Why I don't Commit Murder

This is an essay response to the YouTube video by CDK007 asking the question "why don't you commit murder?" I don't have a video camera at the moment, so it's all Texty McTextington for me. I suggest you watch his video before reading my usual and wonderful comments and asides. I've taken the liberty of embedding it for you, since I'm so nice (give me a hug).



Just so you know where I'm coming from (look behind you), I'd like to say that I enjoyed the video, and thought he had some good points to bring up in regards to the typical morality arguments. Obviously, this video is geared toward the adherents of theism and defending an atheistic morality (though, just to be clear, atheism itself has no morality as it is not a thing. It is only the lack of a belief in a divine being. That's it.) Basically this boils down to "people who are not religious have reasons not to murder too". (If you don't agree with that I'll fucking kill you).

The reason I am writing this essay is not to bash CDK007, or to argue with him, because, as I've stated above, I agree with his points. This is to simply expand the on idea, as I found it interesting that my personal reasons for not committing murder were never mentioned in the video.

There are three examples listed by the creator of the video (a video has to have a creator) as being common reasons that a person would object to committing murder. (As a quick aside, why does one "commit" murder? How many other things do you "commit"? Besides your crazy nephew who keeps trying to lick all the fish in your aquarium of course. Do you commit drinking? Do you commit taking a dump? Do you dump commitment?).

The first example is the rule of law. However, as he points out, just because something is against the law, does not mean that it will prevent people from doing something, though it does work with some folks. I'd have to agree, the law is usually not the first place I look to determine much of anything, not that I'm pro Judas Priest ("Breaking The Law").

Next he cites personal punishment. This makes a good deal of sense I think, as the thought of spending a lifetime in jail for doing something against the law does not sound very pleasing to my groin.

Lastly he uses God. He assumes many religious people think that since God commanded that we do not kill (then kills a bunch of people just to fuck with us), that they will think of that as their primary means of purposeful death deterrent.

These examples are all well and good (and well), but during the course of watching, I was yelling out my personal objections to murder, and for some reason (he's probably just stubborn), he neglected to add my shouted comments to his video in real time. What a jerk!

For what it's worth, I have thought about how to commit the perfect murder many times, but in my mind, it is more about the complex puzzle of how not to get caught, or leave false evidence, or perhaps do something that everyone would talk about, and becomes famous (infamous). (Inflammable means flammable?!) I would not actually do it in real life, most likely, I'd just try and incorporate it into a novel or screenplay. That's why imagination is so fun. In my imagination, I also have friends.

The primary reason I do not murder goes right to the heart of how we create a functioning society. For a social society to exist in a fairly decent way, we have to figure out a way that each individual gets to still be an individual, while also benefiting the collective. In short it works like this: I, myself, do not want to be murdered. Therefore I cannot murder someone else. The basic, "treat others as you would be treated" manta. If we all mostly agree to this ideology, we can begin to make a somewhat balanced, and functional version of a community.

The secondary reason that I do not murder, is the fact that, as an overly emotional person who dwells on everything, (and still feels like shit for things I did in kindergarten), I could not handle the emotional weight of being solely responsible for ending someone's existence. It would fill me with guilt and depression for the rest of my days, making my own life practically unbearable. As it is, my life is approaching that 'unbearability' mark, and that's without a murder on my mind/hands to push me over the line.

The last reason I do not murder has do with external punishment (which differs from the personal punishment as I will explain using a Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Ring). Why would people murder? I would assume (which makes you an ass) that usually people are brought to that state of action because they are very angry at someone, or at least really emotional in some form. The goal in this mindset is to cause the other person harm, pain, and to punish. Well, if the goal would be to punish the other person, to me, death is not a punishment. For all we know death is it. (Like advertising Coke. "DEATH IS IT!")

If that is true, in death, they would not be conscious or aware to be punished (so we think), therefore it is a crap punishment. Life is a greater punishement. Better yet, "restricted life". By that I mean existing in a state in which you can only contemplate your actions, and all amenities and luxuries are made not available to you. Something with deep emotional and mental consequences, something to make people feel (or, in some cases, learn) guilt and responsibility, and with the eventual goal of rehabilitation. Yes, I would still advocate trying to get people to become better for society, but not in the "1984" way, or in a drone/zombie/labotomy way.

I'm sure you said, "you mean like prison?" And I would say, "Hey, guy, don't interrupt me." But no, our prisons are not doing what I just said. They are basically a more bland and dangerous Hilton, where everything is provided for you. That does not bring the significant emotional and mental punishment, plus the rehabilitation I mentioned, unless they aired non-stop reruns of Full House.

Mr. 007 closes his video by giving the reason he does not kill: because it makes him feel sick.

I don't have any problem with this, as it is a beneficial trait for the good of society as a whole, however, due to my insatiable curiosity, I would ask where did that feeling come from? Is it inherent in our brains, and somehow selected for over time? Possibly. However I would argue that it is societally based, and infused. I'm sure your parents instilled at least a modicum of this concept in you over the years. And if not, (well, first, your parents were terrible, but), it's everywhere in our culture from TV shows to books to commercials. Even if the message is not supposed to be a heavy-handed "don't murder kids!" (Or "don't murder (comma) kids". Two different ideas there) the concept of "murder is bad" is still built into the way we think and perceive things. We show, naturally, the consequences of murder as being bad, and people who do it are bad and usually crazy.

So again, would you feel that way about murder if it were not instilled into you and learned by parents and society?

Just curious.



Enjoy reading this blog? Please favorite, rate or bookmark this page, and most of all comment with your personal stories, observations, or violent objections.

Tags: why commit murder social society morals youtube atheist atheism god cdk007 philosophy

(Mis) Perceptions Of Love

We, as conscious, feeling, emotional beings, place a lot of emphases on the notion of love. We ascribe the most fantastical feelings and epic scenarios to this strange and addictive sensation. It literally rules our lives in one way or another (or yet another).

I've mentioned the idea of love as being a purely functional production of our biological evolution in a previous blog called, The Feel Good Fix. I can very much see the practical way that our emotions could have evolved over time as a purely survival based mechanism, and yet, the artist in me can't help but be sucked into the whirlwind of experience and idealized perfection.

However, being the cynical and overly-analytical person I am, I do often get bothered with how distorted our perception can be of what love is. As I mentioned at length in my blog about self-perception, it is not who we are, but who we would like to be which becomes the way we see ourselves. The same is true for love; gorgeous visions of grandeur and solace concocted by the deepest longings of our metaphorical hearts. Unfortunately, this is often at odds with what love is in the real world.

Though many people are lucky enough to experience something that can dip occasionally into an almost movie-like fantasy world of beauty and excitement, most of us will not be so lucky.

And now on to the meat of this essay. I submit for you, a classic poetic example of how we think and feel about love, which comes from this oft used bible verse:

Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking.
It is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails.
I Corinthians 13:4-8

My dad's wife has this quote hanging in their master bathroom. Any time I visit them and, for whatever reason, use that particular bathroom (why do I use that one anyway?) I am bombarded with a framed plaque promoting this supposedly wonderful and poetic realization of the true nature of love.

Let me just say that this verse fills me with joy and puts a pleasant smile on my face. Then I hum a nice song on my way out of the room and, skipping merrily I . . .

. . . I can't do that with a straight face. Here I try to do this in a different way and fail miserably.

Back to the normal version that you cherish more then your dying grandmother.

Yes, I get that this sounds nice. I'm really not arguing that the ideas written here are great on paper, like communism. They are. (Like communism). It is exactly what we would all like to be, and how we would love to be treated by others. Pure, cold-filtered Utopia.

Alas, like utopia, the main flaw in this ideological view on love is that it leaves out the most basic and important component: human nature.

We could spend all day, waxing philosophic about how great it would be if people were more like this or that, acted in such and such way, or cared about these concepts over those concepts, but it is a dead argument from the get go. People will continue to be what they always have been. Animals. Apes. Humans.

Let's look closely at this verse and examine it closely from a more realistic viewpoint. (By the way, if you were wondering how I determine a "realistic" standard, I use my own opinion.)

Love is patient, love is kind.

Sorry, no. Wouldn't it be great though? Love involves our most irrational selves, by which I am referring to our emotions. Things not generally in our direct control. Love can be patient, sometimes, but it is by no means a general label I could accurately apply to it without wincing or cracking a smile. We want everything now, and love only helps expedite that want.

And as for love being kind, anyone who has had their heart broken, shattered and defecated upon can, and honestly, should tell you different. Love is ruthless and cruel, not for the timid. To be fair, love can indeed be kind, but to represent it as all things kind would be ridiculously unbalanced and unfair (like Fox news).

It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

Yikes. This line reminds me of the feeling I get being an audience member while watching a terrible comedian bomb awkwardly on stage.

I'm sure I'll say this a lot today but, at times, (and with this particular line it would very very, very select times), this can actually apply. But just because there are a handful of moments, few and far between where love embodies these things, does that mean (and before I finish this question, let me tell you that this is rhetorical) that 10% justifies the other 90%?

Love is extremely jealous my friends. Love has a case of the green eyes. When people are experiencing the near-illegal rush of chemicals associated with love, they naturally become more possessive and do whatever they can within their power to defend what they see as theirs. I'm sure you can see the evolutionary background in this one. It's mine and you can't have it!!!

Pride and boastfulness, again, are involved as well. Not always, mind you. But often enough to make a quite grounded objection to this line, based on experience and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

It is not rude, it is not self-seeking.

Love can be rude, impolite and worse. Though I do not think that these traits are inherent within the confines of what we've labeled "love", people, simply being the unaware creatures that they are, bring this aspect to the table.

Not self-seeking eh? Basically the author is trying to say that love is in no way selfish. I wish I had already finished one of several blogs I am working on dealing with the notion of selfishness, as I could simply link to it. Honestly, I could write for hours on the topic of selfishness. Without stealing all of the content from that essay, I'll simply say that the pursuit of love, is, by definition, almost purely selfish. Sorry "altruists".

It is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Can you honestly think of a time where your emotions have not gotten the better of you? Where your emotions, intensified by other side effects like jealousy, would bring you to anger? In fact, in many situations, the only reason you become angered is because of the fact you love someone, or someone loves you.

All I hang onto through the odd, and tumultuous junkyard that is, (though more accurately 'was'), my 'love' life, is the score card of wrongs, misses and regrets. And try as I might, I still can't get the smell of cat urine out of it. To keep with the underlying theme, the only (or at least most significant) reason you remember all of the "wrongs" of relationships past is because they contained so much emotion.

Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth.

Boy it sure feels good when you find out later that an ex lover has made some poor choices in their life, and perhaps in hindsight, they come back to the idea that being with you was actually really great, that you opened their eyes to many new and enjoyable ways of thinking and interacting, and most of all, they regret, even just a little bit, breaking up with you.

Now, I would not call that "delighting in evil" per se, though I did take great comfort in seeing that I was suddenly seen with new value, and appreciated well after the fact. Not to mention the fact that things "post Niko" did not turn out so well for her.

I'm really not sure how love "rejoices with the truth" though. Seems like a pointless, overly vague, and generally content-less statement. But somehow, it sounds nice enough, doesn't it? Who needs significant meaning when you have phrases that make us feel good. . .  for some reason.

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

No, no, no, and no. It does not always do this. Does it seem to you (again with the rhetorical questions) that this whole verse is beginning to look like exactly the opposite of what reality tells us about love? The rhetorical answer is yes. (Rhetorically speaking of course).

Battered and abused spouses, and crimes of passion should pretty well dispel the "always protects" idea, and trust is easily lost. I would wager that most people out there likely have "trust issues" as well, as they have probably dealt with a previous relationship in which they were given a reason not to trust people. Additionally, if you really were to "always trust" people, regardless of the situation, you would likely end up with your life savings indebted to a Nigerian Prince. Not being overly trusting is actually a sign of wisdom.

"Always hopes". This may be the first one I agree with. However I also have a negative impression of idea of hope. Wait for a future essay.

"Perseveres". It may do this. It may indeed. Take one read of any of the blogs on the site, "Psychotic Letters From Men", and you'll see that perseverance is not always a good thing (though we get to read about it later and mock those who are unaware of their pathetic behavior). Oh Stalking. Could I love you more? (Rhetorical).

Love never fails.

*sigh*

Yes, and love lasts forever. Children are also sweet an innocent. Another concept that bothers me quite a lot, this notion of things lasting forever. Mostly you hear it applied to exactly our topic. People often lament about finding a love that lasts forever. I hope you enjoy lamenting, as you'll end up with a degree.

Nothing lasts forever people. Nothing. That is reality. Even our very universe is eventually going to disintegrate into nothingness. This, yet again, is our perception of what love should be, and not what love is (just like that HILARIOUS cartoon of the same name!!).

When it comes to relationships, one or both of your will eventually fall out of love, or one of you will eventually die. Neither of those scenarios constitutes 'forever' in my mind. Score one: reality.

So there we have it folks. An uplifting dissection of a misleading and wholly incorrect poem about how we perceive love, instead of what love actually is.

It may come off that I have something against feeling good, or finding love in some form, and if so, I need to say that that would be incorrect. I still long for everything I've debunked or shredded above. My imagination and desires still takes me where reality fears to tread. If anything, I'm just trying to be grounded and look at what experience and evidence tell us about relationships, albeit in a sarcastic and humorous way. After all, this is still supposed to be entertainment, yes?

Again, the fact that we can conceive of such ideas of love, is at the root of the underlying conflict. Our imaginations are much more beautiful and amazing than anything reality could likely throw our way (with some exceptions). When we are inundated with books, poems, music and movies that espouse the hyper-idealized version of what we want love to be, we will only end up being disappointed by what actually manifests for us. Understanding the nature of reality, especially in regards to love and personal happiness, is the first step at actually attaining something attainable, and then being satisfied with it.

All in all, I could not have designed a better case study for how inaccurate our perceptions of love can be. Let that be a lesson for the future: when you need inaccuracy, look no further then the bible! ZING!



Enjoy reading this blog? Please favorite, rate or bookmark this page, and most of all comment with your personal stories, observations, or violent objections.

Tags:love relationships emotion perception patient kind envy never fails bible psychology philosohpy

Overly Affectionate People

I know you enjoy it when I have problems with things, so enjoy it (time is money).

From the title, you might guess I have a problem expressing general affection, or possibly I might get a bit peeved by public displays of affection. Well, you guessed wrong. (IDIOT!!!!!!!!!) Though I can act awkward in common social situations, when it comes to romantically-based inter-personal relationships, I love psychical affection, and yes, even when it's in public (though I probably still act awkwardly). So if I enjoy acting like a giggly child and sickening those around me with saccharine displays of candy-coated touching and kissing, what could I possibly have a problem with?

As you've already guessed (correctly this time), it's something that will seem so trivial and minute that you'll have a hard time understanding why it is so bothersome to me. You know the drill.

What irritates me is when people act overly affectionate with damn near anyone they come in contact with, including, and especially, light acquaintances (of which I'm usually in the last category).

EXAMPLE 1: Switching schedules.

A few months ago a female co-worker asked me if I would switch schedules with her for an upcoming day. After confirming that I could indeed make the switch, she got immediately excited and said, "Thanks so much! I love you!"

I love you.

I love you? For switching a schedule? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you also love the stranger in the street who glances at his watch to tell you the time? Or how about the fast-food drive-thru operator who lets you have an extra minute to go over the menu?

Yes, yes, I realize that the girl in question did not actually mean that she is IN love with me. But honestly it matters not. The principle remains the same. Does anyone else think her choice of expression did not match the given situation?

EXAMPLE 2: Using the bathroom.

How about this: the girls living below my apartment last year were throwing a little party (the way I worded that it almost sounds like they live in the floor. Literally). I decided to check it out and see how many people I could tear to shreds in my mind (since I'm so pathetic in large social situations, my only recourse is to find a way to feel superior. Pathetic, I know). The one bathroom in their flat was currently "occupado", so one of the roommates came to me with an irrational and impossible proposition:

"Niko? Can I use your bathroom please? I'll love you forever!!"

This is where my eyes roll, then narrow, my teeth clinch, and I let out a sigh.

What is she, ten? How is this any different from the equally weighty, and legally-binding verbal contract of, "pleeeeaasse? I'll be your best friend!!!!!???" I can't tell you how many amazing close personal friends I've made through just such a situation.

Back to her statement, it's not like the notion of being loved forever is bad thing (though I can still find scenarios where it could be), but using such a false and vacant idea like that for using a bathroom is, without saying, . . . . . . . .

(oh man the grammatical humor!)

I looked at her and raised my eyebrow in my overly condescending way.

"That's a ridiculous thing to say," I told her. "But you can use the bathroom anyway."

EXAMPLE 3: Truck stop baby.

I was helping a female bartender put away the bloody mary bar that we set up for brunch. I only do this because I am usually bored, or have been guilted into doing so. Upon completion she said, "Thanks for helping me out, babe."

Last time I checked, my name was neither spelled, nor pronounced that way. "Friend" I can understand, as we could be, under certain definitions be categorized as such (not mine of course, since I'm such an elitist). Same goes with other, more simple words used to denote basic friendship like "pal", "buddy" or "bud", or even the oft used, and overly general "man" and "dude".

Her back was turned while I gave a look of puzzlement. It almost felt somehow wrong of her to call me that. Was she suddenly interested in me? Was this a subconscious Freudian double meaning? 

"Babe."

Listen, I don't spend much time at truck stop diners for a multitude of reasons, but to me this very much resembles the stereotype I have concocted in my mind of the 60 year-old, skirt-wearing, chain-smoking, raspy-voiced waitress who goes by the name "Mama" and always asks you if you, "want more coffee, hon?" Not that this bartender is any of those things. In fact, were she not married, I would not mind the notion of being called "babe", but the context would be a bit different.

You don't know me (by "you" I mean "she". Which then means you need to change "don't" to "does not"). Well, to be fair, few do. But I really don't like being called terms of affection, when I am not the object of affection. It's confusing, and it sends mixed messages, whether or not it is intended.

EXAMPLE 4 through 8 billion:

A male bartender whom I work with, and say very little to in general, walks into the restaurant and greets me with a simple, "hey buddy. How's it goin'?" No problem there, I get that this question is just a longer version of "hi". Where I get confused in our social standing is when I am suddenly given an awkward hug. Wait, are we good friends now? Did I miss something?

He gives everyone a hug when he comes into work each day, including me, who as I mentioned, is barely an acquaintance (which, of course, would make us good Myspace friends. HEY-OH!). I can understand his good friends, but me? Why? Doesn't that at all seem the slightest bit eyebrow raising?

Most of the servers are constantly putting their arms around each other and being, at least what I would call, overtly flirtatious with language and body (usually in male/female combinations) when they are chatting. Lots of that "touchy feely" behavior, even when the people involved are in "committed" relationships (yes, the quotes were a bit of a slam. I'm crafty that way) or they are actually married.

It's there, around me every day, and I still don't get it. I don't act that way with my friends, nor do I return the behavior on my own accord in the workplace.

One (or two) can assume, since it is so commonplace, that no one else sees this as being inappropriate, out of place, or even just a bit too much. Besides me.

A short defense.

I can see that some of you may think this is much ado about nothing. You could justify their choice of words as simple uses of common speak, or they mean the words in a less strong or specific manner. Perhaps, yes. Maybe I'm reading into this too much . . . actually, yes I am reading into this too much, but that's what I do regardless. But what about their actions? Is that the same? The over-the-top flirty actions, and constant touching? Can that really be as simple?

What it all means.

I said at the top of this essay, that I am, in fact, quite an affectionate person, but only in very specific situations. I really do love to be intimate and physical with those I feel very strongly for. Which is why, in my mind, I've reserved particular words, gestures, actions, and general behavior for moments in which they are most meaningful. Obviously the idea of meaning is rather subjective, and for me these concepts are most meaningful when they are not given out freely or at random. It's like simple supply and demand: when the quantity of a product goes up, the value comes down. Same goes with affection. If you tell everyone "I love you" for a ranging scale of ridiculous to semi-reasonable justifications, how will the people you actually, truly and whole-heartedly LOVE know the difference?

How will YOU know the difference?

Many people (who are objectively wrong) choose not to subscribe to that particular set of ideals, which is fine (I'm lying). I strongly feel that when, rare as it might be, I tell someone that I love them, it really means something. The actions and words themselves carry greater value due to their inherent scarcity.

Another observation I take away from watching such displays, and being on the receiving end of some, is that the behavior feels very disingenuous; in that it comes off, many times, as fake, or false. I feel like I'm being condescended to, like they are acting.

Needless to say (which is why it's being said), I don't like disingenuous behavior, nor disingenuous people. When someone says something to me, I want it to mean what it is supposed to mean.

Maybe it's all me.

What I notice in many of these blogs, is the potential for me to be the only one who is "out of the loop"; the lone protester dragging his heals in the dirt, desperately fighting the current of modern day acceptable practices. And I fully accept that this, again, may be the case. Is this what everyone else actually does and I'm just out of the "affection loop"? Maybe I'm too frigid, cold, or reserved. Maybe I have trouble expressing affection "correctly".

But what if it's not all my social awkwardness. Then what can we ask about this? Is this kind of social behavior learned through social jobs like this (i.e. server, bartender, nightclub staff, DJ, etc)? Or do people with this behavior gravitate towards jobs like these? A bit too "chicken and egg" perhaps. Still, interesting questions methinks.

The clincher.

The most frustrating part of all of this, is the awareness that many of the mannerisms and unconscious behaviors I have just listed, and spent too long mulling over, have slipped into my everyday repertoire. I've now noticed how susceptible I can be, being influenced by those around me. The other day while checking IDs at the door for a concert, I stopped a young woman before she could enter and said "can I see your ID sweetie?" Guuhhhh.......




Enjoy reading this blog? Please favorite, rate or bookmark this page, and most of all comment with your personal stories, observations, or violent objections.

Tags: affection love friend pda social psychology humor

All Truth Is Relative. . . And Equally Not.

What is the nature of truth? Is truth absolute, relative or just a set of probabilities? Are you bored already? Or are you equally bored and entertained? Follow me through a long and twisting path on a journey to discern what is, from what is not. (And also a bunch of aimless digressions).

There was an actually positive article about atheism in the NYT, that for once decided not to depict every atheist, "agnostic" or secular humanist as being evil, filled with hate (good thing they did not interview me) or being the downfall of American values (whatever that really means. By the way, read the book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism if you want American values).

One of the comments on the article's website was from a believer, who, admittedly, was very fair and quite knowledgeable. The commenter talked about the fact that he knew his beliefs could not be proven, nor could the non-existence of something be proven (which as I said, is fair, to a point), but then ended his two cents with this:

"Given that none of us knows and it's all a matter of faith, be it yes or no, why not opt for belief and be an optimist?"

To the layman or uninitiated, this sounds like a valid perspective. Why not just take the side with more optimism and leave it at that? Because obviously, the side without a belief in a god is automatically pessimistic and unpleasant right?

Wrong. This is where the idea of "truth value" comes into play. But before I go there, I have a few other problems with his statement.

This person has made the assumption, based on his preset beliefs, that because he feels optimistic due to his beliefs, that all people will feel optimistic because of his beliefs. What it also says, is not only are his beliefs the corner stone of optimism, but things that are not his beliefs cannot be optimistic. As far as he can tell, you cannot be happy, content, positive or personally fulfilled without his personal perspectives. Thanks for assuming the inherent bleakness of my views!

As I've tried to explain, optimism actually is relative. I feel more optimistic (yes me) for knowing that I am in control of my life, and I'm not looking over my shoulder for some malevolent angry father character to constantly judge my every thought and action. In fact, in my mind, that's the furthest thing away from optimism. That's fear.

Wait a minute. Isn't the topic of this essay "Truth is Relative" in a sarcastic tone? Didn't I just say something IS relative? Why I did I do that? First, pull your pants back up. Second, because optimism is based on emotional outlook, which does not have to be grounded in any percentage of truth. For instance, I know someone who buys a lottery ticket every single day and always talks, quite optimistically, about his chances and what he will do with the inevitable pile of cash he is obviously not going to get. (Did you like that? "Inevitable" followed by "obviously not"? Pretty good eh? Impressed?)

The next assumption this person makes (the guy I am quoting, not the guy who buys the lotto ticket), which is vastly more important, is that since he feels that neither side (belief vs. non-belief) can be proven, both options are equally valid. This would be to say that each scenario is equally likely to be one thing or another. For this to work there would have to be the same amount of evidence on both sides, as well as the same amount of logic behind each argument. I mean, after all, either humans built the pyramids, or they were farted out by flaming cyber chimps singing the theme song from "Charles In Charge". If they are equally valid, why not believe both? Why believe either?

He also goes as far as equating his position (a matter of faith) to my position (a matter of no faith) by saying that they are both based upon belief. This is something that bothers me quite a bit, and also a notion that seems hard for certain people to grasp, especially for those whose outlook on existence deals heavily in matters of faith alone to explain the world around them.

The quick explanation is this: my position is that I LACK faith in a god or deity. Lacking faith does not require faith, unless the evidence that something exists is overwhelming.

Example: You and a friend are walking through the park. Your friend stops to point out a bird and says, "Oh Look, a Robin!" Despite the evidence that you can both see and hear the bird, you declare that the bird is not there at all. There is more evidence to prove the bird's existence in this case than the absence of it. You chose to deny the evidence and just trust in your personal belief that there is no bird there.

THAT requires faith.

Me not accepting your idea that I have Quato growing out of my chest telling me to "start the reactor", is hard to believe when there is no evidence of the kind proving your claim. Therefore I do not believe you. Hence no faith in that idea. Hence hence my lack of faith does not require faith.

The last thing that this person claims in his statement is that all truths are relative. This is the most bothersome of all to me. This is a variation of the "equally valid" idea, where we've moved away from two competing ideas for the heavy weight champion, and now ALL ideas are valid. Thousands of ideas. Even ideas with opposing views (i.e. you are the sexiest person alive / you make me want to vomit urine. Maybe that's just me?).

So how is it possible for all views to contain the same amount of truth?

And this is where the story takes a more personal turn. My own mother holds this very same perspective. She has, over the course of her life, believed many different things, starting from traditional christianity as a child, then moving into various new age and metaphysical perspectives later in life. Each time a new philosophy or ideology does not seem to "resonate" for her, she moves on to another one, hoping to find something that works.

Many people might slowly discard the truth value of each previous belief, leaving with the idea that "since belief 'A' did not work, I can conclude that belief 'A' is not very truthful", although I doubt you'd say it like that. You'd probably put more swear words in there. But the path is that we slowly get rid of the things that are less likely to be true and come to a smaller circle of ideas that are more likely to be true.

So what did my mother do after having so many new age beliefs not work for her? Did she cross them off the list of probability? Did she say "maybe all this new age stuff is bullshit"? You guessed it, NO! She has taken the opposite philosophy in that everything, no matter how unsupported and unprovable (and in many cases already proved wrong), can be true for different people. Let me repeat that. Different truths for different people.

It's this very perspective that makes conversing with my mother on any topic remotely related to philosophy and existence a dead end. It is a very basic underlying perspective that forms the base of the way you approach the world around you. It is my perspective that some answers are going to be more truthful than others, which then makes me continually research, read about, and ponder the nature of things in order to find out what is more probable. If my mother holds the perspective that one thing cannot be more truthful than another, due to their equality of truth value, then any facts, evidence or arguments I make about a given idea will hold no more validity than another much less likely idea.

Let's say I'm wearing a solid color T-shirt. Would you say that my shirt is equally black and equally orange? Or is it more likely that it is only one of those two options? We can determine by simple observation that my shirt is more probably one color, than it is another. (Although if you really want to get silly with this we could go with the example of Schrödinger's Cat and say that until you actually see the shirt, it exists in a state of all probabilities at one time, but I digress).

If you only believe that truths are personal, and things are not more likely to be one thing over another, how do your discern reality? In a world of extreme relative truths, there is no way of finding out and separating the world around you into categories of things that are, and things that are not. All things are true, and all things simultaneously are not true, apparently depending on the person.

What this philosophy leads me to is the notion that, if all things are true, and all truth is personally relative, then there is no reason to even search for truth, as truth becomes pointless. Truth no longer explains the situation, or gives a definite answer. Why even have truth at all?

This is the crossroads I am at. I very much want to be able to communicate with my mother on philosophical topics, but our base set of understandings are at odds and I can't tell you how frustrating it can be. She, again, would likely hold the view that both of our ideas are probably right, that is, both relative truths and probable truths are correct. I'll let you think about that one on your own.

"Given that none of us knows and it's all a matter of faith, be it yes or no, why not opt for belief and be an optimist?"

Coming back to this quote, I'd like to end this essay with the main reason I don't "opt for belief and be an optimist". Summing up from above, both of these ideas are not equiprobable. Both of these ideas don't hold the same amount of weight when it comes to logic, reason, and evidence. One perspective is more likely to be true than another, and I am of the mind that I genuinely care whether my ideas and, yes, beliefs, are true or not. Just because an idea fills you with optimism, does not mean it is true.

In any given situation, one answer will be more likely to be true than another (I'm either sexy, or I induce urine vomit, and so far the evidence points to the latter). One will have more evidence behind it, fit the question more efficiently, and do so with the least amount of blind assumptions possible.

To quote Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience: "Wouldn't you want as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible?"

Thank God that all truth is relative!




Enjoy reading this blog? Please favorite, rate or bookmark this page, and most of all comment with your personal stories, observations, or violent objections.

Tags: atheism atheist truth relative reality belief new york times philosophy humor

Colorado Women's Expo. A Celebration Of Stereotypes!

Nothing like a steaming pile of gender stereotypes to get me in a nice frothy rage, and confuse those around me. I tell you, it appears that the notion of me getting upset over perpetuated gender stereotypes raises a lot of eyebrows, and facial expressions conveying the ever popular, "What the hell is wrong with you?" look. I'm guessing the factors involved are not that easy to explain.

I was sitting at the bar on an especially slow Sunday afternoon, and began rifling through the newspaper that conveniently sat in front me. Most of it got put into the newly created "crap" pile, including the sports section and the comics. (As a quick aside, were you aware of this interesting tidbit: at one time, likely several decades ago, the comics were actually considered humorous? Almost hard to fathom isn't it? I generally read them for a quick sobering dose of how cruel and disappointing the world can be).

Towards the end of the putting-most-of-the-newspaper-in-the-crap-pile session, I quickly glanced at a flyer that sent me into a soapbox lecture and rant. The flyer in question? An ad for the Colorado Women's Expo.

And why is this worth writing about?

I would have easily just placed this mini-magazine onto the "crap" pile and thought nothing of it if it weren't for the fact that my eye glossed over the very first photo on the cover, which caused my whole body to give off the "I'm completely let down" posture with a overly loud sigh.

The very first photo, on the very cover, was of a woman applying lip liner to another woman. I closed my eyes, as my mouth tensed up. "Does no one else get this?!" I thought to myself. And by thinking to myself, I mean I said it out loud to the bartender and those around me.

A quick scan of the rest of the cover revealed that this would be a source of extreme frustration and anger for me. The bottom of the mini-mag had a few bullet points about the expo that were likely designed to catch the common woman's attention. These read: Fashion, Style, Finance, Careers, Health, Fitness, Home, Food. Another sigh. I quickly grabbed a pen off of the counter and hastily scrawled the first things I could think of onto the ad itself, both for humor and to make a point.

The new version went like this:

Makeup!
Recipes!
Shopping!
Gossip!
Babies!
Makeup!
Emotional Baggage!
Obsessing Over Unrealistic Body Images!

Things you won't see on this list: Astrophysics, Neuroscience, and Existentialism (which is why I wrote them on the ad).

I, of course, showed the new version to the bartender, who, being a female, was not sure exactly what I was trying to point out. She mentioned that she did not have a lot of female friends, and did not consider herself overly "girly", but still was not able to see the real problem I was trying to bring to light for her.

I opened the mini-magazine for the expo to see if, likely, it was riddled with more offending examples of gender pandering. Lo and behold (each of those), on the very back page, there was a list of seminars that would be going on during the event. The majority of which I began highlighting in heated frustration. These included such avant garde subjects as:

High Style, Low Prices
Nutrition: You Have To Eat To Lose Weight
Real Makeup For Real Women
Trends: What's Hot, What's Not. What's In, What's Out
The Art Of Recycling And Re-Crafting
Guilt Free Shopping From Head To Toe
Simple Design For The Home
Motivation: Discover What Motivates You
Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus: Even When Dealing With Stress

And one of my own for good measure:

Desperately Covering Up Your Inner Pain And Lack Of Personality With Surface Distractions Like Clothing And Jewelry

Upon showing the bartender this new, incriminating information, she looked a bit more interested, yet still not quite sure what the goal was of pointing it all out.

I began rambling at breakneck speed as I pointed to each infuriating example of social gender identity pandering. "High style, low prices?! C'mon, not that people can't have an interest in clothes, but are we trying to say that the common woman is just a mindless corporate consumer?! And that makes her happy?!"

She contemplated that thought as I drove my speeding freight train into the next topics.

"Eat to lose weight? More obsession with body image. Like we aren't insecure enough as it is. Oh, this one pisses me off! 'Real makeup, for real women'??!!! Are you kidding me?! What a pointless and superficial topic. Does that also mean there is fake makeup for real women, or real makeup for fake women flooding the market place?!?! Why is that important?!?! It's just perpetuating the generalization!!"

"Calm down Niko. Shhhhhhhhh" She said chuckling to herself. One of my managers was now sitting next to me at the bar, seemingly enjoying the strange tirade, while still raising an eyebrow to show that he thought I was insane.

I lowered my voice a bit and continued. "Of course they would have this. 'What's hot what's not'. You know, not all women base their whole lives around stupid social trends. Some actually care about, oh, I don't know, important things. Oh look at this one. 'Guilt free shopping'. What is it with guilt free? It's on like every snack commercial geared towards women. It's almost as if the ad itself is telling the woman she should feel guilty for doing, or thinking something. What, are they all Catholic or something? If something makes you feel guilty, don't do it! Or better yet, figure out why you associate guilt with something and see if it is unfounded, thereby eliminating the pointless guilt! Bam!"

My voice had ramped up again, as it tends to do when I'm on fire about an idea. The head chef walked over, obviously overhearing some of my ranting, and purposely chimed in with, "So what is this all about now?" My manager started laughing and cautioned him not to get me started.

It is rather challenging to try and explain the little nuances of why these concepts are so bothersome to me, and why people seem to take them for granted.

What this whole thing does to me, is bring up a handful of questions which I tried to pass on to the bartender. "Are these interests naturally ingrained within the brain? Or are they a product of societal influences? And why do so many women seem to share the same predisposition towards certain interests? And why these interests over others?"

Once I began posing these type of catalyst questions dealing with the origin of the behavior or thought process, she started to (seemingly) catch on. "Interesting. I've never thought of it like that before." She then remarked that she found it fascinating that I would sit around and think of things like this, which she soon appended with the thought that it would actually be pretty annoying to be constantly overthinking things the way I (seemingly) do. Good call.

While you're standing in line at the grocery store, take a second to read over the covers of the magazines that are blatantly targeted at the "common woman". Again you see more of the same. A deluge of superficial pointlessness dealing with celebrity gossip, weight loss (try to find one without that), and beauty tips for whatever season you are in. The obsessive focus on physical beauty correlates directly to finding a mate, which in turn leads many women away from focusing on their own minds, talents, personal goals and career paths.

Let me clarify something just to make sure. I'm not saying these interests are inherently bad, or should never be thought of, it's just when these things are the main, or only pursuits that it becomes a bull's eye for intellectual criticism.

Society has a huge influence in creating our gender identity. Men are no exception, but I'll save them for another time. Children are particularly susceptible and impressionable to these types of ideas.

It's not fully intentional, but we naturally treat male and female babies differently. Identity is built up based on how others treat us in the world. We begin to make up our own conception of who we are depending on how others react to us, talk to us, interact with us. Gender, at least social gender identity can be developed in the same way.

I'm not trying to say that gender is entirely a product of environment, as gender is also physical. The most significant difference is the bodily difference, and the rest is psychological. Sure women have more estrogen, and men more testosterone, but I really believe that most of the social traits we apply to men and women are actually learned.

While I was reading this flyer, I felt like a feminist, violently defending a negative generalization that is, in my eyes, not helping or contributing to progressive social enlightenment. Women have been repressed and treated as second class citizens for a few thousand years thanks to patriarchal religions, chauvinistic social cultures, and douchebags who ride Harleys. Thankfully, we are slowly seeing the eventual equalization of the sexes, but it feels that these long lived ideas of gender roles in society and family are going to take many more generations to exspunge, due to the lasting effects of centuries of oppression.

If there is any truth to that idea, then the above advertisement really pisses me off. Here we are in the 21st century and we are still perpetuating stereotypes by ingraining women with qualities that don't support being independent, self-sufficient thinkers and doers, we are instead, and maybe not on purpose, creating more dependency, subservience, and a negative psychological self image that portrays themselves as never attractive enough, and makes physical beauty paramount in their minds.

Have I mentioned that gender stereotypes slightly bother me?


Enjoy reading this blog? Please favorite, rate or bookmark this page, and most of all comment with your personal stories, observations, or violent objections.

Tags: gender stereotypes identity women men biology social psychology humor