors did nothing to have their natural born freedom taken away.  Once the children of enslaved warriors reach the age of reason they are free and are to be judged by their peers as to how well they go by the rules/laws of the society they are in and are free to use their labor to provide for themselves and their family.

If you partake of ANY benefit of government you give tacit consent to authority of the government, its rules and laws.  Said government is restricted to the powers it is given by the people.  If you do not want to go by the rules of a group you can change groups or you can try to find a place where there are no established rules and go back to the rules of nature where you rely solely upon yourself for EVERYTHING.

Thank you John Locke for writing; Two Treatises of Government.

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, study finds

Rob Waugh

Religious people are less intelligent than non-believers, according to a new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades.

A team led by Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies. Even in extreme old age, intelligent people are less likely to believe, the researchers found - and the reasons why people with high IQs shun religion may not be as simple as previously thought.

Previous studies have tended to assume that intelligent people simply “know better”, the researchers write - but the reasons may be more complex.

For instance, intelligent people are more likely to be married, and more likely to be successful in life - and this may mean they “need” religion less.

The studies used in Zuckerman's paper included a life-long analysis of the beliefs of a group of 1,500 gifted children - those with IQs over 135 - in a study which began in 1921 and continues today.

Even at 75 to 91 years of age, the children from Lewis Terman’s study scored lower for religiosity than the general population - contrary to the widely held belief that people turn to God as they age. The researchers noted that data was lacking about religious attitudes in old age and say, “Additional research is needed to resolve this issue.”

As early as 1958, Michael Argyle concluded, “Although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs, and rather less likely to have pro-religious attitudes.”

A 1916 study quoted in Zuckerman’s paper (Leuba) found that, “58% of randomly selected scientists in the United States expressed disbelief in, or doubt regarding the existence of God; this proportion rose to nearly 70% for the most eminent scientists.”

The paper, published in the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Review, said “Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme—the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who “know better.” 

The answer may, however, be more complex. Intelligent people may simply be able to provide themselves with the psychological benefits offered by religion - such as “self-regulation and self-enhancement,” because they are more likely to be successful, and have stable lives. 

“Intelligent people typically spend more time in school—a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits,” the researchers write. “More intelligent people get higher level jobs (and better employment (and higher salary) may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs.”

“Last, more intelligent people are more likely to get and stay married (greater attachment), though for intelligent people, that too comes later in life. We therefore suggest that as intelligent people move from young adulthood to adulthood and then to middle age, the benefits of intelligence may continue to accrue.”

The researchers suggest that further research on the “function” of religion may reveal more.

“People possessing the functions that religion provides are likely to adopt atheism, people lacking these very functions (e.g., the poor, the helpless) are likely to adopt theism,” the researchers wrote.

Get it Together!

   If you do not have the right to vote then your concerns will go unrepresented.  If you have the right to vote but do not have access to the voting booth, you will be unrepresented and your concerns will not be addressed.  If you exercise your right to vote and have access to education you will make smart decisions.  If you have the right to vote and exercise that right and are educated and have access to healthcare you will live a long, productive and fulfilling life that will support the country as a whole.

     Anyone who works to prevent you from voting, getting an education and staying healthy does not have your best interests at heart.  If they say otherwise they are lying.

                                    DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM!

     In the early 1700s the British Colonies, on the North American continent, grew tired of the British Parliament deciding how the colonies were to be taxed and what laws they were to be governed by.  The colonies felt that it was unfair for the rich, white, men in the Parliament to make these decisions when the people who were being affected had no representatives there to look out for what was important to them.

     Today women in the United States of America, as well as people of color, people for whom English is a second language, the poor and college students are all in a similar position even though they represent a majority of the electorate.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Why can’t these groups get together and vote as a block to effect change?

If you don’t think this is a problem just ask a poor, black woman in Texas, whose native language is something other than English and who is trying to go to school to better her life and the lives of her descendants!

     “… Congress needs to act to make sure every American has equal access to the polls. The Justice Department is eager to work with Congressional leaders of both parties, and with concerned citizens like you, to craft new legislation to fill the void left by the Court’s ruling and address voting rights discrimination. This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue about the most fundamental of all rights–the right to vote. It is about how we define our democracy.”  This is from a speech by Attorney General Eric Holder to a gathering of members of Delta Sigma Theta in July 2013 concerning the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voters Rights Act.

     Although I believe that access to voting privileges is the most important issue of our time I can’t see how it will help to gain voting privileges if the groups that are being disenfranchised by a rich, white, minority of men, don’t get together and do something as a cohesive voting block to see that their concerns are addressed.

     They don’t need to agree on which problem to tackle first but they do need to get together and elect representation that will vote for the solutions to their problems as they come up in the US congress and their state houses of representation.

     To be clear, I believe the national priorities for citizens as well as elected officials are, in this order, the right to vote, access to; voting places, education and healthcare, and advocating for as well as supporting the efforts for, a coalition of these people; people of color, people for whom English is a second language, the poor, students and women.  If this is accomplished these actions could make this country what it has the potential to be.

Injustice Is

Ancillary Exegesis: an example of injustice.

or

If it happened it could not have been otherwise.

          When considering the circumstances surrounding an unfortunate event the opening statement, “You could have prevented this.” with its companion admonishment, “You are at fault and will be punished,” drives me nuts.  If you want to begin with, “In the future, can we prevent this from happening again?”, I have no quibble.

          It is fitting to begin your questioning with, “Did you let this happen?” or “Is this the outcome you expected?” or “Do you feel responsible for what happened?”  These questions are an attempt to determine if the person being questioned believes that they had options and made choices and whether or not what happened is what they expected or intended.  By asking these questions you are trying to determine if they believe they were in control and feel justice was done.

          Once something happens it is necessarily in the past and happened for whatever reasons, and was not and could not and would not have been prevented or done differently by the people involved, because it wasn’t.  The past can only have one outcome.  Maybe you think it should have had a different outcome but it didn’t.  End of story.

If you don’t like the outcome you may believe the participants were evil and wanted an unfortunate event to happen or if you do not believe they are evil or do not want to state publicly that you think they are evil, you may assert that they are incompetent and because of their incompetence they did not see the unfortunate event coming or did not see options that could have prevented it or you can say that because they are incompetent they were incapable of carrying out the necessary steps to stop said unfortunate event.  But you should not have the first thing that comes out of your mouth be that they could have done other than they did and judge them without a trial or at least an investigation.

          The offensive statements I mentioned in the beginning of this piece are an effort to judge, convict and punish the participants by assuming that they had choices known to them that would have prevented the unfortunate event from happening and that they had the ability to carry them out and they still let the unfortunate event happen.  The aforementioned judgmental statements assert the participants had nefarious intentions without giving them the benefit of doubt or opportunity to provide their side of the story.  The judgmental statements indicate a prejudice of, “I don’t trust you and I think you are either incompetent or evil.  You could have and should have prevented this.  And I will get justice for the injured parties by punishing you.”  I consider this abuse of power an injustice.  If you think these judgmental statements are true, fine.  But keep it to yourself until you are proven correct.  Then you can say “I knew it all the time, the evil bastards!”

Justice Is

       Whether or not you acknowledge that something is just depends upon your expectations and your perceived fulfillment of what you think should be.  If you have no concept of what should be then you cannot determine whether or not something is just.  Justice can only be determined after the fact, by someone or a group of people who have an intimate knowledge of what is being judged.  You can attempt to arrange conditions where justice may prevail but until your expectations have had an opportunity to be fulfilled the extent to which you were able to vouchsafe justice cannot be determined.

Justice is the belief that an act or set of actions have happened as they should have or a physical thing is as it should be.  If you believe that an object fulfills its function then as far as you are concerned, it is a just object and it does justice to the group it belongs to.  If you believe that what has happened is what should have happened then, as far as you are concerned, the action is just and justice has been done.

Unless you believe in an afterlife with differentiated outcomes, dependent upon history, that are adjudicated after death by an absolute power that was here before time, will exist throughout time and will continue after time stops, unchanged and unchanging, knowing all that was, is and will be, then there can be no absolute justice, no final justice, no justice for you that prevails after you die.

As we live our lives there is no justice but that which we define.  You may be lucky enough to live in a family or group that you consider just.  But you cannot live in a just world; justice is personal and pliable, temporal and local.  The best you can hope for is to be a just person in your own eyes and to surround yourself with people who generally agree with you on what justice is.

Should we fear the afterlife believers?

When life becomes a burden,

death takes longer than imagined.

Infinity : 1 :: 1 : Infinity

Belief is a fact, beliefs are not.

Your opinion is neither knowledge

Or the lack there of

It is just your opinion.

Is

Ego Sum Qui Sum

If I want to feel safe when I’m with someone I don’t know, there are things I need to find out about them, such as; 1. Do they believe; in a soul, an afterlife and a time of judgment that terminates in their soul either ascending to the light or descending into darkness?  And 2. What will they have to do to ascend?  Without this information I have no way of even attempting to figure out what they are capable of.  And I am sure that if I get in the way of their ascension they will get rid of me rather than choosing to descend into eternal darkness.

Those of us who do not believe in an afterlife may fear death and the total loss of conscious self, so long as we have something to live for.  When we have lived a long and fulfilling life and come to the time when; our organs are barely functioning, our mind no longer fully comprehends our surroundings, we find ourselves lost either literally or figuratively, and the future holds no prospect for getting better, death can be welcomed as a viable and sought after opportunity.

A young, healthy person, and those who love them, ‘should’ fear that they may die young.  But belief in a soul that will live on in an afterlife, removes the normal fear of their premature demise.  This belief encourages martyr wannabes, as well as other zealots, to fulfill the terror they imagine and are encouraged to carry out.  Their belief in a soul and its path to a better life to come, devalues my life.

Although I am considered old by some I do not want to die today or any time soon.  I try to live safely and I worry about accidents and serious illnesses that have the potential to leave me crippled or even end my life before I become incompetent and or infirmed by the normal decline in wellbeing that I expect with the passage of time.  What I fear more than then these natural events are the intentional actions of the religious that believe they will be granted a better life in the hereafter by harming others. They are delusional and think that the violent, belief based actions they commit here on earth will gain them a greater reward.  I fear what these people are capable of doing because of their beliefs.  I do not trust them to treat their life or mine as precious.  I do not think the way they do and have no reason to believe that I can protect myself from their violent acts by stopping them before they succeed.

I don’t mind looking forward to a future filled with, what others perceive as, tragedies; no life after death, no god, no ultimate justice.  Living with these assumed, and what are for them negative, possibilities is not frightening to me but enduring the actual tragedies that the religious thrust upon the world every day is.  They force others to live by their dogma and punish people who violate the beliefs they do not share.  The religious feel that they can even take the life of someone that they see as; possessed, controlled by evil powers, believing in the wrong religion, believing in an untrue religion, or believing in a false almighty or no god at all.  If you do something that is contrary to their dogma they believe they have the right, or it may even be their duty, to take your life.

Religion is for the delusional, week and lazy, who cannot be moral without something looking over their shoulder, judging them and readying their place in an imagined afterlife, and for the fearful who are scared of a world where there is no ultimate power to make sure everything comes out OK, to make sure they receive their just reward.  These people will not make the effort and do not have the strength to generate their own moral doctrine or make their own moral choices or take responsibility for their actions.  As a guide for moral action they merely use views they find in a book or hear from a trusted source.  They don’t even take the time to compare religions!  For these people, choosing a religion has nothing to do with facts or research.  The best predictor of their religious choice is geography and the second best predictor is the religion of their parents.

Every afterlife believer has their own religion.  No two afterlife believers worship in exactly the same way, believe in exactly the same morality, or the exactly the same dogma.  Even the closest of; friends, family members, parishioners, argue about the ‘true’ interpretation of what they say is their shared, holy, unassailable text.  They take what is written for everyone and make up their own interpretation of it even though they say their religion cannot be questioned, is the word of an unerring almighty and cannot be revised.  If religion were unassailable there would be one Supreme Being and there would be one dogma.

 To gain support afterlife believers will argue their personal belief passionately; on a street corner, on your front porch or from behind pulpits until someone gives in and says they agree with them. 

Religion is an attempt to use an ancient belief system to explain what they cannot understand (and that which is or was at one time unexplainable); “Where did we come from?”, “Where will we go?”, “Why are we here?”, “What can and can’t I do?”, without taking the time to make the changes necessary to adjust for what science and social evolution have taught us about the answers to some of these questions.

If there is just a single external power that ‘created’; what is now, what existed before change began and what will be when change ceases, there should be only one Supreme Being for all humans to believe in.  Just like the single, correct answers to questions about the fields of physics, chemistry, and biology, there can be only one correct answer to the god/creation/afterlife question, if there is only one Supreme Being who created everything.  But the basis for religion is belief, not fact, and belief cannot be proved or tested so their belief based claims cannot be proven or disproved.

Religious groups around the world have come up with a host of belief systems that do no more than describe cultural and personal fears and the ancient, fanciful stories that were made up by delusional or persuasive or insightful individuals for the purpose of calming their own fears and the fears of the uneducated masses they lead.

If from the very beginning one of the fundamental aspects of all religions had been that they could not be written down they would all be gone by now or at least relegated to the fringes of society and culture.  If religion had been forced to be an oral tradition it would have changed, almost imperceptibly, day by day, as people learned the answers to the previously unanswered and unanswerable.  But because religious beliefs are written down in unassailable texts, religion has not adjusted to advances in social evolution and scientific knowledge that have provided us with solutions to some old problems, like the spoilage of food and illness from disease and its remedies.  So far we have been unable to marginalize religion, because religious dogma has been cast in stone and is regarded as the indisputable word of an infallible being.  And unfortunately, religion will continue to plague the world with its fear, hate, violence and misinformation until it is forced to conform to the world as it is, today.

Whether or not....

It is a waste of time to try to answer many questions.  Like attempting to answer the question as to whether or not there are multiple infinite universes.  It can’t be proven and the best you can hope for is consensus on an opinion or belief.  Another unanswerable question is whether or not there is a creator/god/supreme being.  This question is not only unanswerable it is irrelevant.  But asking someone to answer the questions as to whether or not they believe there is; an afterlife, an ultimate reward/punishment for actions, divine intervention in answer to prayer, a soul, absolute good and evil, free will or is everything preordained, now someone’s answers to these questions is  worth knowing.  The answers to these questions have impact on everyday life.   Beliefs in regard to these questions motivate action and form personalities.  If someone answers ‘yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, preordained’ to these questions you do not want to be between them and their ascension.  They will not choose to stay and help you.  And my answers are; no, no, no, no, no and free will.  “Can I help you?”

The Question of Eternal Bliss

           I see no logical ambiguity in the idea of an all-powerful, supreme being or multiple, infinite, universes.  The concept of a presence that is greater than I can comprehend is logically possible.  In a two dimensional world three dimensional objects/beings are nonsensical. Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, by Edwin A. Abbott, made that clear.

           In our three dimensional world spread over the fourth dimension of time a four dimensional being spread over a, so far unseen/unproven ‘fifth’ dimension is impossible for me to comprehend.  But why couldn't there be something; that was here before change, that could know the entire universe over its entire life, all at one time, that would be here when change stops?  This ‘being’ is unknowable to me so I won’t deign the possibility of its existence.

           But there is something that I cannot see the logic of, eternal bliss.  As humans, on this earth, in this form; we are conceived, we change, we die.  If there is a next world, in it the Supreme Being; has always been, never changes, is all knowing and will exist for ever.  If humans were to exit this world and end up in the supreme being world, without changing to a supreme being state of all-knowing, never-changing-ness, the option of another ‘death’ would have to be one of the logical outcomes of a life after death, if this life after death includes change.  Simply stated, if you can change, you can die.  If you don’t know everything then you can learn something and that is change, so if you don’t know everything you will change and you can change by ceasing to exist.

           But for me the really big question is; if life after death here on earth does exist, how could eternal existence be considered bliss?  Is there anyone that can honestly say that they want to be an eternal/all-knowing consciousness? Have you thought about what that would mean?  You would never sleep.  There would be nothing to do or learn.  Nothing would ever change.  Anyone that says they want eternal bliss is a liar or at the very least, they have not given it much thought.  And I think they fear death way more than they enjoy life.

Precious

I look round and see,

Life’s not precious.

People are murdered, tortured, abandoned,

Every day.

Treated as objects,

Treated as interchangeable parts of the machine

That produces,

Someone else’s wealth.

“I do not need you;

“To do this job“,

“To take care of our children“,

“To look after me when I am old“,

“To hold me when I am in pain.”

“There are replacements waiting on queue,

To take your place.”

“I do not need you;

“I can find someone else“,

“I can make more.”

“You have no more value than a random log,

In a pile of wood.”

“You are replaceable.”

“I don’t need you.”

“You are not of value.”

“You are expendable.”

“Your death is just,

Collateral damage.”

“Your death is justice,

For what you believe.”

Every day people experience these words,

These feelings,

These lies,

These ends,

Because there are so many people.

Because some people believe

In life after death.

You will go without work,

Without companionship,

Without support,

Without sustenance,

Without shelter.

“I don’t care if you disappear because”;

“You can be replaced.”

“When you die

You will reap a greater reward.”

“I will be a martyr.”

 “You do not believe in my

Life after death.”

“You are damned.”

“You are evil incarnate,

A tool of the devil.”

When the cupboard is full

Pull out a new box of crackers,

And if one falls on the floor

Throw it away.

When the cupboard is bare

Pull out the last box of crackers,

And if one falls on the floor

Retrieve it,

Eat it.

Be glad you have food.

As long as humans reproduce

As if the cupboard is bare

And hard to fill,

People will be thrown away

As if they are expendable,

As if life is cheap,

As if life is not precious.