Freethinker's corner

Just Add Soap… December 18, 2014

2014/12/18

Religions, all religions, are cults. Some religions are simply bigger than others and manage to strong-arm everyone into dismissing the “cult” label.

All religions prefer to start with the very young. Children’s minds are very sponge-like and possess no means of resisting irrational thought. In effect, what they are doing can be considered “programming” or “brain-washing”.

People, parents, insist that it is their right to instruct their children in the way they wish them to be instructed. They feel, perhaps, that at such vulnerable ages that their children possess no freedoms, no personal rights. They may feel that what they are teaching is good and sound, having been indoctrinated at an early age themselves.

Some non-believers think instead that early indoctrination of children in make-believe cults before the children possess the means to assess the information they are being fed is child abuse. In many cases it has been found that this indoctrination simply perpetuates old bigotries and hatreds as well as serving as an impediment to learning solid science. Some very fundamentalist Christian parents insist their children be taught silly things like the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that Adam and Eve were real and first, that a man could walk on water, or that there is pie in the sky watching you like Santa Claus. There have been some outright say that, despite evidence, if science contradicts their religious belief they will cling to the religious belief.

So line your kiddies up at the creek, bring a little soap, peel back that scalp, and let’s wash those little brains a bit.
The Burden of Proof … December 15, 2014

2014/12/14

The person who asserts that god exists must provide the proof of their claims. The person who asserts that god does not exist must also provide the proof of their claims.

For the scientist that uses the scientific method, and what scientist could be called a scientist that does not, that scientist must have something that is testable. It must be falsifiable.

The materialist who adopts the position that physical matter is all there is and that everything else is a manifestation of it must have proof of the metaphysical to accept its existence. That, I think, is an impossibility, that is, to prove something outside of what is, is. If something is outside of what is, it is not testable, hence not falsifiable (Except where the imagination is considered, it is illogical to think of anything outside of what is). The existence of the metaphysical cannot be proven. Manifestations of the metaphysical could simply be manifestations of the mind. If the metaphysical manifestations affect material, matter, then how could they not be physical? For the materialist, one that believes that matter is all there is, then the metaphysical is reduced to the imagination. For the materialist, if a god should exist, it would have to be made of matter. Such a god could not be all powerful as it would rely on matter and could not exist without it. If such a god was comprised of all matter, then everything is god, including us. If god is of matter, then that god had to appear at some point. A question arises, did that god create matter or merely rearrange it? Again, to substantiate that said god exists it would have to be testable. Matter is testable and thus far there has been no incidence where such a god has been detected. But, has all matter been tested? Can all matter be tested? There is no way to test all matter, at least at this point in our development. Again, god turns out to be non-falsifiable.

Ah ha, cries the theist. God exists!

The burden of proof lies with those making the assertion. No one can prove that something does not exist. Be it unicorn, leprechaun, or a teapot orbiting some distant orb, the non-provable may exist somewhere. The mighty Thor, despite our knowledge how such a story came to be, may exist somewhere in this vast cosmos.

Yet, for the materialist, the metaphysical, or anything outside of what is the material universe does not exist. So, the moment the theist makes claims that cannot be manifested, falsified, through the testing of matter, such claims can be dismissed. The claim that god is everywhere can be tested, has been tested repeatedly, and no such proof was found. That claim must fall. Omnipresence is out. What about Omniscience? To prove its existence would require a test subject. Refer to Omnipresence. The same goes with the claim of being all powerful.

Conclusion:

Although the claim that no god exists could never be substantiated, since the christian bible claims that god is omnipresent, that god can be claimed to not exist, at least by the materialist.

Questions:

1. Does materialism permit the existence of parallel universes?

2. Infinite parallel universes presenting every possibility would suggest that in one of those universes god exists. Perhaps this god created everything, including universes like ours where that god does not exist? Would there be any evidence?

3. Is that cat in the box really dead, or is that something else that I smell?
The Gynocentric Nature of Society … December 8, 2014

2014/12/07

Society has always been to some degree gynocentric, that is, valuing female life above male life. At one time evolution would dictate that such an evaluation was warranted. Now that human population has reached its present magnitude, evolution no longer holds sway. It is now only through arbitrary choice by the masses that females are considered of more value when push comes to shove. This unwarranted view has resulted in much discrimination against males.

The cry during tragedies has always been and continues today to be “women and children first”. The shout in time of war to caution aggression by the enemy is “there are innocent women and children here”, as if no man could be innocent.

Any man who speaks against this societal discrepancy is shamed into by silence by shouts of “man-up”, “be a man”, or “suck it up and be a man”. So the discrimination and devaluing of men continues.

For close to fifty years now, since the 50s, and the 60s, men have been denigrated on a continual basis in TV programs and commercials, in movies, and in print. In TV, commercials, and in movies it is the well-meaning but clueless and bumbling father or man. Men, boys, see these things prominently discoursed daily and are expected to ignore it. “Man up” he is told, “be a man”, the public shouts at his protests, a public that is surprised and scratches its collective head wondering then why they find his body after an apparent suicide. There has been a war on men for around six decades now.

Disposables are what men are considered by a society that seems so much like a matriarchy rather than the patriarchy often proclaimed. Only men must register putting their lives on the line to receive rights that women receive without making any commitment whatsoever. This, however, is not the only point in life where the scales of justice are tilted. Men receive extravagantly longer sentences for the same crimes than women. There is talk in Britain now, of closing all women’s prisons, the reason being that they do harm to women. Yet, the harm such places do to men has always been apparent and nothing ever suggested to correct it. On the topic of parenting, society assumes the mother would automatically make the better parent, even in cases where the mother has previously been accused of trying to murder her children. Divorce is almost always decided in women’s favor. The courts have nearly destroyed marriage and many men will no longer even consider it.

Society, after being so tilted, then wonders why so many become misanthropes. There are many of us out there. We are but a reflection of the treatment we receive. The uncaring public has generated a class of people, much like myself, who reflect that uncaring attitude back to a deserving public. We are people who look upon the miseries of others, feel that misery because biologically we have no choice, but choose to do nothing because we are also bound by evolution to reciprocate. That is what it is all about, life, that is. Reciprocity. You get what you give. Society treats men like disposables. Men, intelligent men who can feel, anyway, in return treat society as disposables and care not for the fate of humanity. They, I, wish so very much it was different. We are bound by reciprocity. Altruism, always an idealistic concept, does not, in reality, exist.
Stop the Subversives From Destroying This Land … November 30, 2014

2014/11/30

The internet has become a means by which subversives can coax, cajole, persuade people to follow and support stances which are not in their best interests. Through subterfuge it is possible to find yourself supporting issues that are opposed to your existence.

Through use of the human quality of empathy there are those who will attempt to align the masses behind this or that issue. A picture of some frail or helpless creature or human suffering at another’s hands is common tool of these subversives. Also, by depicting the evil as innocents rather than by their true light much public sympathy can be garnered.

More than once individuals of dark and evil nature have been painted as pure and innocent in an effort to cause people to criticize and condemn the police without good cause. Done for the purposes of agitating citizens the efforts often result in community riots involving destruction and looting. And then they sit back daring anyone to speak in opposition.

There can only be one goal of these subversives. The destruction of America as we know and love it.
You Are Insane! … December 1, 2014

2014/11/30

Think there is “rape culture”?

YOU ARE INSANE!
Honesty or Gesture?–Have A Nice Day … November 24, 2014

2014/11/23

Your friend approaches and speaks “How are you doing _________”. You respond with the usual “I’m fine”. The social pleasantries. These empty and dishonest gestures sometimes referred to as the social graces.

How often have you asked someone “How are you?” and really meant it? It is a simple greeting. You might as well had said “Hi”. Most often you could not care less even if they might die tomorrow.

I think that instead a simple hello should be mouthed, especially to those who you do not know beyond casual status. Save the inquiry about health for those you really care about. I know I would rather it be an honest inquiry rather than a perfunctory reflex. Let it be that way with the shaking of hands also that it be reserved for those you really care about rather than the common stranger. After all… is the catching of disease worth shaking everyone’s hands?

If you truly loathe someone why be so dishonest as to exchange the social pleasantries unless of course it will gain you something. Then again, you would not be dealing with someone you truly loathe unless it were a necessity. Most likely they reflect your disdain and realize the pleasantries are merely a façade. Keep your interactions on the level of mere reciprocity.

Honesty is not always the best policy if it adversely effects those you care about, in my opinion. But I would prefer that you actually mean it when you make your inquiry about my health. I intend henceforth to respond as if you do. So if you do not want to hear an honest assessment of my well-being or not so well-being, please do not use that particular social pleasantry.
The “Open-Minded” Can Be So “Close-Minded” ……. November 17, 2014

2014/11/16

shun (shn)

tr.v. shunned, shun·ning, shuns

To avoid deliberately; keep away from.

eschew (ɪsˈtʃuː)

vb

1. (tr) to keep clear of or abstain from (something disliked, injurious, etc); shun; avoid

os·tra·cize (str-sz)

tr.v. os·tra·cized, os·tra·ciz·ing, os·tra·ciz·es

1. To exclude from a group. See Synonyms at blackball.

2. To banish by ostracism, as in ancient Greece

black·ball (blkbôl)

n.

1. A negative vote, especially one that blocks the admission of an applicant to an organization.

2. A small black ball used as a negative ballot.

tr.v. black·balled, black·ball·ing, black·balls

1. To vote against, especially to veto the admission of.

2. To shut out from social or commercial participation; ostracize or boycott.

snub (snb)

tr.v. snubbed, snub·bing, snubs

1. To ignore or behave coldly toward; slight.

2. To dismiss, turn down, or frustrate the expectations of.

brush off

vb (tr, adverb)

1. to dismiss and ignore (a person), esp curtly

n

2. an abrupt dismissal or rejection

cold-shoulder – pay no attention to, disrespect; “She cold-shouldered her ex-fiance”

     As many know, I have asserted that Men’s Rights should be as important as Women’s Rights. However, as a result of my doing so, that is, asserting that men should have rights, I have suffered all of the above. For asserting that feminism is sexism I have been insulted, shamed, and shunned by many. For standing up for equal rights (Equal stature, different function) rather than women’s rights I have been lambasted and snubbed. For inferring that men and women are different and cannot be expected to be the same I have been black-balled and ostracized. For standing up boldly for human rights rather than specific group rights I have been brushed off and eschewed.

     It has always been in my nature in the past to desire to be liked by all. As a result of finding that even the “open-minded” can have closed minds on some things, just like the so called “close-minded”, I now feel isolated, separate. Yes, I have some things upon which I now refuse to discuss, having made up my mind from the available information.. but I would be quite willing to change my views upon the presentation of “new” information, but not upon the simple repetition of previously debunked information. There are some topics that seem to be talked out, at least for me. On those topics, like feminism, religion, all I hear are the same arguments, the same lies, repeated over and over again and again.

     I accept completely now that there are many humans that I am totally incompatible with. Among them are many who claim to be “open-minded”, claim to be guided by reason and logic, but truly instead, are subjective, self-serving, only. This hurts me deeply to find such subterfuge.
The Little Children … November 9, 2014

2014/11/09

Soon there will be the Black Friday sales. Super bargains will be offered, but you better hurry. Best you be first in line, or you’ll miss out.

There will be the usual news stories the days before the sale, people actually camped out at the front door of the stores waiting to get in, hoping to be first so they can get little Suzy that premium whatzits, or Little Timmy that fine thingamabob. The bargains will be good, but the quantities extremely limited. You have to be first in line or you’ll be sure to miss out. The fights begin, jostling for the spots to lay the bedroll so sleep can be had during the wait.

As the time approaches the crowd builds. Those who did not come to wait for three days in the cold find themselves the back of a building crowd. Those in front are shoved close to the doors. The doors nearly cave from the pressing masses. The doors spring open and the bedlam begins as eager parents rush into the melee.

All to save a few bucks on something a child will no doubt grow tired of in a few days. Such childish behavior elicited by stores nationwide. Just to generate excitement the merchants risk turning holiday shopping into a riot.

The stores are not entirely to blame, they only set the stage. The real culprits are those who so willing come to act in the play. Surrendering their maturity to save a few dollars on an expensive gift, no doubt made in China.

Tempers are made to flare, friendships strained to near breaking, just to get their hands on this years new gadget. All for a few dollars saved. Civilization surrendered for the sake of new toy. Insults hurled to gain a new bike. A happy season turned sour because of greed. People who are spoiled rotten by the plenty we enjoy declaring their willingness to throttle you to gain a little more.

I implore you to wait until the silliness is over. You may have to pay a little higher price but your sanity will stay intact. Stay home till these immature children have claimed their cheap prizes. Let them suffer the stress, let them age 2 years for your one. Sit back and enjoy your family on Black Friday. Have your kitchen stocked. You don’t even want to endure the madness of Black Friday at the grocery store. If you can’t get the whatever that the little crumb-cruncher wants tell them you will write them a rain-check, yes, teach them patience. Patience is so rare, teaching them patience is an expensive gift indeed.
Morality and Niceness … November 10, 2014

2014/11/09

Morality:

mo·ral·i·ty

noun \mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\

: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

: the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something

Nice-ness: (Nice)

nice
adjective, nicer, nicest.
1. pleasing; agreeable; delightful:

a nice visit.

2. amiably pleasant; kind:

They are always nice to strangers.

3. characterized by, showing, or requiring great accuracy, precision,skill, tact, care, or delicacy:

nice workmanship; a nice shot; a nice handling of a crisis.

4. showing or indicating very small differences; minutely accurate, asinstruments:

a job that requires nice measurements.

5. minute, fine, or subtle:

a nice distinction.

6. having or showing delicate, accurate perception:

a nice sense of color.

7. refined in manners, language, etc.:

Nice people wouldn’t do such things.

It seems very much possible from these definitions that you can be a reprehensible, immoral, nice person.

I imagine this may be how some really bad people persuade some really good people to commit some really bad acts.

On the other hand, these definitions also mean that it would be possible to have some really moral people who were not nice at all.

I think of myself as a moral person. I rather dislike most humans. This makes me appear as a person who is not nice. I look at other humans and they seem to appear and act immorally. “Morality is relative” you say? I can only look at them through my morality “window”. Objective morality may exist. I am sure that many of the things I believe moral are among those things I would categorize as objectively moral. Whether my parameters are set too high or too low, who can say? I can only say from what my reaction to what I have seen, I have concluded that I am quite the misanthropist.
1. misanthropist – noun – someone who dislikes people in general

misanthrope

crank, crosspatch, grouch, grump, churl – a bad-temperedperson
Women and Children? .. Puh-leese! … November 3, 2014

2014/11/02

“Women and Children first” is the cry often heard. The example cited is usually that of the Titanic.

A recent example of this gynocentric point of view is the “save the girls” plea about the kidnapped Africans. This occurred shortly after the slaughter of innocent boys in the same area about which there was never a mention in the western media.

Among populations there are many innocents. Men can be innocent also. Women can be non-innocents. Even if not actually involved in combat, women can serve as a support for combatants. At that point they are no longer innocent.

The stance that women and children are a priority must change. Women must not be given value that exceeds the value of men. If women actually desire equality they will agree with this point of view.

As a result of these events, and this reasoning, I will personally not answer any call that pleads “Women and children first” or “Save and protect the women and children”. I will only answer the call if the phrase is corrected to “Save (or protect) the innocent men, women, and children.” If engaged in a noble defense, even the defenders are innocent and should be respected as such.