[The Revolution ]
Open your mindThe Atheist vs. The Religious
2007-02-28
First I would like to say a few things before I get this rolling. I would not ever tell someone what he or she should or should not believe. I believe everyone has a right to his or her opinion this subject of religion. This post does not reflect my opinion on ALL religious people or on ALL atheists. I will specify whom I mean when I refer to them, for example: "Atheist of this nature, or Christians who believe in this.” I do try to judge everyone as individuals, and not as a group. Now I am going to address this post mainly to atheist, but my following argument will apply to Christians, Muslims, Hindus or anyone religious. Please spare me the comments regarding any of the aforementioned topics.
Whew...(wipes sweat from brow.)
With out further B/S Here is the post:
Atheist by Webster’s definition is "one who believes that there is no deity.” For many, this definition encapsulates their entire opinion. This is the "soul" or "heart" of atheism. While other Atheist would post addendum's to the definition of atheism. I will make a point to show that without the "heart" one cannot define him/herself as an atheist. This post is not meant to directly address any one who falls into the former category. This is for any atheist openly states the existence of a God or god(s) is impossible.
I get the strong feeling that the atheists mentioned above regard themselves as more intelligent than believers. I say this based on things I have read in which atheist refer to religion as irrational or as some kind of delusion. This statement is also based on various atheist websites I have studied as well as from atheist i have talked to. Ironically, I see surprising similarity in the beliefs or non-beliefs of both the atheists and the Christians. This similarity is the leap of faith (for lack of a better term) each must necessarily take when committing to one of these two positions.
The atheist mind is guilty of the same flaws of logic that they would indict on those who believe in a deity. Christians, Muslims, religions of various other natures maintain a belief that there is a god. Organized religion and atheism may seem like polar opposites, yet the reality is this: The religious say, "There is a god." and no one can prove that it is absolute truth. An Atheist says, "The existence of a God or gods is impossible.” Yet no one can back up this statement with irrefutable evidence.
To summarize:
The foundation on which both religion and atheism rest upon is a belief. Both sides require a disregard for known facts. Both hold belief in an unknowable idea. What makes one side more irrational than the other? I fail to understand how anyone could answer that with the least bit of confidence. If you are a Christian or an atheist, and you understand that your religion is founded on belief, and not fact. I have no issue with you.
I can hear the atheist yelling through my computer, so please hold on a sec. I am very familiar with evolution, as well as theoretical physics. I know the a stories about a virgin birth and a 5000 yr old planet seem like a child's fairytale when placed next to a mountain of scientific data, I still maintain that both beliefs are equally whimsical.........READ MORE
Creationism
2007-02-06
To some, the concept of creationism may seem far fetched. Probably due to the fact that science has defined so many of the laws of physics and nature. Then further proven these laws validity through experimentation. Modern science which can define and predict the outcome of events with amazing accuracy, even on a microscopic or particle level. Based on the current what-we-know-and-think-we-understand about the world Scientist endorse theories like evolution, and The big bang theory. Which are heavily supported by physics, that is to say; supported by hard facts and evidence.
Evolution has been proven to occur in on the microscopic level, and only theorized on the macro(animal and large organism) level. We have not been able to observe evolution directly on the macro level. Only through fossil observation, and speculation, although it is very convincing, the evidence it is not air tight. Not solid enough to declare victory. There are missing links.
So maybe by now your wondering which side I am in favor of big bang and evolution or Faith and Divine intervention? The answer to that is: I don't Believe either are correct, but i wouldn't say incorrect either. confusing? ya it is....So I'll try to elaborate.
Lets start the journey :). Creation theory basically says this, god created the earth, universe and everything contained within it in seven days. This is according to the book of genesis. Although it was written by man, the story was told to man by a prophet of God. Creationism states that everything was created roughly 5,000 years ago. For the sake of what I'm trying to prove that will be enough, any more information is irrelevant and wouldn't effect my argument.
I know the first words out of the antagonist mouth is going to be "what about the dinosaurs, and carbon dating?" We'll I recently asked a proud creationist the same question and his answer was this "carbon dating is not 100% accurate" I asked " are you saying that dinosaurs and man roamed the earth together?" "Yes, he replied." and began to talk about recently discovered cave drawing that showed evidence of cave-men and dinosaurs existing during same period of time. So i researched his arguments and found this. A website devoted to the genesis version of creation claims that current dating methods are erroneous. The website provides a bulk of convincing arguments that discredit carbon14 dating as well as anything that dates past a few thousand years. Read for yourself, Anwsersingenesis.org The best argument that creationist have seems to be this: proving all other theories wrong. Maybe creationist don't have to prove their theory true so as long as they can prove yours to be false.
I then turned to the scientific community for information about dating methods. Sure enough, although slightly more favorable to the accuracy of dating methods, they still admit that the data is not rock solid and there are several factors that could distort the accuracy. Yet not distorted to the extent that a creationist would have you believe.
Next I dove into various websites for so-called evidence of dinosaurs and man co-existing. You see, creationist do not deny the existence of dinosaurs, they just have a different perspective of when they lived. One of the most organized websites I found that explained this phenomenon was LivingDinos.com . I found this website to be chuck-full of subjective information as well as senseless propaganda the warned its visitors of The Dangers of Evolution . It is my humble opinion, based on what Internet research has taught me, that the evidence presented to explain how dinosaurs fit into the theory of creationism was very subjective and requires a real stretch of the imagination. Ironically carbon dating, which has a much larger stack of evidence in favoring it, was easily discredited for having to many holes and uncertainties. Go figure.
Many creationist point to claims of the LockNess monster being modern version of a plesiosaur. Yet again the agenda driven protagonist excludes Bigfoot sightings, due to a argument in favor of evolution, in other words: Giving credit to the idea that man descended from ape.
So where does this leave us? Both sides discredit each other effectively, or attempt to anyway. So without further ado here are few things that i believe should be relevant topics of discussion in this debate.
1.Their is no current way to prove " without a shadow of a doubt" that a God or divine creator exist through known science, any so-called proof of this is subjective evidence. Likewise no one can prove that God does not exist.
2.Even if the big bang was hard core irrefutable fact, it still does not rule out god as the instigator of the whole event.
3.The same for concept could apply to evolution, if there was a creator it is possible that the evolution of organisms was according to a Gods design.
In summary I say this: Creationist will never win the debate when their whole argument is only valid so long as they can discredit science. It appears that the more we learn about the way the world works, (dating techniques, rock layer dating, evolution of organisms, etc) The more holes science puts in creationism theory. I propose a new concept for creationist, a foothold which will not be refuted until someone can prove that God doesn't exist.
You must admit that a god is POSSIBLE.
This must be admitted due to the fact that no one can prove that God doesn't exist.
Thus an inability to prove an impossibility, leaves the door open to possibility.
Creationist claim that God created the universe, everything it contains and all it's complexity.
So I ask: Why don't creationist just simply state that "A divine being capable of creating such a complex existence could also create the illusion of age."
This would end the carbon dating debate as well as any time line related discrepancy prior to man. For some strange reason creationist argue as if their God was limited to the physics and laws of nature that he supposedly created. This only creates a battle that gives science the home field advantage.
Time Magazine published an excellent article on this subject in the Nov. edition entitled God Vs. Science. In which atheist/biologist Richard Dawkins said: "....If there is a God, its going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed." I think this quote sums up my opinion on this subject about perfectly.
Re-wire your brain
2007-01-30
Have you ever wondered why the suicide rate in Ethiopia is almost zero? How bizarre. I recently stumbled on to this statistic and it just blew my mind. (No pun intended.) I can't help but wonder why it is that here, in America, the land of opportunity; people are killing themselves by the tens-of-thousands. Meanwhile on the other side of the world in a hopelessly desolate, hunger-stricken, 3rd world nation, manic-depressives do not exist.
Maybe it's not so surprising though. According to The National Institute of Mental Health's official website, an estimated 1 out of every 5 people in America have some type of diagnosable mental illness, ranging from manic-depressives to binge-eating to social anxiety disorder. An astonishing 2 million children in the U.S. are prescribed Ritalin for A.D.D or A.D.H.D. perhaps you know a few of these kids, I know several in my small town alone. So one must ask: Why are we so screwed up? Is it necessary for us to drug ourselves to solve this problem?
I believe that we are not born with mental illnesses like bulimia, depression, anorexia, binge-eating, or social anxiety. These illnesses develop over time as a result of specific behavior and thought patterns. These patterns may or may not be the direct result of environmental stimuli. Current research is implying that we have the power to heal our own mental afflictions. With a bit of self-control one could alter their behavior and thought patterns. We know this is within everyone's capabilities. The real surprise is what results from this could be a complete change in the chemical balance of neurons in the brain.
Here is a quick lesson in what we know about the human mind. More specifically, a brief explanation of how our thought patterns are formed and personality traits solidified.
After birth, the human brain is a fury of neural connections and brain cells migrating and repositioning. This occurs when our early minds respond to environmental stimuli or input. Neural pathways then become established throughout the brain. These neural pathways are the communication lines that our brains depend on for signaling responses to stimuli. Here is an example of that process:
Our brains shift in response to environmental input, then further shift in response to the results from our own response. Each time we respond a specific neural pathway is used for that response. Each time we respond in the same manor, or the more frequently we use that neural pathway, the more engrained it becomes and the more easily that response can be triggered.
Sometimes neural pathways can become so engrained that they can almost block higher level, more logical thought processes. The opposite effect occurs when neural pathways go unused for extended periods of time: a Darwinian process of elimination takes place where those unused connections are subsequently destroyed. This engraining and neural pruning is most active between the ages of two and ten. The result is a human brain whose wiring is for better or worse, completely unique.
Current research supports the idea that our neural pathways are not fixed or locked in. They can be altered even into adulthood. So why not try and rewire our own hardware? For example: Suppose you suffer from depression. Try to smile more often. This may sound like a stupid solution but those neural pathways that signal your facial muscles to smile are wired-in with the same neural pathways that signal feelings of happiness. A more effective solution is to force yourself into thinking positive thoughts in every situation, even if it's insincere. This positive thinking if consistently applied, will create a thought pattern that is more easily triggered. Eventually your pessimistic and negative thought patterns will subside.
Here of an example of an experience I've had with altering my own "wiring". A few years back, I struggled with a short attention span and a bad memory. It affected me mostly when I was reading. I would read a few pages and upon reflection, find that I had retained almost no information about what I had read. In order to correct this problem I decided to try this:
I would only read a few sentences, maybe a small paragraph. I then would summarize to myself what I had just read. I would repeat this process for a few weeks gradually increasing the amount of material that I would read in-between my summaries. By the time that I finished my book, there was no need to summarize. The material I was reading, I was remembering.
This is what happened: By pausing to reflect on my reading every few seconds, I forced those neural pathways associated with short-term memory to become more engrained and consequently, short-term memory was more easily triggered.
But why not just call the ol'doctor and pick up a prescription. I could have been easily diagnosed with A.D.D. But would Ritalin really fix the problem? Let me give you a little allegory.
One morning you wake up to find that your battery in your car is dead. You try to jump-start it several times unsuccessfully. Finally you conclude that the battery is no good and must be replaced. Problem solved right? The following week you awake to the same problem, dead battery, won't hold a charge. Once again you replace it with a new one. The following week the same problem occurs, so you decide to investigate. You discover that a ground wire under the hood has come loose. This is causing the batteries to short out. What would you do? Keep buying batteries every week? Or fix the root of the problem: the loose ground wire.
To you and I this seems like a no-brainer. You should fix the ground. However in the real world a similar situation is going on with anti-depressants, social anxiety medication, Ritalin and other prescription drugs. If I am depressed and prescribed some happy pill, then I'm only going to treat the symptoms of the real issue. Or in other words I'll just keep on buying a new battery every week. Unlike my car scenario, the repercussions of taking medication are more severe. Dependency is likely. A sense of helplessness without medication is almost certain. Today's society would love to have you believing that you can't cure these problems or that depression is some disease and it's out of your hands. Bullshit! This type of psychiatric propaganda is what is wrong with our society! This is why 30,000 Americans kill themselves each year. Our society and culture puts way too much emphasis on happiness. The seemingly harmless idea that every individual has the right to pursue happiness has been twisted into a cultural obsession. Every day the prescription drug industry pushes insecurity on the general population. You've seen the ads on T.V. They want you to question your stability. They want you to question yourselves until you feel like something's wrong. Don't let your children grow up thinking they're helpless victims of there own emotions. The truth is, we all feel sad, insecure, bad, negative, angry, but how you manage your emotions is your responsibility and not some pills. PARENTS! Teach you children how to control their emotions and feelings. When I see some 10-year-old kid on Ritalin looking like a zombie, I can't help but feel like this is just the by-product of parental laziness. How can we ever expect a young child to learn to cope with his emotional roller coaster, or his learning differences, if his issues are avoided? What a message to send your kid, 'hey son take this pill because something is wrong with your mind', and we then expect this kid to grow up feeling like he's normal. Granted there are some individual who do need medication for mental illness, but I believe the overwhelming majority of people need to stop treating symptoms with pills, and go after the cause of their problems.
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then is not an act, but a habit."
-Aristotle
Created with ShoutPost
