An Extraterrestrial Perspective

"Thou shalt not kill" is bullshit

2011-06-01T00:22:00.000-07:00

Murder has always been a taboo subject since it is the act of taking the life of another human being. Truly, it is a bad thing, but there are times when the act of murder is the most moral thing to do in certain situations. Humans have realized this and act accordingly but the moral stencil brought by the god of Moses known as the Ten Commandments (ironically) prevents us from making these moral decisions based on our own judgment.

Euthanasia is justifiable. Comfort is always preferrable to pain and for extreme pain and suffering, one will need extreme comfort, even if it means death. The only real decision to make is whether the sufferer is past his/her suffering threshold that euthanasia would be the only escape. Take Terri Schiavo for example. In that situation, the only two choices are more suffering for her and her loved ones... or euthanasia.

Revenge is a bit tricky but it still can be justifiable. Some revenge murderers have been set free while others were punished. It all depends on the gravity of the situation. In revenge, the murderer actually prevents further atrocities by killing the perpetrator.

Survival is justifiable. Self-defense is the most common example of this. But there are also life-or-death choices when limited resources are at stake; the death of some will ensure the survival of the rest and inversely, choosing for everyone to live will make everyone suffer or (ironically) die.

Laws are the foundation of society but there will be situations where one should decide for himself. With a critical and compassionate mind, humans can make the right decision when faced with this predicament.

After the Rapture

2011-05-25T18:29:00.000-07:00

The rapture may have failed but one can't say that there are no victims in this "tragedy". Yes. The rapture indeed claimed lives and livelihoods though not for the non-believers.

Some christians have actually sold off their possessions and discarded their futures, thinking that there will be no tomorrow after May 21 of 2011. The concept of the rapture itself may be laughing matter but the effects aren't. I have no pity for the believers but I do pity those who have been dragged into this mess.

Still nothing wrong in believing?

_____

It's a good thing that most christians didn't believe what the crackpot Harold Camping had foretold. They are open-minded enough to doubt the claims of a mere man though not open enough to doubt the roots of their faith. It's somewhat a good thing, in my opinion but if these christians have the courage to doubt more than just the rapture prohpecies, that'd be even better.

It's somewhat similar to fanfiction. Camping, being a fan, merely coupled his own fantasies with pre-existing fantasies that had been established by most people as canon. But even the canon itself is mere fiction. The holy texts themselves are mere fanfictions of a story called Reality, as the writers wrote out how they wanted the world to be.

One more step.

Indulging in Materialistic Pleasures

2011-05-11T07:43:00.000-07:00

I don't understand why some hardcore conservative Christians (or conservatives of any other religion) refuse to give in to their materialistic desires. I do understand that indulging too much in material pleasures isn't a good thing but to willingly discard even the slightest thoughts of it... that I do not understand.

They claim that their god had created and fine-tuned this world for all humans to enjoy. If they shun the material world, they're spitting on the face of the one who provided the world for them. If they argue that shunning the material world will cleanse their souls for the path to heaven, then what is the sense of god having to create and "fine-tune" a world in the first place?

What I don't like about conservatives is that they impose their boring lifestyle upon others who are having reasonable fun. In other words, killjoy.

I don't believe in gods or heaven. I believe that humans are a part of nature, not rising above from it. Partaking what the world has to offer is human instinct.

Why a Massacre is Needed

2011-02-15T09:48:00.000-08:00

Children in some countries in Africa are growing malnourished with some even starving to death. Some of the more powerful nations reach out to the impoverished and provide them with their necessities which will only satiate them for a small amount of time. Once their supplies run out, those nations will have to provide for them again.

With the worldwide human population growing along with the scarcity of food, at this rate, everyone will starve to death, not only those in Africa, but the whole world. We will have to pick a post-apocalyptic ending for ourselves, the most likely one being "Soylent Green".

Killing these impoverished people off not only reduces the demand for food, but it will also ease their suffering. So-called "moral" people will think that the act of killing is immoral but why is it immoral? Must we wait for everyone to starve before we take action? Isn't killing off suffering people an act of mercy rather than barbarism?

Faith versus Faith

2010-12-03T03:56:00.000-08:00

I find it annoying sometimes when some theists state that "it takes faith to be an atheist". But then I realized that the statement can either be right or wrong depending on the definition of the word "faith".

What is faith? There are a few definitions in my version of Webster's dictionary:

unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
unquestioning belief in god, religious tenets, etc.
a religion or a system of religious beliefs
anything believed
complete trust, confidence, or reliance
allegiance to some person or thing; loyalty

Among these, definitions #1 to #3 define the religious faith the theists have. Devout theists follow their religion without question and it is a well-known fact that they don't bother searching for real evidence other than the contradictory statements of their sacred books.

Atheist faith, or my faith at least, however, falls under the fifth definition. I, as a human being, will have to trust another in order to get by in life. Of course, atheist faith isn't anything like in the first definition as trust is normally gained through evidence and time. Though, this deal about faith and trust might not be the case for unreasonably paranoid skeptics who go as far as to not believe that the floor they're standing on is solid.

As an atheist, I do have faith and by faith, I mean trust, confidence, and reliance on other humans. There are times that I trust others and there are times that I don't. I'd rather put my faith on beings that I can see, hear, and touch rather than an invisible being whose existence I don't even have proof of.

"Irreducible Complexity"

2010-11-06T20:16:00.000-07:00

"Irreducible Complexity" is a concept mainly used by the advocates of Intelligent Design aka Creationism. It states that something complex, like a bacterial flagellum (which is the advocates' favorite example), can't function the same way if some parts are removed from the whole, thus it can only be created through design, thus disproving evolution.

Take a significant part from the whole and the system ceases to function. Take the wheels out of a car; it wouldn't work the way it is intended. Take the engine out, it still wouldn't work. The car will only work if all the pieces are in place. The car is irreducibly complex.

I don't subscribe to this belief. Why?

The concept of irreducible complexity is an insult to amputees, the mentally challenged, the disabled, and anyone lacking fully functional organs or appendages that would deem you complete. More often than not, these individuals with disabilities can perform just as well or even better than people who have no disabilities. Artists without hands, athletes without feet, idiot savants... we all heard of these. They don't consider their disabilities as hindrances.

Furthermore, Irreducible Complexity opposes the concept of "Multiple Intelligence" wherein humans are classified according to their talents and abilities, which obviously differs from each human. Someone may be good at music and be bad at math. That doesn't make them less of a human being than someone bad at music and good at math. From what standard do we get the "control sample" of the "normal" intelligence and talents of a human being?

From this, I can say that Irreducible Complexity is definitely incorrect. The existence of disabled humans doing well with what they do is the hard evidence against it.

What if humans can see into the future?

2010-10-22T20:50:00.000-07:00

Humans, some of them at least, have dreamed to be able to see into the future. History tells us that humans in the ancient times had been fixated in knowing the future: oracles of Delphi, the Norns, the prophets in the Abrahamic religions, and even until today. These so-called fortune-tellers and soothsayers dedicate their time (or maybe even their lives) to impart amongst the common humans the knowledge of the future. This act is regarded by the modern age as a lie or a mere hobby, but what if humans can actually see into the future?

Adherents of the horoscope hobby merely match up any events to the vague prophecy if hearing the prophecy comes later. Since horoscopes are made to be vague, there is a large enough chance that some event in the person's day is coincidentally similar to the prophecy. However, if the hearing the prophecy comes first, it might as well become a self-fulfilling prophecy when the adherent uses it as a guide to his life.

But what if humans can actually see into the future? If there is only a fixed future (a prophecy wherein foreseen events cannot be changed), then they will have to act accordingly and whatever action they do to act against this destiny will still coincide with the prophecy, like the story of Oedipus Rex. If the visions granted are those of possible futures, the adherent will just pick the one that is most desirable and follow the steps that leads to that outcome.

In this world where humans can see into the fixed future, the concepts of risk, accident, prevention, precaution, choice, chance, luck, et cetera will be abolished. They will be thrown into complacency and helplessness since decision-making will also be discarded. Any emergencies that will occur won't. They will literally have no choice but to follow their unchangeable destinies.

But if that had been since the beginning, life in that world would be linear and monotonous. "Development" and "progress" will also be illusions since they're predetermined. In that world, games and adventures don't exist; their fun must be derived somewhere inconceivable in this world.

However, in the scenario of humans being able to see possible futures, they will have to live in a meta-life instead of the actual life. Instead of deciding what choices to make in a real life situation, decision will be escalated into choosing what possible future will be more desirable. Life itself would be meaningless since the focus is shifted to religiously choosing futures; since humans will be fixated in the future, they will forget to live in the present.

In all honesty, I can't see why humans are fixated in knowing future events supernaturally when living life is more fun when you are fixated in the present and oblivious to an extent to what will happen to the future. A subjective view, yes, but I'm talking from the side of beings that live in a world where premonition is impossible. Aren't we all?

Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.

Supply and Demand

2010-09-25T05:06:00.000-07:00

The world of humans is governed by the Law of Supply and Demand. But I will discuss it from a different light.

If the demand for a commodity increases, consumers take more of it and the supply decreases. Therefore, the producer must increase the supply in order to meet the ever-increasing demand. As supplies decrease, the demand for it grows even more, thus creating an "upward spiral" that will cause unpleasant results.

Equilibrium is only met if the cycle of supply and demand is stable - causing no upward spirals. In an ideal state of equilibrium, supply always meets demand. There may be some fluctuations to this balance but not enough to create an upward spiral.

Humans need the planet's natural resources. Nothing can be done to change this fact.

In this planet where supply isn't infinite, an upward spiral would be inevitable. Supply will run out and it wouldn't be enough to meet the demand. The consumeristic instinct of humans drive them to create more of this supply but at this rate, the resources needed to achieve this is running out. So how do we solve this?

Eliminate the demand. If the demand is lessened, there will be enough supplies to satiate it. Whatever supplies that are left will be given to the remaining humans who deserve it.

Eliminate the population. Achieve equilibrium.

Talk about morals

2010-08-28T23:39:00.000-07:00

Some theists point out how atheists don't have an objective basis of morals. Well, that is definitely true. Indeed, atheists mostly have subjective morals instead of a single organized checklist of dos and don'ts. The reason is pretty obvious: atheists don't have a single "atheist leader" who dictates what they're supposed to do, basically because Atheism isn't a religion to begin with.

So what if Atheists don't have objective morals? Would that make them any less moral? Depends on what "moral" is. Trying to define what "moral" is already causes problems.

Is killing another human being downright immoral? Some would definitely say yes to that. How about killing as a result of self-defense? How about killing in the name of religion? Sacrifice? Righteous punishment? From just this, controversy already creates wildfire. All is subjective. It is only objective when talking to someone in the same religion but sometimes, it isn't even the case, hence the formation of divisions and sects.

More likely than anything else, the people who established the religions have made the moral guidelines from their own decisions. Faithfuls would argue that the rules were given to their leader by their gods, but I wouldn't delve deeper into that issue.

Where do atheists get their morals? From thinking, just like the founders of religions. Theists would probably be appalled by the idea but it's just the way humans are. Humans have minds and consciousnesses so they can think and be aware of the universe.

What is moral? What is not? You can ask. You can seek answers from yourself. It's all up to you.

A Few Little Taboos

2010-07-21T13:31:00.000-07:00

Before the time of Jesus Christ, working on the Sabbath day was strictly forbidden. But according to the stories, he broke the taboo by doing something, which in his case, healing.

Prior to Abraham Lincoln's freeing of the black people, it wasn't accepted for them to become members of society. Nowadays, they become athletes, artists, musicians, and even leaders. Despite some people still refusing to accept this change, the culture of black people has, without a doubt, gained acceptance to the world.

Before Copernicus and Galileo, people belived that the sun revolves around the earth. Nowadays, people use the globe for obvious reasons.

Previously, it was taboo to cut up a corpse since a body is considered sacred, even after death. But if it wasn't for Andreas Vesalius, who studied and dissected human cadavers, the field of Anatomy wouldn't exist. Without his contributions, the medical field will still be in the Dark Ages.

Previously, it was forbidden for people to think against the teachings of their religion. But today, it is this rational thinking that brings us technological advancements that seemingly make life better and makes us discover what is beyond the world we live in.

Break a few rules, a few little taboos. You'll probably get farther than not. Don't worry. It's not cheating.

Evolve

2010-06-05T08:33:00.000-07:00

I'm not saying that all believers in a religion don't believe in evolution, though, but I don't find it strange that people who reject the idea of evolution are the ones who do not evolve.

Surely, evolution doesn't work that way. Everyone and everything is subject to change, good or bad. Evolutionists and people who accept the fact that the theory of evolution is a possible explanation for the origin of life are open to the change. They are liberal and open to most, if not all, ideas. People who reject evolution wholeheartedly, on the other hand, have a deep-rooted conservative sense.

This overly conservative mindset is what hinders them to accept change, to accept new ideas and methods. They prefer doing things in an old-fashioned obsolete way. There isn't a problem with just that but fixation in old methods will lead to refusal to accept change, which in turn would lead to hindering of the human's evolutionary process.

It's not wrong to use old ways in the present time but in this ever-changing universe, we would have to cope up with the changes and sometimes, we would have to discard the old methods entirely and embrace the new. That is what it means to evolve.

Evolution isn't entirely progress with purely positive results; it is more of a trade-off. Amphibians traded off their gills for lungs. Creatures living in the dark traded off their eyes to utilize their other senses. In the same way, humans will have to discard one thing, whatever it may be, in favor of another.

Liberal humans evolve. Conservative humans do not. Evolution occurs only to those who acknowledge it. Halting this natural process would be for the worse.

Subjective Heaven

2010-04-13T20:13:00.000-07:00

Assuming that Heaven can be experienced fully by the five senses and isn't just some elated level of "existence", it must be a state of absolute contentment and happiness. Many describe heaven as a place of eternal and absolute beauty but that wouldn't seem to be the case anymore - the ever-so-unfalsifiable Bible being retconned several times.

Given that addiction to chocolate isn't a sin, a Heaven-bound person who's addicted to chocolate would experience Heaven as a place filled with his vice. But since not everyone likes chocolate, there wouldn't be a single objective experience of this so-called Heaven. Other heavens would include whatever the Heaven-bound person likes.

But here's an extreme example. Suppose there is a Believer Girl A and an Atheist Guy B who love each other despite their beliefs. When they died, the Guy is sent to hell while the Girl, to Heaven. The Girl's innermost desire is to be with the Guy for eternity. What kind of Heaven will the Girl experience?

Would the god bend the rules for the girl so she can be with her lover? That would be unfair for everyone else. Would the Girl be ineligible to go to Heaven for loving an Atheist? That would be petty. Would the god create an illusion of the Guy that the Girl will love? That'd be cruel. Will the god strip the soul of its senses so that it can only experience unconditional bliss? That'd be even worse.

Here's the easiest way to get to "Heaven". Take Acid.

Suffering Honesty

2010-03-26T11:17:00.000-07:00

A child breaks his mother's vase. The mother tells the child to become honest and asks the child. The child admits to his fault. The mother scolds the child. The child gets scarred for life.

This is a typical scenario in almost every household - no doubts about that. But as the child grows up, the negative reinforcement had already made a mark in his mind that honesty would yield bad outcomes. As a result, the child lies to escape punishment.

In the world today, there is no such thing as an "honest politician". People have to lie to get on with their lives because of this. Honesty doesn't yield anything other than suffering. An honest person is always the martyr.

Chaotic Universe

2010-03-05T22:01:00.000-08:00

Theists usually say that explosions do not create order, referring to the Big Bang theory. Atheists counter the statement by stating an example of an explosion that creates order. But before anything else, what is order? What is chaos?

Say a child was brought up in an environment filled with love and care; he will perceive the world as a harmonious one with positive aspects. As for a child brought up using violence and punishment, his way of living would revolve around violence and punishment. He will perceive any violent act as a natural thing to do.

Humans are born in this universe and assimilated themselves into it, seeing beauty in its asymmetry. But is this really "order"? What kind of order is this, anyway? Total order would only be total absence of existence, which isn't the case of this universe. There is too much variation and conflict. Humans are no different from molds growing on stale bread; the molds grow and thrive on something that can exist peacefully without it.

What if this is actually "chaos"? No. This universe is indeed chaotic. Humans are chaotic beings living in a chaotic universe, thus their senses have been accustomed to this chaos and interpret it as "order". Mix in some awareness and you'll get conceit that this order is specifically made for them.

Some people think that the night sky is beautiful. Some see beauty in the rings of Saturn. Some, in death, blood, and gore. But looking at it from an extraterrestrial perspective - no, an extra-universal perspective, everything in this universe would seem pretty ugly. Humans just pick out what they think is orderly and beautiful according to their preference. That alone makes the definition of "order" pretty vague and ironically, pretty chaotic.

The theists are right for once. Explosions, indeed, do not create order.

Analysis: A Christmas Carol

2010-02-12T11:12:00.000-08:00

In the story "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens, the main character Ebenezer Scrooge had been shown three different scenarios of the past, present, and yet to come. Each scenario was shown with the hope of making Scrooge change from his selfish ways, with the last scenario finally succeeding.

The last scene seemed rather off though. Scrooge only yielded to the possible future that he might be buried in an unattended grave. He then changed after that into a generous person.

Why is this though? From my point of view, he changed only to save his own skin and prevent the possible view from happening. In the end, his acts of selflessness can have a reason other than just "wanting to change". In a way, this is a form of "selfish selflessness" and not "absolute selflessness" at all. In the end, one really can't say that Scrooge has fully converted since he converted only out of convenience rather than realizing any wrong in his actions by himself.

This makes the story a weak basis of morals. Rooting good deeds out of threats is negative reinforcement.

Then again, things like these are unavoidable.

Prayer is Evil

2010-01-18T22:20:00.000-08:00

The term "evil" has been redefined over ages past. The very first definition of "evil" we encounter is an action or some sentient entity which inflicts harm on another entity (regardless of sentience) or basically something downright immoral. The concept of morality itself is pretty vague because of the issue of subjectivity, hence "evil" is redefined.

The evil of lying and murder can be justified by the reason they are committed, as the concepts of "white lies" and "eye for an eye" stand. Committing such atrocities for no reason other than promoting the life of others is then considered evil. Hence, evil is defined as an act that benefits the minority while oppressing the majority.

By the definition of Christians themselves, selfishness is evil. *

The act of prayer is rather questionable. It is the act of wishful thinking and meditation. A person would usually pray for others to create a good image for himself, showing others that he is doing something when he is actually doing virtually nothing at all. Instead of acting on the problem as directly as possible, the person merely sits down, puts his hands together, and thinks a lot while muttering, giving himself the impression that he is "helping".

What does one get from prayer? A hollow sense of self-satisfaction. What do others get? Nothing. They don't even receive any telepathic consolations or whatsoever. Moreover, these people suffer while the praying people already feel satisfied. This is better defined by the words "hypocrisy" and "slacktivism". What can we conclude from all this? Read the title.

* Disclaimer: I don't subscribe to this belief. I subscribe to this one.

Infinity Paradox

2010-01-16T21:29:00.000-08:00

Imagine a circle, for example. Say the circle's circumference is 2m. Take a 2m arc from it and you'll get the whole circle. Now take another circle with a 4m circumference; a 2m arc would be half of its circumference. With 8m, a 2m arc would be a fourth, and so on...

As we can see, as the size of the circle increases, a 2m arc from the circle loses its curvature, approaching the image of a straight line. If we put the earth beside the sun, it would appear that the sun has a flat surface, more so if we put the earth beside VY Canis Majoris, the largest star known as of now.

Let's now think of what would happen if the circle is of "infinite" size. What would the 2m arc look like? A straight line? Logically, yes if we apply basic calculus.

Here's another example. A regular polygon with three sides is an equilateral triangle; four sides, a square; five, a pentagon; et cetera. As the number of sides increases, the more it smooths out to become a round object. Set it to a polygon with infinite sides and it would become a circle, something that doesn't fit into the definition of a polygon.

But as common sense dictates, there is no such thing as a circle with a straight arc or a polygon with a round edge, is there? A circle can only be a single curved line and a polygon can only have straight sides. Moreover, it is hard to visualize "infinite". Visualizing a googol is hard enough, much less a googolplex... but infinite? Something with infinite attributes - size, power, intelligence, or age - just can't exist as far as reality is concerned.

Failure to live in the present

2010-01-03T08:39:00.000-08:00

Mankind, in general, is obsessed with the infinite, as I had said in my previous rants. What else can be more virtually infinite than time itself?

People are obsessed with the future. A child is guaranteed a "good future" by his parents and as he grows up, he strives hard to ensure a future for himself and his descendants. Not that there is anything wrong with that, is there? Actually, there is.

The future is a big uncertainty and with uncertainty comes fear. This phobia sends humans into a frenzy that they focus on nothing else but that fear. Instead of overcoming that fear, it turns into some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder. To put it simply, as humans live their lives in ensuring a future, they fail to live in the present.

I'm not saying that planning is a bad thing. It's just that humans forget the purpose of life, which is to be lived and enjoyed, not to be wasted on a goal that can't be reached. The future will always be the future; once you move forward, the present becomes past and the future becomes present.

But ahead of you is still another future. Man must not become fixated in living in the future. Instead, man must let the future come to him so that he still lives in the present.

The present is now. There wouldn't be tomorrow if you don't live today. Carpe diem.

A Piece of Paper

2009-12-17T21:21:00.000-08:00

Life starts out as a blank piece of paper.

The Christian, having an idea, thought that it is best to be plane tickets for a vacation in Heaven. So he did. The Christian then gave the tickets and rode the plane. He was happy.

The Atheist, however, thought that it is best to be a land title for a large plot of land that he can do anything in. So he did. The Atheist never gave his land title to anyone. In his land, he found happiness in planting, farming, and enjoying the warm breeze and gazing at the stars.

Plane tickets or Land titles? Apparently, most atheists give more value to life than most christians. Ironic, isn't it?

The Christian Blind-spot

2009-12-02T23:51:00.000-08:00

The totality of Epicurus' famous atheist quote led me to think that there are three possibilities of god's existence. First, a god doesn't exist at all (which is what I personally believe in). Second, god can be malevolent or simply doesn't care, the latter being the deist belief. Third, god is weak. Whatever the condition, believers, especially Christians, got their beliefs wrong, in one way or another.

If a god really does exist, his qualities aren't what Christians expect him to be, which is really sad and disappointing (for them). Defining every aspect as "divine", "absolute", "almighty", and whatnot just doesn't fit into a non-divine finite world.

Of the Seven deadly sins recognized by the Catholic church, he has committed all seven.

Pride - Claiming himself to be the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-whatever.
Greed - He wants everything for himself. Period.
Lust - In the old testament, he enforces incest and rape. Hell, he impregnated the "virgin" Mary.
Envy - He's a jealous god. Even believers acknowledge that.
Gluttony - Aside from the fact that offerings (material or spiritual) are mandatory, he wants people to "symbolically" eat his son.
Wrath - "The Wrath of god" has already been a cliche saying, hasn't it?
Sloth - Enforcing that one should do nothing once a week. I like it.

Christians are turning a blind eye at the truth of things. The clergy of olden times, even now, omit some passages of the Bible and only preach those that sound good. Both blinded by faith and blinded from the truth... it can only mean that faith leads to the opposite of the truth.

Close the storybook and open your eyes.

"Keep moving forward", they say

2009-11-29T23:58:00.000-08:00

People are different. The masses merely dictate what definitions are and instill these onto their children and punish them if they resist. "Keep moving forward", they say.

What if someone from all that mass of humans turns the other way and starts walking? Certainly, the opposite direction isn't "forward" for the mass moving in the "normal direction" but for that person, he is definitely moving forward.

Success is a very subjective term, especially for people who have different concepts and standards. One man's trash can be another man's treasure. If you offer another person your path, you may be casting pearls before swine or something like that.

Defiance isn't totally a bad thing. In fact, defiance plays a very important role in the nature of humans, which is to seek knowledge. If you consider defiance evil, then I guess you should blindly follow orders like a puppet.

Perfection is Constant Free-fall

2009-11-15T19:30:00.000-08:00

"Practice makes perfect. Since nobody is perfect, why should we practice?" - This is a popular philosophical quote made from conjoining two opposite quotes. Quite a nice juxtaposition, isn't it?

I don't have a real answer to that, though, but I do have another statement. "We are already perfect." Surely, someone would say that we aren't living in a perfect world. A perfect world would look better than this one.

Living comes with the irony that we strive to attain this so-called perfection despite not being able to actually reach it. Some people simply fall into despair upon realizing this. The sky isn't the limit anymore for humans. If it isn't, what is? There is no limit. There is no "perfection".

Imagine, if we actually attain the perfection we seek, what would become of us? If we obtain the answer to everything, if we attain immortality, if we attain absolute happiness, what would happen? Nothing would happen next. There would be no more room for life and no meaning to existence.

We are already living in perfection. This is the perfect world. People strive for the future and fail to live in the present. Every step further towards the future, what we stand on today is the present, no matter what happens. All the benefits we have encountered will always be balanced out by misfortune and vice versa. No matter how far a human makes progress, there will always be room for more. The human being might not be perfect by itself but human life is already perfect, no matter how it is lived.

Perfection is flawed. Conversely, flaws are perfection. Perfection is mediocrity. Mediocrity is perfection. It is our flaws in existence that make us perfect, in a way many people fail to realize. It is like gravity pulling you both ways - constant free-fall. You feel like falling into one side but you're never actually falling.

Going to "hellven"

2009-10-25T19:32:00.000-07:00

If there is at least one area in the universe where this god isn't present, that would mean that he isn't omnipresent. Since the believers state that their god isn't in hell, that debunks everything because, if this god is indeed omnipresent, he should be present in hell as well.

This is indeed a paradox similar to "the rock that god can't carry". Hell is defined as the absence of this god. The believers made a flaw in their concept of omnipresence by just defining this "Hell".

Say this god is also present in hell. Since this god graces everyone in his presence, hell would be meaningless. There would be no punishment since his presence would nullify whatever punishment there is. Sinners are free to sin. This god's in hell with all of us anyway.

If this god "loves" everyone, why did he create hell in the first place? Why is there even a concept of hell, a concept of punishment, a concept of sin? If he loves everyone and wants to free everyone he loves from the clutches of sin, he would have done so even before he created mankind.

He wouldn't have created that tree of wisdom.

One might say that since he loves us, he has given us the gift of free will, the burden of decision. Despite the choices we make, we should all experience "heaven" in the end. Then again, having to send other people to hell while keeping a few in heaven is a form of discrimination. Is discrimination a form of love? No one with a right mind would think so.

In one way or another, the concept of hell will be pointless. Hell is merely a fictitious "place" that adults use to scare their children with, passed down from generation to generation.

What is a soul? Really...

2009-10-20T05:59:00.000-07:00

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body" - C.S. Lewis

Let's assume that the above statement is pure fact. When we die, we, as souls, supposedly leave our bodies. Let's also assume this as fact. Our bodies possess five basic senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. There are other senses but let's just stick with these five that we are most familiar with.

Since we discard our bodies upon death (or upon astral projection or something like that), it is only logical that we also lose input from our five senses. Moreover, we also lose our ability to think, since our brains are part of our body. So if we leave our bodies, what would we feel? Or better yet, what would we sense? Or even better yet, what would we be thinking?

We only gain an interface in the material world as long as we are connected to our bodies. If we lose our bodies, it would be like a computer without any peripherals. No monitor, speakers, keyboard, mouse, RAM cards, processors, etc. So basically, we're just left with just the motherboard. How on earth can you operate a computer like that?

This concept conflicts with the idea of reincarnation wherein memories are passed on with the soul from one body to another. Memories are stored in the brain, and the brain dies and decays with the rest of the body.

I think that the bare soul alone is conscious somehow. It is a mere consciousness that can't see or feel or even think. It just exists and is conscious; it's some sort of strange energy.

Some stories (including the bible) and especially some emo sayings state that a soul can be inflicted with pain and suffering. If that is the case, how exactly? I guess it would be a pain in the... uhh... consciousness?

Eternal Life = Overrated

2009-10-13T06:54:00.000-07:00

Long ago, humans don't actually fear death itself; they fear being forgotten. The civilizations of old believed that they can put a stopper on death. Ancient Egyptians, ancient Chinese, Native Americans, Hindu mythology, and even Christianity had all been urged to live for but one cause: eternal life or life after death.

Uncertainty has always been a problem, especially for the ancient people who had made up stuff to stop people from panicking. The people, knowing nothing else to believe in, took everything as truth: hook, line, and sinker. They believed in salvation after death. Regardless of the conditions, they all aim for this.

Thinking about it, what would be in store for humans if ever they achieve immortality? Nothing really. They'd just live longer. After that? You'd be so sick of life that you would beg for death.

Imagine playing a game that you know you can't lose. It would be fun at first but after exhausting all possible areas, it would be repetitive, not just once or twice, but a million times over. Moreover, you would have a serious case of procrastination due to the assurance that you would be able to do it before you die - because you can't die.

Surely, you can do the things you couldn't have done if you're capable of dying: do extensive research, master several martial arts, rule the world. But once you're immortal, nothing will drive you to do these things. Your basic survival instincts would've already shattered. You wouldn't need to eat, sleep, work... You wouldn't feel the need to do pretty much anything, even for loved ones.

Let's face it. Immortality is but a mere fantasy. Everything is transient. We all live because we all will have to die someday. If we are to aim for something as we live, isn't it always better to live for the sake of living?

To live is to die. If you won't die, you're pretty much like an inanimate object.

Self-fulfilling Instinct

2009-10-08T09:06:00.000-07:00

By instinct, humans have acted upon selfishness. Man lives to feed himself, satisfy himself, fulfill himself, pleasure himself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Every action made would still lead to the fulfillment of oneself.

A person prays to his god for the the betterment of his family, blessings for his children, peace for his world. Even if he wishes for the welfare for people completely unrelated to him, it will still give him a sense of fulfillment and self-satisfaction. There is no denying that.

But selfishness where the only beneficiary is the self is considered evil by human morals. Not wanting to share, ignoring beggars, greed, lust, gluttony... Why? Selfishness just took on a different form.

There is no such thing as absolute selflessness. You desire to do something for others. Selfless selfishness? Selfish selflessness? Humans are built with the instinct to pursue his own happiness. It just so happens that for some people, happiness comes from helping others.

Declaring people that pursue their own happiness without affecting others evil... That concept just tips the scales. The majority had instilled into themselves the idea that nobody has the right to become selfish.

Humans live for themselves. Humans are individuals. Humans are not born to follow a general consensus - they're born to pursue happiness, regardless of whether their pursuit adheres to the consensus or not.

Selfishness isn't evil. It's just human instinct.

Sadistic Ventriloquist

2009-09-23T05:55:00.000-07:00

If this god is omniscient, then there is no "free will", assuming that he also created the universe. Since this god is omniscient or all-knowing, he must have already known what will happen. Since he created the universe, everything in this world is scripted by him. There is no free will, only an illusion of it.

If there was no free will, there would be no point in having us do these "tests" since he already knows the result. Moreover, if a follower decides to defect from his faith because of the gravity of these tests, it would be this god's fault for doing so. Therefore, this god is a sadistic ventriloquist and we are the puppets following his every whim.

The concept of heaven and hell would also be a farce. Since there would be only one outcome (the outcome that this god knows), the people would surely enter their destined realm. The concept of repentance and redemption would be all for naught, another reason to call him a sadistic ventriloquist.

If he already knew that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit and wouldn't want his creation to fall into sin, he would not have created that cursed tree in the first place. But since he supposedly did, then it is either he didn't know the outcome or mankind was meant to sin.

Believers believe that every obstacle in life is a "test" from him. As we all know, we test something in order to know the outcome of certain events. College entrance tests, medical examinations, crash tests, taste tests... All these are needed since we can't see into the future in order to determine whether you're eligible to get into college, whether you need special treatment, whether the car needs better airbags, or whether the soup tastes salty. If this god is omniscient - and by extension, knows all future events, why would he need to test our faith?

On the other hand, if free will did exist, the concept of omniscience would not suffice, since all would be subject to uncertainty. Since he is not omniscient, he wouldn't satisfy the definition that Christians have made.

It's either there is a god and he is a sadistic ventriloquist, or there is no god at all and everything just happens at random.

I'd go for the latter. The thought of a sadistic ventriloquist is just scary...

Neither Omnipotent nor Benevolent

2009-09-08T05:55:00.000-07:00

"Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?" - Epicurus

If this god is both willing and able to defeat evil, then why is evil still present?

A friend of mine tried to retort this claim by saying "god needs time to combat evil". Okay... But that would lead to god being not so powerful. Power requires workforce and time as expressed by the equation Power = Work / Time. Therefore, assuming that this god is omnipotent (power being of an infinite level), the divisor of the equation, time, must either be zero (meaning this god doesn't even need to snap his fingers in order for evil to disappear) or the dividend of the equation, work, must be infinite. His mere existence will make evil disappear. Having any value for time other than zero would give the quotient a definite amount, which contradicts the concept of omnipotence.

As for having the work variable set to infinite, it will also nullify the time time divisor since time will be meaningless for something of infinite capability. It will still lead to the same question.

Saying that this god needs time to combat evil is saying that this god is not strong enough to do so. Therefore, if this god really is omnipotent like the believers say, he's just not willing to combat evil (according to Epicurus' quote).

It just boils down to a choice: either this god propagates both good and evil or he is against evil and just not powerful enough to totally suppress it. If the only requirement to totally eliminate evil is for humans to turn back to god, he is indeed powerless, not being able to handle it on his own.

Considering the concept of Yin and Yang, good cannot overcome evil and vice versa. That leads us to the possibility that god and Satan might be two opposite faces of the same card, creating a definite balance that holds the universe in place. This equilibrium, in turn, creates a paradox in the Christian belief.

This god could now be "all powerful", but his own negative power negates his positive power. Now, it's either god has Dissociative Identity Disorder or Christians just misinterpreted everything from the beginning. Whatever the choice is, their god wouldn't really fit the ideals that they might think.

Brain ache? I'll sum it up: This god doesn't equate to omnipotence. This god doesn't equate to benevolence. This god isn't god - the reason why all throughout this entry, the word "god" with the capital G never occurred.

"Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?" - Epicurus

Wings of Wax

2009-08-13T08:00:00.000-07:00

For millennia, humans have envied other animals that can fly, birds to be more precise. Wings have fascinated humans everywhere. In popular Greek Mythology, we learn of the story of an inventor named Daedalus who made wings to escape into the sky with his son Icarus. In history, we learn of the daring exploits of the Wright brothers and their attempts to make an airplane. Ancient South American civilizations even worship a winged serpent named Quetzalcoatl. Flight has been a dream of the human race since the beginning.

Like most ambitions, once one is fulfilled, another begins. When man gained the ability to fly, they wanted to soar higher - so they did. They reached great heights people from a thousand years ago never thought of. The adage "The sky is the limit" seems obsolete today because mankind had reached beyond the known limit. Every finish line is the starting line of yet another race.

As humans continue to soar, they express desire for more. They draw pictures of humans with bird-like wings, angels as they are called. Somewhat beheld like perfect, angels have spread in culture, set like some unreachable goal. As with all humans, they live in pursuit of their goal, not the goal itself. Envisioning oneself as a human capable of flight is indeed an uplifting habit a typical person does. Dreams of flight seem to be the anti-thesis of a nightmare.

But with all flight, one needs to land. One cannot fly across the skies forever. That is the only thing about flight most humans fear: landing. It's either you land or you crash down. The sinking feeling during flight in a dream can spell a nightmare. In the story of Daedalus, Icarus strayed too far from his father and went to the sun like a moth to the flame. In the end, the sun destroyed Icarus' wings, causing his death. But landing doesn't seem to exist in a human's point of view, since human flight had defeated the purpose of the finish line.

Soaring until we die - it seems like a miserable fate for us humans to have. It would be better to keep our feet on the ground, literally and figuratively. If ever we feel the need to fly, fly where you know you can land safely.

... Or crash on the ground headfirst.

What is Luck?

2009-08-02T05:02:00.000-07:00

What is Luck?

the seemingly chance happening of events that affect someone; fortune; fate
good fortune; success, prosperity, advantage, etc.
an object believed to bring good luck

Really now... What is Luck?

Say there's a bus accident and out of the thirty passengers on the bus, only one survived. Many would say he's lucky since he survived while the others died, but is he really lucky? If he's really lucky, the tragedy wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Say you're a poor kid living in the slums of some rundown city. By some random chance, you happen to meet a rich kid who tells you about himself. He tells you about how his parents gave him good food, clothes, and education yet lack quality family time. You compare it with your own life and realize that you're lucky to have a loving family despite the hardship. But if you're really lucky, you wouldn't be in the slums in the first place.

Say you're the child of someone who has a weak heart. Your father dies in his sleep, rather than suffering in agony. You consider him lucky that he escaped suffering. But if he's really lucky, he wouldn't have had a weak heart in the first place.

The word "luck" seems to be forced into seemingly good situations that are surrounded by a large chance of a bad. But that isn't good fortune at all. Such absurdity...

Luck doesn't seem to work that way so let's redefine it. "Luck is success, prosperity, advantage, etc. in a specified set." "Luck is partial immunity (to some degree) of strife."

Say you're a perfectly normal human in the planet. Everyday, every hour, every minute, and every second, out of the billions of humans in the world, a handful dies, a bunch is stricken with disease, a handful are drowning in poverty, and almost everyone has experienced misfortune... save for yourself. That's the only instance where you should be the luckiest person in the world.

Everyone's lucky... in a way.

Light is Cursed

2009-07-28T20:06:00.000-07:00

"Let there be light," as said in the Book of Genesis. Yes, light is essential in our daily lives but other references state otherwise.

The fallen angel Lucifer's name literally translates to "light bearer". He is cursed, banished from God's realm, never to set foot on Heaven's Gates again. If he's the bearer of God's first creation, why banish him?

In Greek Mythology, the titan Prometheus gave humans the gift of fire. After that, he was bound to a rock by Zeus and let his liver be feasted upon by a bird of prey everyday for eternity.

Why curse them? Had they done anything wrong? They brought light to humans; light which is very essential to human living. If they did anything, humans enjoyed it and lived with it for a long time to the present time. What's the big deal?

Without light, humans and most creatures are rendered helpless. But the light stated here may not be light in its literal sense. Light means knowledge, hence "enlightenment". Even in its altered sense, this light is still essential to human living.

Lucifer and Prometheus defied the one in charge of the world, God (or Zeus). They brought to humans the light of knowledge. Lucifer, tempted the humans to eat from the tree so they can attain enlightenment. Why is it bad?

God probably wanted us to be in eternal bliss. Since Ignorance is bliss, he didn't want humans to attain the Power of Knowledge.

I can say this for sure though: If god does exist, he has no power over us. He is absolutely not omnipotent. Same with Lucifer. Humans have the power to choose between Knowledge and Ignorance. That is free will. If we would be grateful to some spiritual entity, we should thank Lucifer for giving us the gift of Light.

Upon choosing the Curse of Light, we, as enlightened ones, shall suffer. Suffer what? Suffer the responsibility of this wisdom. Knowledge is Power. With power comes responsibility.

Spiritual entities aside, it is our choice if we head back into the Bliss of Darkness or the Light of Knowledge. As with all dualities and mediocrities, we should all head to the middle, where we can savor the pursuit of knowledge while leading a blissful life.

Hatred

2009-06-26T11:11:00.000-07:00

Hatred.

Usually, when someone does you harm, hatred ensues. The feeling of wanting to inflict harm against another person, the eager wishing of misfortune befalling that person.

But... Have you ever got the feeling of hating someone who hadn't really done anything to you? I know I do. One time, I just saw this person's face and anger suddenly rushed through my mind. That person didn't even know me and vice versa but I can't easily shake the feeling off. This ill feeling can be maddening at times.

But I also think... Someone could also be hating me as well with no real reason. I'm not really being paranoid but of the hundred people I see everyday, there is bound to be one who hates me. This cycle of hatred is bound to happen. It's natural. All humans feel the feeling of hate.

It's rather strange to know that a person's mere existence can cause this much conflict for various reasons. Someone sneezed and someone else caught the disease. Someone walked and accidentally stepped on someone else's foot. Walking, bumping against another's shoulder. Talking loudly and unknowingly annoying another. Unknowingly inciting envy, jealousy, fear, anger... hatred.

By the time you have existed, you are forcibly thrust to this never ending cycle. Once you're in, you can never go out. The only way to prevent being thrust in the cycle is to have hid your existence from the world... or to have never had existed at all in the beginning.

We all live in a world of hatred. Chauvinists, Sexists, Racists, your next door neighbor, the next person you brush shoulders with, or even someone you have never even seen before...

Human Nature versus Human Morals

2009-05-31T10:32:00.000-07:00

In my two previous rants about the "Duality of Nature" and the story of the rampaging bus conductor, I made another interesting conclusion. I summed up another duality: Human Nature versus Human Morals. Both are attributes of human beings but very much different.

In my philosophy, I have slightly erased the concept of Good and Evil (mainly because that concept is pretty vague and it differs per person). Right and Wrong is also pretty vague as well. But then, I conjured up a very primitive and fundamental concept: Instinct versus Emotion.

Human Nature comes from instinct and it pretty much explains what we do in our everyday life: eating, drinking, sleeping, etc. But it doesn't end just there. Our instinct is what makes us organisms - beings that live, that exist. Human Morals is what separates us from being just an organism. It is responsible for giving worth, value, and different meanings to things which don't originally have before we evolved. It is what arose from the realization of "self".

From human morals, humans have converted many things into those with sentimental value. Courtship and sex turned into romance and love. Territory became property. Competition became fighting for honor. It is human nature to try to explain phenomena through observation and experimentation but human morals try to explain things through spiritual means.
_

I've always heard from cheesy teen romance situations when a girl thinks a guy is but a pervert or a playboy, which is definitely the result when looking at it through morals. Looking at it through nature yields a different outcome. The guy in question ogles at big breasts because it is in his subconscious desire to ensure that his offspring is given high quality breast milk. Big hips = Proper womb for fetus. Thinking about sex = innate desire for procreation. Human morals simply distort this natural instinctual behavior into something "immoral".

An explanation to that would be that cliche saying that guys think more with instinct while girls think more with emotion. For some unexplained reason, guys have more of this "Human Nature" while girls have more "Human Morals". It would be too extreme to say that "guys are animals", though. It is true that guys think more with instinct the same way animals do, but as human beings, guys still have Morals. Girls just have a lot more.
_

As I stated in another previous rant, there is also a struggle between yet another duality: Peace and Existence. Obviously, Human Morals aim for peace and harmony and it is Human Instinct to live, thus it is attributed to Existence. If we eradicate one side, there would be a huge trade off but...

Emotions / Instinct = Humanity

Let's go back to the Book of Genesis. Adam and Eve were living a peaceful life in Eden until they ate the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which we can call... that's right: Human Morals. Say they never ate it. Lacking Human morals, they can continue to live their peaceful lives with just Human Instinct. There might be havoc due to some occurrences of "immoral behavior" but since Human Morals isn't integrated, they wouldn't know the difference between war and peace. There wouldn't be "war" but there wouldn't be "peace" either. With the equation above, the net Humanity will be zero.

Since we attributed Instinct with "organism" and "body" earlier, it can be inferred that the Moral is what comprises the "soul". According to the many beliefs of the afterlife, our bodies rot as our souls bask in God's presence or be sent to the state of Nirvana for the rest of eternity. Having discarded the body which contains the instinct (as it would be useless otherwise), we, as souls, are left with morals. But with no real "society" to apply the Morals on, they would be just useless widgets. With the equation above, the net Humanity will be infinite... But since Humanity can only amount to 100% since no one can be "too human", the net humanity is undefined.

This is yet again another paradox solvable by the cliche: Balance. When more Instinct is applied in the equation, humanity levels drop, sending us down near the level of animals. When more Emotions are applied, humanity levels rise, sending us near the level of divine beings. The scale can never end up as a vertical line; neither Human Nature nor Human Morals can be completely erased from the reality we know. It can always be horizontal: a "perfect" symmetry called a Human Being.

First Post

2009-05-23T10:52:00.000-07:00

"An Extraterrestrial Perspective"... a somewhat awkward name with a somewhat awkward ring to it. Some people told me that I'm probably an alien. Maybe I am... maybe I'm not. I wouldn't know if I were. Sometimes, I just wish it was that way - to explain the source of my ramblings normal people would consider... incoherent...

Damn. Someone already made a blogspot URL with psychostress in it. It's friggin German. I simply HAD to append the number 101 to the URL. Why 101? No real reason.