The Laws of Religion

Belief: a positive/negative state behavior, exercised by a human brain, which flavors its interaction with the world.

A person can believe in anything they choose.

Person 'A' can choose to believe in Bugs Bunny, Large Boulders and Gravity.

Person 'B' can choose to believe in Elmer Fudd and Large Boulders, but choose not to believe in Gravity.

When person 'B' is crushed by Gravity + Large Boulder, Person 'A' might correctly conclude what transpired, while the family of person 'B' might falsely conclude that Elmer Fudd was the real cause.

Many people see Elmer Fudd on a regular basis.

People are sometimes killed by rocks.

This does not change the fiction element of our situation.

Elmer Fudd is a cartoon character who, despite anyone's belief, does not exist and cannot be proven to.

The Large Boulder and Gravity can both be proven to exist.

Right about now is where someone gets on their high-horse and begins to spew nonsense about tradition, faith, and other assorted baloney, and half the room gets all sappy and glazy-eyed.

The level and extent of any individual's own disconnection from factual reality (which occurs whether you believe in it or not) has no bearing on the laws of nature, and that individual's own possible squash-ed-ness.

Switching lanes, it is indeed fair to say that one 'believes' in science, the same way someone believes in religion. However, the good news on the science side of the fence is that when it finds it's been disproven, it admits it, and changes it, and re-publishes it for the whole world to see.

Religion, on the other hand, foolishly tries to alter reality. Our belief in religion is the only thing causing religion to exist. If all of humankind suddenly poofed out of existence for 24 hours while a video camera recorded what happened while we were gone, we'd find when we returned that while there were no humans in the universe, science continued to exist while religion was absent. Since our hypothetical situation is impossible, it's pretty worthless, and to a religious believer it's likely a very silly argument, as, of course, god was there waiting for us to poof back all along.

Religion has lost sight of its purpose. That is, rather than go out and actually exercise its teachings, most religions just sit and stagnate. To paraphrase Scott Adams, if the 4 billion people globally who say they believe in a god/religion actually did, and their daily actions reflected it, there would be no war, no poverty, no homelessness, no abuse, no bad things in the world. People would see how amazingly valuable it was to believe in a religion, and I bet the other 2 billion people would be extremely cooperative, as look at how well everything gets done and how fine and upstanding everyone is. The nay-sayers would get their judgement in the end, but for now they get helped in the same selfless and giving way as everyone else- just like god told us to.

But, as is painfully clear, too few people actually walk the walk.

Religion has a fine place in the world, however, just like robotics has its three laws, I think there should be a base of control to keep religious organizations in order. I've begun working on them- still tinkering, so far.

The first rule all religions must follow is: All religions must, in script and deed, promote the friendly and pro-active tolerance of all other religions, no matter how diametrically opposed.

The second rule all religions must follow is: follow your mission statement. If it includes things like thou shalt not kill, steal, take the lord's name in vain, etc, then actually live your life that way.

The third rule all religions must follow is: Missionary work would be allowed, but recruitment would be limited to those who came to the missionary's church on their own- going door-to-door, advertising, leafletting, etc- would not be allowed. The Missionary's own actions alone would have to speak for them.

Pretty much every religion I have heard of claims to be about peace, love, and unity. Oh, wait, that's right- peace, love and unity- but only through world domination by making every person alive part of their church. No religion has ever attained this fallacious concept of world domination, and none ever will, but they seem bent on it. And through this bent-ness, they disrespect all of those beliefs not like theirs... and then expect my respect for their beliefs in return?

Don't get me wrong- on an individual level you have my respect, truly. It's at the organizational level you lose me, and that is the 'you/your' I speak to in this rant.

Going after science is a waste of time which contributes no good to the world except the soothing of your own insecure, lacking-in-faith little self, and at the cost of everyone on the planet when science is set back due to your ignorance.

Nothing short of fascism will achieve the goal of displacing the theory of evolution, because you, [group of religious people], are shoving your beliefs in everyone else's faces, AGAIN- a very pious course of action, indeed. The good believers and doers in the world are really getting a bad name thanks to you.

If you believe in your god, what do you care if absolutely NOTHING in the world proves or disproves your god's existence? You should rejoyce every time there is a discovery disproving the existence of your god- certainly this is merely a test of your faith. Are you that faithless? Oh yeah, I forgot about the world domination part. Hard to convert everyone in the world when your ancient text is as hokey as a 50's sci-fi movie.

After ranting thus, I realize, this is not a rant about religion, but the weakness and lameness, in general, of your average human mind. The same fallible traits which cause a nation to elect a crew of war mongering moron/psychos and then sit back and do nothing about it are the same traits that cause a person aligned with any particular church to sit back and allow those power-and-control-hungry leaders within it to misrepresent and malign them. It seems to have come back to the whole misanthrope theme again. Stupid Humans.

T-Mobile's hobbled Razr phones: Thanks

So, the fancy Razr phones you see everywhere come with some very interesting options. For example, my girlfriend's phone comes with the option to record a video using the camear and microphone built into the phone.

Pretty cool, right?

Well, pretty cool until you find out that the maximum video length you can record out-of-the-box is 5 seconds, and there's not a single option anywhere for fixing it. You have to HACK your phone in order to make it work right.

I know T-Mobile isn't alone in this retardedness.

Motorola, in their infinite wisdom, has put together some of the least intuitive menuing systems I have ever seen, and if this phone and the others I have seen don't attest to that, just look at a Comcast digital cable box. I could throw up a better menu interface than what comes with that cable box.

Also, they purposely limit your use of the bluetooth hardware which is part of the phone. The box does not say "Bluetooth*", it says "Bluetooth". Bluetooth is a standard like AM, FM, or VHS. There is no 'Bluetooth Lite', 'Bluetooth only kinda' or 'Bluetooth for wussies'. Up yours, phone companies.

I will kick their groin.

They deserve it.

The Propaganda Machine at work

Here's a transcript of a radio-program discussion between two 9/11 questioners, the makers of Loose Change, and two promoters of the offical story:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203

What is evident from their exchange is the promoters of the official story are not after an even exchange. They don't bring any evidence to the table besides that which can be used to directly discredit any expert or concept involved.

Currently, the possibility that there's more for Joe average to find out about 9/11 is a popular topic. As more people bring the question up, more and more people are emerging to obfuscate the topic.

I'm in a rare position. I have been following the upsurge of claims, the spread of theories, and I know full well that a large chunk of what's out there is nonsense. However, I also know that some of it is crucially important and that people really need to pay attention to it.

That's the crux of it.

People have to stop and pay attention. They have to care to stop and listen, think, remember.

I'm seeing a rise in the incidence of major media outlets spending a good chunk of time to put together stories, experts, movies, books, to counter the 9/11 questioners with repetitions of the official story, as well as confusing, misleading and misdirecting testimony and information. Never once is an ounce of credence given to the possibility that the government is lying, or that the official story is wrong. Isn't that alone suspicious?

The overall effect? To flood the market, as it were, with so many choices and conflicts that those people who needed to be taken by the hand and led down the proper laundry list of details instead just grow weary and ignore the story.

A good example is this high-profile story put together by Popular Mechanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

The story goes along randomly choosing to discredit loopy nonsense, such as the pod theory, and crucial points, such as the collapse of WTC7. It discredits with a list of facts and testimony, much of which is pure fabrication.

For example, in reference to the complete lack of fighter-plane response, the article claims that "In the last ten years, NORAD has only scrambled to go after one aircraft.", which is pure fabrication. Readily available documents on the FAS, FAA and NORAD's own websites reference the fact that NORAD regularly scrambles after aircraft. The PM article is counting on their readers' laziness coming through for them.

The battle here is to decrease public interest, not to be right.

The fact that most of the focus is on discrediting experts and concepts, and not to fully address issues is key in recognizing that what we have here is a media diversion.

The 'Liberal Media' is going out of its way to act conservative and Kowtow to the official bullshit story.

Odd, since liberals are the troublesome dissenters- you'd think every paper would have its own pet theory.

Regardless of the baloney-spewers, there are key points to consider, and what is implied by them is not something you spend five seconds considering and call it good.

No debris at Pentagon which indicates an entire passenger jet crashed there: the photos, pre-wall-collapse, show that no engines hit it. No 6-ton 9-foot engine marks- there are plenty of photos which clearly display this.

No debris at flight 93 crash site which indicates an entire passenger jet crashed there. If it is, indeed, a real crash scene, it wins first place for not looking like the site of any other crash, ever.

Extreme irregularity of 3 concrete and steel structures collapsing from fire (the first time ever.)

Lack of concern for president after attacks were evident.

Lack of response from NORAD.

Extremely peculiar and secretive behavior from Bush administration surrounding all things 9/11.

Complete failure of all branches of our multi-billion-dollar governmental structure to detect or prevent 9/11, and a complete lack of punishment for those whose specific job it was to prevent what happened.

9/11 investigaton controlled by Zelikow, who might as well be Bush's cousin.

9/11 investigation purposely hindered by Bush administration.

Creepy "Project for a New American Century" members include some in Bush administration.

FBI openly admits it has no evidence whatsoever directly linking Bin Laden to 9/11.

Lies to go into Afghanistan.

Lies to go into Iraq.

Lies all along.

How this is not sufficiently suspicious to Joe average, such as to merit further, and truly independent investigation- is astounding and disappointing.

"The Study Of", and "The Belief In"

It's quite amusing to see people going around and around over Evolution and Creation.

Mostly because the argument is completely stupid.

Let's see why.

Things which end in 'ology':

Toxicology is the study of poisons. Geology is the study of the earth's physical structure. Biology is the study of living things. Failure to believe in one of these could severely impact your life.

Now, on the other hand, things which end in 'ism':

Stalinism, to do as Stalin suggested, or to emulate Stalin. Marxism, to do as Marx sugegsted, or to emulate Marx. Buddhism, to do as Buddha suggested, or to emulate Buddha. Etc. Failure to believe in one of these will likely have no impact on your life.

An 'ology' follows a careful scientific method. We find something new or inexplicable, and we try to think of why, and we look for both validating and invalidating evidence. What OLOGies deal in are things which can be proven or disproven.

An 'ism' is like a clothing outfit. You can put it on, take it off, wear the same one your whole life, or ignore it completely. There is no required method to creating an ISM- it can be very rational or completely irrational, or somewhere in between. What ISMs deal in are something you either decide to believe, or don't.

Now. ISM believers are peeved because OLOGies are making their ISMs look antequated and dumb. Oops! My 2000-year-old text has some factual inaccuracies? No shit?

Some people want to follow all of the requisites of their chosen ISM, and also want to buy into an OLOGY, but then find themselves having a conflict.

My ISM teaches me 'A', but within the framework of this OLOGY I find 'B', and both 'B' and 'A' cannot be true. No matter how much evidence to disprove 'A' and support 'B' I see, I simply can't handle the idea that this OLOGY is refuting my ISM.

At this point there are several options:

1. Attack the offending OLOGY
2. Question the ISM (which is often found unacceptable, and reverts back to #1)
3. Try to ignore the issue

There are, I would venture, no ancient ISM texts which do not contain information which is easliy proven completely nonsensical, outdated, untrue and/or impossible.

So, anyone saying they believe in that ISM is now stuck compromising- following some of what their ISM dictates, and ignoring some other parts, lest they go around stoning their wives for trivialities and marrying their brother's widows, etc.

In a nutshell, you can choose to believe and follow whatever part of your ISM you want, and the end result is: you feel like you are following your ISM.

In the OLOGY department, though, this does not work- you cannot decide to follow only some of the rules of proper research, documentation and study- do so and you will find your results flawed, and your peers annoyed.

Not only that, the truths OLOGies outline exist whether you believe in them or not.

The laws of nature, the laws of motion, the laws of gravitation, the laws of physics and thermodynamics- the universe behaves according to these laws and does not skip a beat in accordance with anyone's beliefs.

A televison, fax machine, computer, combustion engine- these things exist because of our knowledge of and cooperation with the laws of science and nature. If we start to decide some of the laws don't work... well, will the televisions suddenly stop working?

The OLOGists who further our knowledge and technology, the people who formulate these rules, they are careful, meticulous, and devoted in their thinking and investigation. The scientific method, logic, and the realizations of great people have brought us to our understanding of the world. Nobody's ISM should be allowed to deride, degrade, displace or dispose the accomplishments of these people- they gave their science to the world, and you would take it away from the world in the name of you and the few who believe in your ISM? I kick your groin, bozo.

It's up to you to let choice (ISM) override reality (OLOGY), or let reality override choice. Which sounds more reasonable? After all, hasn't this been happening for a long time- certain parts of ISM-related texts being completely invalidated by new discoveries by OLOGies? A great uproar from ISM-followers, and later acceptance, or at least silence?

How about this- since 'god' is all powerful, perhaps 'god' created everything and just let it all play out from the big bang, just as 'god' wanted it to? Evolution fits nicely into that picture, unfortunately you still have to accept evolution and a whole grab-bag of exciting and hard or impossible to understand ideas, concepts and theories.

Or better yet... just cite one case where an ISM has gone up against modern science and convinced anyone of their side of the story-- except people who believe in that ISM.

Even if an OLOGY someday perfectly disproved the existence of 'god', this should not cause your belief to waver. It is your doubt, and not the OLOGY, which is the problem.

The Internet: Tardfest

I've spent some time in the last few weeks looking at various blogs, some concerning science, politics, evolution, etc. Well, that is, special focused time, over and above my many years of geeking about online.

My conclusion is that the internet is a great place for morons to come and feel welcome, whole and human.

Why?

You can get a pretty website (put together by someone else in most cases- handy for those with zero tech skills) where your poignant thoughts can be displayed for all to read.

You can be as dumb as you want and, without a doubt, someone just like you will happen along and post something telling you they agree, probably with a link to a fox news article that you both read the day before, which was the impetus for the post to begin with.

You have no fear of being held to your words as, it's the internet, and you can just click away from the offensive source of truth, wisdom or logic. Besides- nobody with a brain in their head wants to waste their time arguing with you, because clearly you are a moron.

Well. That's about all I had to say. And yes, I know, that's all kind of a given, kind of obvious, but I needed to fly up that misanthrope flag and just be grumpy for a minute there... all better.