Archive for August, 2006

« Older Entries

Reply to hynkle: collectivism and the individual

Thursday, August 31st, 2006

In reply to this comment from hynkle:

I was also quite taken by The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged when I first read them. They quite literally changed my life. My worldview underwent a significant change. But as I’ve been living since then, I’ve come to realize that it seems that her philosophy misses something crucial. The individual is as sacred a thing as we can have in this natural world. If we take the individual as something of such great importance, how much more important then must the collective be?

Part of the difference, I am thinking, may be that I look at the collective as a group of precious individuals, while most simply look at the collective as a lumpy mishmash of humankind.

What do you think of my view of collectivism? Is this what it is that Rand so disliked, or am I talking about something different?

Since the question is interesting, but offtopic for that thread, I’ll reply to it here:

Her philosophy is indeed missing some important things; for instance, nature is something wonderful, and she (and her characters) had no use for it, except as resources. But, about collectivism, I think she was completely right.

And why is that? Because, unless you’re talking about the Borg, there’s no such thing as “the collective”.

“The collective”, or “the group”, is just a term which a number of less ethical individuals use when they want you to sacrifice yourself for them. There’s no such thing as “society as a whole” (whose needs, of course, are more important than individual ones); the best contribution you can give to society is to be a great, heroic, creative being – but you should be doing it for yourself, not for society. The fact that others also gain by it is just a bonus.

But if you sacrifice your own needs, hopes, dreams and happiness because of the needs of “the group”, nobody is really gaining. You’re just destroying yourself, and they will need to move on after their latest victim (you) is drained.

You may say: “but if, say, 10 individuals agree in something, shouldn’t their opinion ‘count’ 10 times as much as mine?”. No. It doesn’t work that way. They’re still individuals, and each one doesn’t “count” more than you do. And if they are so low as to use their number to convince you that their needs are more important than yours, then they should “count” even less.

I have no problem with a group whose goal is to produce, to create. But a group whose purpose is to demand from individuals only deserves contempt.

This is my opinion. If I misunderstood your meaning, please let me know. :)

(I know you didn’t even mention “sacrifice”, but, again, without sacrifice of the individual, “the collective” is meaningless. There’s no such thing, and nobody ever talks about “the greater needs of the group / society / humanity” without talking about individual sacrifice.)

Tags: ,
Posted in collectivism, individualism | 17 Comments »

Reply to A Christian Reply to An Open-Minded Atheist Reply to Christianity (PART 1) (whew!)

Wednesday, August 30th, 2006

So, this post is a reply to this post, which is a reply to this post of mine, which was itself a reply to… yes, confusing, I know. :)

Anyway, here goes nothing…

Because the majority of Christians are not even Christians in the real sense of the word. And because the majority of people operate and live as if God doesn’t exist. Just look at a typical day in the life today and contrast it to the life and times of Jesus and His followers. The differences are huge. That’s why I say that atheism is all around us. Where there is no belief in God being expressed, there is a belief that there is no God being expressed. More about this down below.

First, it’s the “No true Scotsman” fallacy again. If we asked them, they’d say they are Christians.

You say they aren’t, for a reason: they’re not fanatical enough. To you, it’s not enough to believe in God and try to follow the usual tenets of Christianity. No, to you, you have to live for God all the time, doing everything in terms of “does God want this?”. Any entertainment you watch must praise God, any book you read must be about God, any movie you watch is “atheist” if God isn’t mentioned every 5 minutes.

As I said before, to me, that’s no more than a death in life. And only someone who hates his own life would choose to “live” like that.

The sad thing is that there are some Christians out there to whom you aren’t a true Christian either, because you’re not fanatical enough. They’re the ones like this nutcase. Or the ones who bomb abortion clinics.

The Bible knows it too. It often states that the sheep of this age are in desperate need of a shepherd. And it tells us to let Jesus be our shepherd.

Thanks, but I don’t need a shepherd. I’m not a sheep. I’m a human being. I think for myself, instead of just following others.

The true meaning of Christianity is becoming lost in this bombarding age of distractions.

Like I said above. Anything which doesn’t mention God or Christ or salvation is, to you, a “distraction”. You must really hate this world and this life, don’t you?

For the only good Christian is Christ. And no one can or ever will compare.

From everything I’ve read about Christian history, Jesus was everything but a Christian. Christianity was founded by Paul, who never even met Jesus, and whose writings, while repeating to exhaustion how Jesus was divine, ignore completely any of Jesus’ teachings, and anything he ever did or said. This is not some “evil heresy” from an atheist; it’s right there in your Bible.

You choose to deal with your perception of reality, not reality. We have no proof of what reality is. We cannot prove that what we live is in fact real. Fooled by the experience, we believe that we’re alive and this is reality.

So, you accept that it’s likely that you didn’t really write the above in your blog? How can you be sure that you did? You cannot prove it. Maybe you only think you remember it.

You know, in the Dark Ages, peasants lived in fear of the unknown, “seeing” demons and spirits in every darkened corner. They had no idea of what was real and what wasn’t. Reality, to them, was something fluid, ever-changing, and unknowable.

Then the Renaissance came, and it took man out of the Dark Ages. However, some of us still choose to deny reality… :(

The Bible is over 2000 years old and still holds true when talking about society and the world around us. The times have changed but they really havent.

The Bible promotes slavery and the inferiority of women. In fact, many Christians fought emancipation due to that.
Most liberal Christians (which you’ll call “untrue Christians”) accept that the Bible reflects the prejudices of the times. But there are some who take it literally.

Do you really wish to go back to slavery and women as inferior beings?

If not, I hope you’ll also accept that the Bible does not hold true when talking about society and the world around us.

Time is an illusion.

Lunchtime, doubly so. (Never say such a thing to a Douglas Adams fan! :) )

Just read through portions of it. Clearly, its not the thinking of man that has gone into this book. It’s the thinking of a God.

Oh, I did. More than you imagine. That’s why I know that no god would be so incompetent to write – let alone allow himself to be represented by – a book so prejudiced, so self-contradictory, and which paints a picture of such a small, jealous, childish, spoiled god.

No, but I meant that an Atheist would engage in self-indulgent social gatherings more than a real Christian would. By attending and being attentive, you’re giving glory to the sport. And, unless you work there, if you’re attending a sports stadium more often than you would be attending a Church, then you’re probably not being Christian-like.

Again, I don’t think you really know any atheists. You simply use that word for any Christian who doesn’t praise God every 10 seconds. Fact is, most people in such sports gatherings are Christians. In fact, I’d say that the percentage of Christians there is greater than outside.

That’s the problem with humans. If it’s common, its believable. The minute it evades our tangible spectrum of reality, we take it as being impossible.

Not quite. We simply ask for evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And there is none.

Having an imagination is a necessary component for faith. We were all given an imagination for a reason.

Oh, but I have an imagination. I love fantasy. However, I don’t confuse it with reality.

I don’t mean that there are more atheists than Christians. Though there are more Christians than atheists, most Christians live and operate in a way that is more atheist than Christian-like.

To you, it may seem that way. To me, it’s the opposite.

You say they are like atheists because they don’t give up everything in their lives – their joys, their dreams, their goals, their very right to live – for God. Because they don’t praise God every minute. Because they don’t live for God, even though they believe in him and pray to him. Because they don’t go to church every day, only on sundays.

To me, they’re Christians. They believe in God, they pray, they believe they will go to heaven, they accept things on faith without questioning, and they think atheists are “evil unpatriotic monsters”, or some other garbage. They aren’t curious. They don’t want to learn more. They aren’t interested in science or truth, they just want to go on living their comfortable fantasies.

They’re Christians. They simply aren’t as fanatical.

But, believe me, they’re much closer to you than they are to me. They’d see you as perhaps a bit strict and unyielding, but an altogether good example to follow. They’d see me as trouble, and would forbid their daughters to date me. Don’t believe me?

Christianity is a love for all of mankind and a hate toward human nature, which is sin.

No, it isn’t. I don’t even believe in “human nature”; I think we make choices. Each and every one of us.
“Sin” implies the existence of a god. I don’t think there’s one. And, anyway, that belief is nothing more than a source of guilt and self-hatred.

I really don’t understand how someone can be free and love life, and then some preacher comes and says “you’re a sinner, your nature is evil, and you must repent and hate this world and your life and…” Really, how can anyone be so blind as to accept such rubbish? That preacher just turned someone’s full, healthy life into a world of guilt and suffering; who’s really “evil”, here? Why are we sinners? Even if the Bible was correct, we’d be sinners because of what some ancestor did? Since when is anyone culpable for the actions of someone else? What distorted “justice” is that? That’s monstrous… and yet we’re supposed to accept it as true?

Without a god, we are free. Our lives are our own. I don’t understand how people can give that up.

If I was never told about God then I would use words such as comfort, peace, hope, love, security, guidance, light, and joy, to describe what I felt. And would you look at that. What a coincidence. They’re all the things the Bible says God is, and more.

So, the god of the OT, who, in temper tantrums, killed not only the offender but, usually, everyone around him… the god who said that people who worked on saturdays should be put to death… the god who tortured the innocent Job just to prove how great he was… the god who (it’s right there in the Bible) “hardened” the Pharaoh’s heart just so he could perform all of his murderous pyrotechnics, including killing all the cattle of Egypt several times (!), and every first born, including innocent children…

… was that a different god?

Tags: , , ,
Posted in atheism, christianity, reality, religion | 8 Comments »

Why Bill Gates is not Hank Rearden

Wednesday, August 30th, 2006

Since I first read The Fountainhead, and later Atlas Shrugged, I’ve been a fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. I wouldn’t call myself an “Objectivist”, but I competely agree with Objectivism’s basic tenets, and Rand’s books and philosophy were, years ago, a huge influence in my life, especially her denunciation of “altruism” and collectivism as anti-life, and the idea that we should see things as they are, not as we wish they were.

However, Rand’s philosophy has been completely misunderstood several times. I’ve written about one of the ways before, but there’s another which I find quite annoying, because its authors simply don’t know any better, and should learn a couple of things before putting their confused ideas in writing.

That error, found in many Objectivist and Libertarian magazines and web sites is this: the defense of Bill Gates and Microsoft. As if Gates and company were Hank Rearden-like heroic capitalists, and all the antitrust suits were simply a case of them being punished for their success – much like the collectivist government in Atlas throws more and more regulations in order to harm Rearden’s business while helping his incompetent – and much less successful – rival Orren Boyle.

Unfortunately, those Objectivist / Libertarian writers don’t work with computers a lot, or maybe they’d know.

To those writers:

  • Can you imagine Rearden telling a potential customer that he wouldn’t get a single gram of Rearden Metal if they ever dared buy anything from any of his competitors?
  • Can you picture Rearden selling an inferior product, and only managing to sell it through marketing – including marketing designed to inspire fear, uncertainty and doubt in the competitors’ products? In the book, it was Rearden’s competitors who published a report which, without stating a single fact, suggested that Rearden Metal might be dangerous.
  • Would Rearden force distributors into a deal where he gets a cut of every piece of machinery sold, even if it actually includes no Rearden Metal whatsoever?
  • Would Rearden add a substance to his Metal that corroded any non-Rearden metal that touched it?
  • Would Rearden add qualities to his Metal that all the competitors’ products already had for 15 years, and tout it as a “great innovation”, a lie which the ignorant media would happily repeat for him?

I say he wouldn’t. Rearden was 100% honest, and his sole weapon was the quality of his product. Microsoft has little quality, and has been dishonest from the start.

They weren’t almost punished (“almost”, because, like always, the Bush administration prevented anything good from happening) for being successful, or for being rich, or because its competitors were envious, or because anyone wanted to “redistribute wealth” (a disgusting concept). No, oddly enough, the Justice Department was right. Microsoft fought in the marketplace using every trick except one: make a better product.

Bill Gates is no Hank Rearden. He’s more like Orren Boyle, in a Bizarro world where Boyle wins.

Tags: , ,
Posted in capitalism, honesty, objectivism | 17 Comments »

Books "For Dummies"

Wednesday, August 30th, 2006

And now, for something not related to atheism or religion. :)

It’s, instead, a lesson in humility (and it reminds me, I need to write another post about what “humility” should, and shouldn’t, mean).

These days, I work at home, for myself, writing and creating sites. But, for the past 15 years or so, I’ve been a “computer guy”: a systems administrator, mostly. I’ve worked at several places, and I believe I was (and am) an above average tech.

Of course, even if you’re self-taught like I (mostly) am, you need books. Especially back then, before you could find every piece of documentation on the Internet like you can, now. So, I bought and read a lot of books, and I still have shelves full of them. Many are from O’Reilly; you may know those, with a white cover and an animal on the cover. I have (and have read) books about systems administration, operating systems, programming in several languages, web design, and much more.

However, there was a series of books I always refused to buy, to read, even to consider. They’re also quite popular: the “For Dummies” books.

I hated the idea of those books. I found them insulting – basically, they called the reader an idiot. Therefore, anyone who bought those books was, to me, saying “yes, I’m an idiot.” I couldn’t understand how people were capable of doing that. It felt, to me, as if they were admitting that they were too stupid to read books for “normal” people, and had to read books for “dummies” instead.

Well, I was younger then. :) A few days ago, when I was browsing for books about a particular subject, I found myself reading through several pages of one of those “for dummies” books, and, to my surprise, the content was really, really good. Not patronizing at all, not written as if the reader was some neanderthal or something. It was very good.

(Note that I’m not saying that all of them are that good, un-patronizing, and so on. But that one – the first one I actually read something from – was.)

And I had been avoiding those books for a decade, because of my prejudice against them.

I’ve always hated it when people pre-judge something, without any real knowledge about the subject… and I had done exactly that, for years. It was, in a way, a shock.

And why had I done that? Why was so important to me not to read books labeled “for dummies”? Did I fear to turn into one? Was I so insecure that I worried about what people would think about me? Was the opinion of others so important? Or was it my own self-esteem that would be shaken by reading a book that called its reader a “dummy”? Did I actually think that my intelligence, knowledge and skills were affected by the title of a book I read?

I guess it was a combination of those.

Still, this is a lesson: never, ever believe I’m “too good” to do really stupid things like pre-judging. And always be ready to admit my mistakes, correct them, and learn from them.

Tags:
Posted in thinking | 5 Comments »

The problem of Agnosticism, part 3

Monday, August 28th, 2006

(you may want to read parts one and two as well.)

Sometimes, you try to get your point across in some way, with mixed results, and then, later, you read something which was exactly what you wanted to have said in the first place.

One such example was this page. Near the beginning, the author says what he believes is wrong about agnosticism, and does it more succinctly and clearly than I did before:

[...] agnosticism is defined as being unable to know if God exists. However, this concept is intellectually dishonest in that while maintaining there is no evidence of God or the supernatural, it refuses to make the intellectually honest conclusion that therefore God most likely does not exist. Agnosticism suggests that the existence and non-existence of God are equally likely. Without evidence of God’s existence, the non-existence hypothesis is heavily favored, but agnosticism ignores this.

Touché. ;)

Tags: ,
Posted in agnosticism, atheism | 26 Comments »

Some stuff (mostly for new readers)

Friday, August 25th, 2006

I won’t have much time to write here today, even though I have some posts in my “to-do” list, but, meanwhile, since there are so many new readers here (because of Digg / Reddit / Shoutwire / StumbleUpon / etc.), just a few things I want to say. :)

While I’m guessing that most people who come from those social bookmarking sites are more technically inclined than the norm (seen, for instance, in the stats – there are almost twice as many Firefox users as there are Internet Exporer ones), still, as this is not a technical blog, and many people also come here from search engines, or through links in other blogs or sites, it’s possible that you don’t know about this “feeds” stuff.

Feeds are, quite simply, a way to “subscribe” to the site. Just click on this icon on the sidebar: (or on this very one, right here), and you’ll get some instructions on how it works. For an even easier tutorial, see here – it’s written by me, but don’t let that put you off. :)

Alternatively, if you don’t want to bother with feed readers, you can simply get new articles by email. You never get more than one email per day, even if there are more than one post. And the service is provided by FeedBlitz; I don’t even get to know your email address, so you don’t have to worry about your privacy.

If you already knew about all that stuff, I apologize. :)

Now, on a more personal note, today (August 25) is my last day of employment! Yes, starting from tomorrow, I’ll be working at home, as a freelance blogger and writer. Therefore, my other blogs will finally get some needed attention, and I may even start a couple of new ones. :) For some of my reasons for not wanting to have a “normal” job any more, see this brilliant post by Steve Pavlina, 10 Reasons You Should Never Get A Job. I, myself, will probably write about this subject in the future.

And now for something completely different! :) While it may currently seem otherwise, this blog is not just about atheism. I have been writing about it a lot, because my “16 myths” post was incredibly popular, and the hundreds of comments I received inspired me to address several other points about atheism, Christianity, and religion in general. But, while I’ll certainly write more about it in the future, there are also other subjects I want to write about, much like I did in the past; just click on any of the categories in the huge list on the right to see some of my past articles about other topics.

Finally, if you’re new here, welcome to Way of the Mind. I hope you enjoy your stay. :)

Tags: , ,
Posted in personal stuff, way of the mind (site), work | 2 Comments »

A Reply to An Open-hearted Christian Reply to Atheism (part 2)

Thursday, August 24th, 2006

And here’s the rest of it. If you just arrived here for the first time, the original post I’m replying to is here – which, in turn, is a reply to this one, written by yours truly.

My disclaimer at the beginning of part 1 still applies: my reply is not about whether God exists or not, but, instead, about several points in Serenaid’s original reply which ring the “illogical! does not compute!” warning bells.

Oh, and this one is even longer. :)

(more…)

Tags: , ,
Posted in atheism, christianity, religion | 3 Comments »

A Reply to An Open-hearted Christian Reply to Atheism (part 1)

Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006

Steve from Poetic Pilgrimage has written a detailed reply to my 16 myths about atheists post called An Open-hearted Christian Reply to Atheism (which he also posted on the discussion thread). I think it’s well written, and it’s always nice to have a intelligent discussion where people disagree but respect each other’s opinion. Therefore, it deserves a full reply (to the reply) so here it is.

First, my reply will not be about whether God exists or not. We’re not going to convince (or “convert”) one another, and I’m fine with that. But some of Steve’s points need to be addressed.

(more…)

Tags: , ,
Posted in atheism, christianity, religion | 10 Comments »

Revenge of the God of the Gaps

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006

I’ve written about the God of the Gaps mentality in the previous post, and argued against it. As I said, even most Christians reject it, because, by using the still unknown as proof that God exists – as the “residence” of God – they are causing God to “shrink”, as we explain more and more. Therefore, non-fundamentalist Christians advocate, instead, that God has created a natural universe, and that what is still unexplained is probably natural.

As I said, that’s a much more sane way of thinking. One would say, then, that the God of the Gaps believers should really realize that they are quite obviously wrong. Right?

Now, since the God of the Gaps thinking actually “reduces” their god, why do people still believe in it? It didn’t make sense – if I was a theist, I’d rather believe in a “big”, celestial, glorious god, instead of a permanently shrinking one, used as a “magical” explanation for anything we don’t know (yet). So, I wondered about it.

And I think I’ve found the answer.

The God of the Gaps mentality is a defense against Occam’s Razor.

(more…)

Tags: ,
Posted in christianity, religion | 29 Comments »

The "God of the Gaps" mentality

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006

The “God of the Gaps” is a way of thinking, relatively common in Christianity (but not only there), that says basically this:

“We don’t know how this can be, yet it is, so it must surely be the work of God…”

and, furthermore:

“… which proves that God exists.”

Once – before Christianity, in fact – everything was the work of the gods. Natural phenomena like rain, thunderstorms, even the passage of day and night… mankind didn’t understand how those things could have happened, so it created gods to explain them. A storm? The gods are angry. The sun moves in the sky? It’s a god dragging it with a flying carriage. Or the sun itself is a god, whose rival is the moon goddess.

Centuries later, Christianity was successful, and instead of many gods, there was one. Still, nobody in medieval Europe doubted God’s existance, and anything people couldn’t explain was both an act of God, and proof that God was real. So, nobody doubted for a while.

Except for that pesky science thing.

(more…)

Tags: ,
Posted in christianity, religion | 20 Comments »

U.S. school teacher fired for being female

Monday, August 21st, 2006

Seen on the Martian Anthropologist: Sunday school teacher dumped for being female.

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on August 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.

The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

No, this is not a joke. It happened a couple of days ago, too, instead of in the Dark Ages, which might have been your first guess.

As the Martian said: it’s right there in the Bible. This nutcase of a reverend didn’t just make it up because he hates women (he probably does, but the Bible fully supports his middle-ages-style misogynism). The “word of God”, after all, is with him. He is simply being a devout, true Christian.

That’s the problem I described in Picking and Choosing: the Bible, as a book, is a very harmful, dangerous, and evil influence, unless you pick and choose from it, believe in just the “nicer” parts, and ignore about 90% of it. Which is what most Christians actually do, and which is the reason why most of them haven’t read most of the Bible. (Now, call me weird, but if I did believe that a book was actually the work of a god, I’d find the time to read and study all of it… but that’s another story)

Of course, the problem, then, is that what they are really doing is… say that 90% of the “word of God” is crap. And they say atheists are “arrogant”… at least, we’re convinced that there is no god, while picking-and-choosing Christians believe that there is one, but that they know better than him. :)

Tags: ,
Posted in christianity, religion | 9 Comments »

Why Atheism is not a religion, part 2

Monday, August 21st, 2006

If part 1 didn’t convince you yet…

Let’s say you are right and atheism is a religion. Let’s also assume, for simplicity, that you’re a Christian.

You believe in the Christian God, and that belief is is a religion, so you have 1 religion.
You don’t believe in Aphrodite, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 2 religions.
You don’t believe in Vishnu, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 3 religions.
You don’t believe in Thor, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 4 religions.
You don’t believe in Osiris, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 5 religions.
You don’t believe in Zeus, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 6 religions.
You don’t believe in Shiva, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 7 religions.
You don’t believe in Odin, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 8 religions.
You don’t believe in Ra, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 9 religions.
You don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 10 religions.
You don’t believe in the Easter Bunny, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 11 religions.
You don’t believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 12 religions.
You don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 13 religions.
You don’t believe in the Abominable Snowman, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 14 religions.
You don’t believe in fairies, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 15 religions.
You don’t believe in elves, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 16 religions.
You don’t believe in orcs, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 17 religions.
You don’t believe in hobbits, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 18 religions.
You don’t believe in King Kong, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 19 religions.
You don’t believe in Godzilla, and that non-belief is a religion, so you have 20 religions.

What’s that? You don’t have 20 religions, only one, because non-beliefs are not religions?

Well, with atheists it’s the same, except that we don’t have even that one. We have zero religions. “What’s your religion?” “I don’t have any.”

Is it so hard to understand that, to an atheist, the Christian God – or indeed any god – is as much a fictional being as those other examples?

Tags: ,
Posted in atheism, religion | 33 Comments »

« Older Entries