Wanting to be right so bad that you come to actually believe that you are right, is not the same thing as actually being right. If you can't tell the difference, you're hopelessly lost, and no one can help you anymore.
-StBtG
Beliefs are thoughts that the ego fell in love with.
-StBtG
***
This is an article about the two worlds we live in on this planet.
What two worlds?
Well, there is the consensual reality that we mostly tend to agree upon, with attendant facts and data that can be used to prove or disprove our theories.
And then there's Narrative World.
Narrative World is a world where the narrative rules over the facts. The love of the narrative is too intense for mere facts to be allowed in to interfere.
In Narrative World God is real. (In fact, only in Narrative World is God real)
God is so real in fact, that to even doubt in Him is considered wrongheaded, a 'sin.' To suggest that the facts do not support His existence, is to be ostracised and scorned. Facts and data have no power in Narrative World, you see. All that matters is the story. Facts are heresy; logic is a crime. Only the story is real.
Religious people are married to their story. They just fucking love it, more than they even love themselves, and that's an awful lot. You cannot even assail it without intense personal scorn being directed back at you. You can't suggest that they might be in error... what's wrong with you? Literally, they equate belief in their narrative with being 'good' as opposed to 'evil' and in their minds it's an eternal war between the two. No gray areas allowed. So if you're a skeptic, in their minds you are personally evil. Case closed. As are their minds.
Some narratives are childishly simple. 'Believe in God or else go to hell, period.' Fear is the ruling factor here. Of course egotism enters into it as well, the 'I'm right and you're wrong and I'm special and you're not and I'm going to heaven and you're going to hell' mentality. Schadenfreude abounds in Narrative World. All the petty emotions thrive there as well. After all, even God is petty and small and oh-so-humanly flawed, admitting personal jealousy and wrath openly, even gambling with people's lives on a whim. Indeed it would seem that 'Tis all a checkerboard of nights and days, where God with men for pieces plays...' And apparently, that's okay. No amount of overt examples of raw Biblical evil are enough for them to see their God in a bad light. He's always good, even when killing little innocent children. Somehow that must be good too. It's a mystery, and it's all God's plan for us and we're just not meant to understand it.
(One wonders how these people hold their shit in, since the functionality of even a simple sphincter muscle must surely be beyond them.)
(Oh right, it comes out their mouths, I forgot...)
However some narratives are ridiculously complicated. (For good reason!)
Thomas Aquinas (God's official liar and archetypal ass-smoke-blower-upper extraordinaire) for instance constructed huge and impressive edifices of logic upon the shifting sands of faith to 'inexorably' lead us to belief in God, and did so in such a seamless manner that later generations of christians are completely incapable of seeing that all those pretty words and logical-sounding sentences aren't ultimately based on hard fact as they sound like they must surely be, but are instead based upon what amounts to nothing more than childish wishful thinking. Their love of the narrative utterly clouds their perceptions of reality, and the more complex, more logical-sounding narrative in this case allows even relatively intelligent people to be caught like flies in amber.
We are human, fallible emotional animals at best. So at what point is the lure of the narrative so great that we are willing to forgive it for not meeting the test of facts and data?
At the point where it provides more meaning to our lives than just living them in consensual reality does. The fact that it's empty meaning based on wishes and dreams matters little if at all. The religious just don't know the difference. They do not want to know. They are (have been kept) far too ignorant of reality to glean any real deeper meanings out of it, and are far too lazy to learn to now, nor do they see any need to, so they crave the simple, children's fairy-tale version. It's like a nice, warm bottle of milk, lulling them to a comfortable sleep. Forever.
And they want everybody to join them in their slumber. In fact, they *insist.*
***
A part of the religious narrative is of course that all other narratives are false, including consensual reality's 'narrative.' This can become quite comical when religion's beloved narrative meets reality in a head-on collision. Heliocentrism comes to mind. Hell, all of the findings of modern science come to mind, for that matter. Religion has been dragged into the modern world kicking and screaming all the way, like the retarded child it is. It never agreed with science or even basic observations of the world, it always had it's own ass-backward ideas instead, and it has always, always been wrong. Pathetically wrong. And it's still trying with no better results. This is because, by nature, religion is viciously stupid. It ignores reality in favor of fantasy; what better definition of 'stupid' does one need? Today's religious people even go so far as to vilify learning and knowledge itself, to scorn them as effete and effeminate somehow. The 'real Christian man's' way is apparently to kill and fuck (and fuck over) one's way through life whilst blaming one's 'sinful nature' for one's flaws and still maintaining the belief that somehow they're still 'going to heaven' because after all, they do still believe in God and they do ask to be forgiven their many sins, which are then magically erased from their souls and from their consciences. Convenient. After a while, they even forget to ask. They assume forgiveness for whatever they might do, since hey, they're *christian* and that's how it works, that's what Jesus does. It's magic, no doubt. Magic, plus a heavily flawed system of pseudomorality that is ultimately coercion-based with heavy appeal to egotism, and therefore can produce no good thing in the world without an evil taint to it.
When one 'absolutely knows' that one is 'good' with no doubt left in one's mind, it frees one up to do considerable evil in the world. This is the boon of religion. Sure you're an evil fuck but you believe that you poop Ben and Jerry's, and that's all that matters. You get to sleep at night, guilt-free, no matter what heinousness you've comitted or contemplate comitting. You'll even eventually get to the point where you're *proud* of it.
That's because religion is Purina Ego Chow.
I am always amused at the christians who vehemently deny (irrationally) that Hitler was a christian. I mean, he certainly acted like one. He definitely *believed* in his own righteousness completely, and manipulated his people through their christian faith. He thought he was an instrument of God in fact. Pretty typical, actually. He just got more power than most do; it's not that many other christians alive today wouldn't do the same thing if they had the opportunity. So why then, can he not be a 'real christian?' Because nobody that evil could be? That's what they'd like to believe, but I know differently because I do not live in Narrative World. It's easier to be evil if you're also religious. Look around.
***
You see my droogies, being right, as in being correct more often than one is not correct, as it turns out requires living in consensual reality enough to observe it dispassionately and draw conclusions from it. However, merely believing that one is right (and good, and just, and holy, and so on...) is more than good enough for those who are lost in the psychosis of their religion. Sure, they're wrong about just about everything, but they're ignorant of that fact too, so it's okay. Ignorance is indeed bliss to them, and a nightmare to everyone else. Because, they vote like they see the world. Ass-backwards.
I find myself wishing that the religious folk come to an agreement to ignore *all* science. Got diabetes? Pray it away! Go ahead... surely you have enough *faith* for that to work. No? Aww, too bad, so sad.
Hey, I can dream... And at least, I don't mix up my dreams with reality. That would be religiously stupid of me.
Of course, if this is all like a mind or a communal dream, then mathematics might be the ultimate 'real' thing. The 'most real' thing in existence. Because all things follow mathematical rules, after all.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought, more for me than for my audience.
For some reason I used to think that mathematical laws had real-world consequences, but it's really that real world phenomena have mathematical explanations, or rather descriptions. I was thinking in reverse, apparently. Stoopid.
ReplyDeleteThe math doesn't matter, to the thing or things that it describes. Just to those trying to describe it.
However...
Why does the real world, the universe, follow mathematical rules?
And
Why does the ultimate manifestation of a particle seem to rely on a combination of odds, statistical probabilities, along with our looking to observe it?
Why does a photon manifest in one place as a particle when we're looking, but is in all possible locations (more present in some than in others, dictated by probabilities) when we're not looking?
And why should we matter, to a photon?
'Why should we matter to a photon'
ReplyDeleteI think I'll order the T-shirt.
It's also a good sentence to meditate upon.
Why do we matter, to matter, I wonder?
Double-Slit Experiment
ReplyDeleteA common reason given for the lack of a pattern when a detector is installed:
"If two photons of the same frequency were emitted at the same time they would be coherent. If they went through two unobstructed slits then they would remain coherent and arriving at the screen at the same time but laterally displaced from each other they would exhibit interference. However, if one or both of them were to encounter a detector, time could be required for each to interact with its detector and they would most likely fall out of step with each other—that is, they would decohere. They would then arrive at the screen at slightly different times and could not interfere because the first to arrive would have already interacted with the screen before the second got there. If only one photon is involved, it must be detected at one or the other detector, and its continued path goes forward only from the slit where it was detected"
Sounds good, but that's not how the copenhagen interpretation reads, cited on the same wiki page a few paragraphs down:
"It is perhaps not so astounding that one knows nothing about what a light particle is doing between the time it is emitted from the sun and the time it triggers a reaction in one's body, but the remarkable consequence discovered by this experiment is that anything that one does to try to locate a photon between the emitter and the detection screen will change the results of the experiment in a way that everyday experience would not lead one to expect. If, for instance, any device is used in any way that can determine whether a particle has passed through one slit or the other, the interference pattern formerly produced will then disappear.[citation needed]
Reason, as applied to the events of our ordinary macro experience, tells us that a particle must pass through one slit or the other. The experiment tells us that there must be at least two slits to produce an interference pattern, and that anything that locates the particle before it hits the screen will destroy the interference pattern. Recent experiments have tried to identify which of the two slits a particle is coming out of on its way to the detection screen. Doing so will also prevent interference. Even less in line with the expectations of human scale interactions with nature, if the information about which slit a given particle came through is "erased" before a photon has time to interact with the detector screen, interference will be restored. (See Quantum eraser experiment.)"
Even less in line? That's because when the INFO is erased before any HUMAN can see it, the interference pattern returns. They're not turning the detector off, they're allowing it to function as before, it's just dumping the data. Soooo, that means that, it's not the detector slowing down the photon. It's the act of KNOWING, not SEEING, that is doing it.
This means that, on a very small scale, the act of knowing, is an act of creation, or at least, influence.
ReplyDeleteI just noted that it's not 'before any human can see it,' it's even before that; the data is erased before the photon hits the target. So...
ReplyDeleteSo...
Hmm...
Need to think on this. But it definitely still outrules it being the detector decohering the photon.
I would imagine this means that when the data is erased, but they wait till after the photon hits the detector, there's no interference pattern. But there is if they erase it before it hits the detector.
What's the difference? The measurement was taken in both instances. It's not the detector.
Hey, how does the photon 'know' while it's in flight? How can the dumping of data while it's in flight toward the target have ANY effect on it whatsoever? Why doesn't it make a difference if the data is dumped after it hits the target? (I am assuming here that it doesn't from the wording of the article)
There's a lot of stuff here we don't understand yet. More than enough for it to be presumptive in anyone's case to decide pre-emptively that something like the BB is definitely not the case. We're getting what seems like evidence here that our observation, and just that, has an effect on MATTER.
I just can't dismiss that, and it's implications if true.
(I just noted that there might be some confusion on reading that last post since I call both the detector at the slit and the target wall, 'the detector.' I hope you can 'get it' from the context)
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that religion has gotten right is the basic connectivity of all things in this universe. That isn't that hard to accept being as how everything we are and all the laws of this universe shared a common singularity a bit more than 14 billion years ago. But BB and theology share a common challenge - the existence of commonality is a large stretch of real estate from any concept of intelligent structure within that commonality. I believe there are a number of layers of objection to this but for now I'll start at the top.
ReplyDeleteBefore diving down into old 'Spukhafte Fernwirkung' or "spooky action at a distance" as Herr Einstein called it, there are several higher level objections to either deism or the BB. Both deism and BB must comply with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For deism and BB to work one of 2 things must occur - either proof of an exception to the Second Law (many have tried and failed miserably) or some larger realm within which to dump an extraordinary amount of cosmic disorder. And I mean huge beyond huge. Huger than any concept of huge. We are talking about a universe sized consciousness here. The degree of disorder that must be created to compensate for that level of organization regardless of whether it formed a priori with the Big Bang or formed later is unimaginable. In fact, the problem is greatest if the consciousness organized later as the waste energy should be detectable at some level. I don’t see any way around this for cosmic consciousness. Life may be but a dream, but even dreams have to obey some rules.
ReplyDeleteAnd that ignores the masses of energy that would be required to stave off degradation of the BB or deity at the levels of organization implied (an entity has to eat). Look at how much energy is required to maintain us and then imagine something truly universal in size.
So for now, I stop here as I don’t see anyway around this first hurdle, so the organizational challenges and informational challenges can wait until a satisfactory explanation for why the Second Law can be ignored is presented.
Saint Brian the Godless said...
ReplyDeleteThis means that, on a very small scale, the act of knowing, is aninfluence. act of creation, or at least, March 24, 2011 8:19 PM
Take this knowing, and using Observants knowing, what is the result? Does his knowing do more than change his perception of reality or does it change THE REALITY?
What bothers me most about these experiments telling us about how 'observation' changes the outcome is that the experiments themselves are not very well explained.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me they explain their results in the broadest terms, "If we change the spin on one of the 'entangled' photons, the spin on it's counterpart also changes."
Well, how do they go about detecting spin on a sub-atomic particle? I cannot imagine an instrument delicate enough to detect something that small without affecting it.
On the other end of the scale we hear scientists, every few years, every time they build better equipment, telling us how astonished they are at how many more galaxies there are in our universe.
Meanwhile theoretical physicists have merrilly been expounding on the universe using data from the previous estimates on how many galaxies there 'are'.
So, there is the lack of information, the fairly rapid outdating of information etc. etc.
One example of this is the Andromeda Galaxy. I read in an Encyclopedia that it was so many lightyears across and it was so many light years away from us.
A quick calculation using the figures given and it was obvious that the Andromeda Galaxy ought to be something like 3 degrees across the sky!
This was a far cry from the tiny, all but invisible to my eyes, 1/4 degree blur which I had to hunt for.
So, for these kinds of reasons, I read stuff on the tiniest of 'things' and wonder 'how' they know this rather than accepting their conclusions as fact.
If the Casimir effect is real, for example, how was it detected and why is it that we cannot use it for FTL communication?
Reading stuff on the Casimir effect they're wont to start jabbering about sending objects through worm-holes as soon as they perfect harnessing the power of a sun.
We're not holding our breath for that last part, I hope.
So I say we're having a communal dream with no need for bodies, that all mass including our bodies is an illusion in the dream, and that all laws of the dream arose within the dream, that for instance, it is a dream within which the dreamers have definitely decided that all phenomena within the dream must obey the laws of thermodynamics...
ReplyDelete...and then you say that it just can't be true because it doesn't OBEY those laws nor can it be DETECTED through violations of said laws? Laws that are confined to the dream?
C'mon pliny. You must see that your objections are completely invalidated due to the very nature of what we're talking about here. They actually do not apply. You can form objections to the dream based on the purported nature of said dream, but not based in the dream itself. The dream is the dream, and the laws are a part of the dream, not the mind that is dreaming it. Or minds. Because if it is a dream, we are the dreamers dreaming it. We are the ones that demand that it be logical so that we can understand it, because if it were not logical it wouldn't be a realistic dream, now would it? If there are multiple dreamers, then the communal dream doesn't only have to conform to the expectations of one person. It would conform to our gestalt expectations of it, ours and even lower life forms that came before us to 'set the stage' for the play.
Pliny, we're currently dreaming that nothing can violate the second law of thermodynamics. Makes sense. Logical.
ReplyDeleteSo why would we suddenly dream that something is violating that law? It can't. We've decided on that. If the BB is real, it must conform to that, since it IS the dream we're dreaming, after all. It gives us what we expect, and we aren't expecting to ever FIND IT. If it is real, logically, it is hellishly subtle, because it would have to be undetectable.
As it is, except at the level of the smallest things, where there are imperfections visible. It's not seamless, but the 'seams' are very, very tiny.
Jerrey, to get to your question, I've thought of that already.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, he can't change reality in any 'real' way, in a way that I can also see, for instance.
However the rules allow for him to receive real 'evidence' as long as he can't use it to 'prove' god to everyone else. So he might be getting 'signs' that seem to be from 'god.' Sure. But he should realize that anyone can do that to themselves if they believe in something hard enough.
We do have a reality that we agree upon. Observant sees that too, but to him it would be colored by his own version which is overlaid upon it, so to speak, like a filter through which he sees reality slightly distorted.
See, if the BB is real, fantasies can take on a degree of reality to a person. Real-world phenomena can kick in and seem to confirm your fantasy. I've met christians personally that were getting the wild coincidences, for instance, trigered by the strength of their belief.
But, here's the rub. Remember that I did not have a fantasy about a god. I DECIDED to condition myself to semi-believe in the idea that reality gives us what we expect. I didn't think of it in any way connected to a god. My thought was 'I see what I expect to see, what I believe I will see' and 'the universe gives me what I'm imagining it to' and then the weird coincidences started for me. And they weren't religiously-based, as in the christians that I had met. No, they were mundane, but always personally significant, and other people could see it too, and were creeped out by it, so I know it wasn't in my imagination.
So if I was really seeing something unusual, the reason that I saw it was that I designed the experiment to exclude god and concentrate on just getting what we expect to get. Since I got what I expected to get, and even in later times learned to meditate on a particular thing and bring that into being (my son for instance) I would conclude that it more indicates a reality with no god that gives us what we expect, a communal dream most likely, and if we expect god, why, it gives us the illusion of that, as well. But the more basic thing is the nature of the universe, which just gives us what we expect it to. (Not consciously, btw!)
Also, if the ultimate nature of the universe is a communal dream wherein we as a whole get what we are expecting to get (subconsciously) then that is the ultimate nature of it. Period. So what if, within that DREAM one can believe in a god and see real evidence for said god? Said god is not a part of the ultimate nature of that universe, is it? It's a part of the dream, not the nature of it. Plus, since all people believe in either different gods or in a god but in different ways or in no gods at all, reality (dream) must give us all 'evidence' of our mutually-exclusive expectations, and it can't do that in a way that all the other people can see what's going on, all getting different and conflicting evidence from reality etc. So it can only give people *unproveable* evidence of what they're imagining/believing in if it is in conflict with the basic premises of all the other dreamers. If it can conform to those expectations, then it can be 'seen' by all.
ReplyDeleteIf people insist on believing in things that this physical reality has not spawned, and does not fit in, then this reality must give them a lie in return. God was never real, never observable. Neither were unicorns. So a person that insists on believing in either one, will be 'humored' by reality, but can never prove it to anyone else that matters. For that would change the whole dream. And to change this evidence-based dream in that manner, requires evidence. Evidence that it is a dream. Such may already exist, but we're not ready to believe it yet, so it's not real 'evidence' yet.
Interestingly enough, I see a huge difference between the BB and any religion, any god.
ReplyDeleteGod by it's nature can never, ever be proved. If the BB is real, it will definitely be proven someday. It's not seamless. We just have to be able to look harder, and in the right places. In the realm of the very small, and the very large.
Incidentally, in the beginning I first started to see coincidences (after a weird lucid dream I had) and then realized that *maybe* they had meaning, since they were, well, ridiculously apparent to me and to my wife at the time. And to everyone else I've dated since, and my present wife as well. I noticed that it seemed that they would always happen when I was thinking of something *lightly* as in, laughingly, in a silly manner, and not expecting anything to happen. And this included laughing at the frequency of the coincidences! So the more I'd talk about them and joke around about them, the more frequent they became.
ReplyDeleteHypothetically, if everybody in the world say, believed in Yaweh and Jesus, in the exact same way, then they'd all believe there's a god, sure, and reality would give them plenty of *indications* that they're correct (when they're not,) however since reality was set in stone millennnia ago as to it's basic patterns of logic and things like action-reaction and conservation of energy, even then the people, all believing in god, would not be able to find what we today would call hard evidence for god's existence. They'd all believe, sure, and all see strong 'signs' but they couldn't alter the already-existing pattern of no-god-required, logic-based reality, even then. By the time life on this planet was developed enough to imagine a god, previous life on the planet set the patterns of existence up with their observations and expectations of the reality around them. The new concept would require all the old paradigm to fall away completely, and it was already established too well for that to ever happen.
ReplyDeleteOr so I can theorize...
And hey, if matter is consciousness, it perhaps has a primitive "I AM" sort of self-realization. If that is the case, perhaps more advanced 'life forms' that come later always have to contend with the fact that the 'rules' are already laid down by the previous primitive consciousness-forms. So at no point in time can any life-form drastically change the basic floorplan. Just steer the future evolution a bit perhaps.
ReplyDeleteA Beautiful Mind? 12-Year-Old Boy Genius Sets Out to Disprove Big Bang | The Blaze
ReplyDeletewww.theblaze.com
Brian,
ReplyDeleteWho’s to say your perception of reality is any different then mine.
You have given a fair amount of thought to your BB brain theory even to the point that you believe it could be possible. Right? And I understand your concept to be that we are the thoughts of one big brain.
I have done the same, only I believe that God is what you refer to as the big brain and we are all connected yet separate as individuals. God knows our thoughts because of mans connection to him yet we are separate not knowing each others thoughts.
The big bang theory is not a proven reality nor is mans evolution . It is an accepted theory believed to be reality because of circumstantial evidence.
Hi Observant...
ReplyDeleteI don't really understand the article, why people are giving him attention. They're calling him boy genius and all, but his science is bad.
For instance:
"He could go on and on.
And he did.
“Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn’t be here.
--------------
Okay. first of all, the earth's star, the Sun, is a second-generation star. It was formed from the remains of previous stars that had the time to exist, 'live' out their 'lives,' and die. So the carbon thing is explicable in that light.
But more importantly by far, the earth is NOT made 'mostly' of carbon. Actually, there's relatively little carbon here. More silicon and iron and other elements in rocks, than carbon, dude. A thin skin of carbon-based life, and atmospheric carbon gasses, but by weight, very little carbon as compared to other elements.
Incidentally, the fact that we can find gold on this planet proves that it's a second-generation star. Gold is only made in stars. Same with platinum and all the higher-number elements over lead. Has to be a super-nova to make those elements.
Apparently what we have here is a little boy that has a high IQ that is *just smart enough* to sound amazingly smart to his christian relatives or to a christian audience. To a scientist, nice try kid. (I'm not a scientist and yet still I have no problem seeing the swiss-cheese he's presenting here)
If you want to call a communal dream 'god' that's your business, but apparently you feel a real need to worship something. What's the matter? Low self-esteem?
ReplyDeleteIf you'd read back a bit, I just made the distinction between god and the BB to jerry. Any god would be a part of the illusion, and not even a part that everyone would believe in. Whereas what I'm speaking of is the underlying system or whatever it is that produces the effect of giving us our expectations and even seemingly proving them to us.
Hi, Observant. I was thinking about you when I heard (this morning?) that a prime minister was booted out up in your country.
ReplyDeleteCurious as to your opinion on the matter. (I think I heard he was conservative?)
++ Also, FYI
this Sunday, Mar. 30 at 9pm on History Channel: special on Shroud of Turin.
It premiered last year and is very interesting from new-found 3-D tech.
I'll have to check that link you listed when I wake up tomorrow.
Peace,
MI ;)
And I understand your concept to be that we are the thoughts of one big brain.
ReplyDelete---------------
More like we are minds. Not thoughts.
Think about it as if we were computer programs written on a huge computer, that just happens to occur naturally. As if reality were nothing more than a natural field of data upon which programs can be written, or allowed to evolve. We believe that we're in 'reality' but that's all a part of the program we've written for ourselves.
I see the field of data itself as more like a 'blank page' than a consciousness or a god. I don't believe that it is self-conscious. Or even really conscious. It' IS consciousness, but undifferentiated, or formed by thoughts, not a 'mind' per se. A slate upon which the stories of our lives are written. A computer that contains the programs that are us and the program that connects us all, our perceivabloe reality.
But go ahead, if you need to, call it god. Heck, call your dog 'god' if you like. If you're dyslexic, it fits!
Hey, I'm not alone! I checked out the comments on one article about him, Jacob Barnett I mean, and lookey here!
ReplyDelete"Anybody want to correct his interpretation?
permalinkparent
fastparticlesAMS, Noble Gases 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago[+] (0 children)
fastparticlesAMS, Noble Gases 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago[-]
There was a whole thread on it but the two biggest flaws are:
A) Earth is not mostly carbon in fact carbon is a trace element
B) Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis) does not make carbon because making carbon is difficult (it requires 3 alphas hitting together) This process (triple alpha process) is very slow and the Big Bang only had the conditions for a short amount of time so you can't make very much carbon there.
permalinkparent
He talks science like I did when I was ten. Cute. But not accurate. Ego-driven, encouraged by parents etc.
ReplyDeleteBTW, iq means little. Mine is 175. Ptooey. But also higher than einsteins, and guess what? I'm not him! And Pliny blows me out of the water, too. I went through all the 'gifted' bullshit, all it did was give me social adjustment problems.
Also, if an interviewer can't follow what he's saying, they needed a different interviewer, imho. But of course they're just showcasing him as an oddity and using him for his 'disproval' of the Big Bang theory. Poor bastard may be smart but he can't see yet what he's in for. A pawn to be used by the religious right.
ReplyDeleteReading about him and his objections to the Big Bang Theory, it would appear that he assumes that earth was made in the Big Bang instead of billions of years afterwards from the gas clouds from other exploded stars, and he also assumes that carbon comprises a significant amount of the earth, both of which are wrong.
ReplyDeleteHe has potential though. If he isn't influenced by a bunch of right-wingnuts to be a poster boy for their idiot cause, that is.
The new concept would require all the old paradigm to fall away completely, and it was already established too well for that to ever happen.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I see evolution doing, a small step at a time, but relentless. The old paradigm is but a step that we stood on in the past as the new step is the new paradigm. Slow gradual change but relentless. Right now it looks like our communication world wide, thanks to technology, is shifting the paradigm toward world wide democracy. At times I wonder if we progressed at the speed many of what to, if that much speed would throw us into chaos, and be detrimental in the long run.
Mike, ask yourself why there's so much buzz about that boy. How did you hear about him? Did you find him on your own, or through a website? And was the website a christian one?
ReplyDeleteHe says that the Big Bang is wrong, and he's soooo smart, and that's all you need. So even if his science is rudimentary (as yet) your side will use him as poster boy for your cause, as long as you can. Sending a link to his story perhaps to... to some atheist blog, perhaps?
Do you really believe you've got anything there? I mean, I know his science is bad, but you don't, and you don't believe the likes of me about it, so maybe in your mind he's right and the whole scientific community is wrong. You're good at deceiving yourselves that way. I mean, you want it to be false so badly you're willing to not look tooo closely at your 'proofs' when you think you have them.
I'm sure in your minds he'll disprove the Big Bang and go on to disprove Evolution, and so science will just re-set to a point somewhere in the 1700's or something.
The correct and only paradigm *should be* simply "All Things Change." Consider change, as a paradigm. Life is change.
ReplyDeleteMany find that scary; I find it exciting.
The old falls away and is replaced by the new, and so... what's your point? Isn't that, well, natural?
this Sunday, Mar. 30 at 9pm on History Channel: special on Shroud of Turin.
ReplyDelete--------------
Whenever they need ratings they do a special on the shroud.
They know it's a fake of course, but why not take the higher ratings that come with pandering to the religious majority?
I guess if history channel just presented real history they'd have about ten viewers, so they love to debase themselves by playing to the fools. Even the History Channel has learned how to use the christian sheep, how to herd them in their monetary direction.
Primitive savages need to worship that which they fear, the elements, nature, whatever. To 'get in good' with them so they aren't killed by them.
ReplyDeleteThen organized religion came along and realized that they could exploit that sentiment. Brilliant of them.
When someone asks me about the idea of reality being a communal dream or a vast mind the question 'but couldn't that be god?,' that sounds incredibly desperate. No, it couldn't be. In fact, if it is true, it explains away your god as two thousand years of willful self-deception. Talk about reaching.
And also, I see a real need, to worship. To debase one's self to something bigger, huger, vaster, and by that, to win it's love, and so not have to fear it.
It's a lot like transferral of feelings from a parent, methinks. The Distant, Easily-Angered Father whom you try and try to please...
Yaweh, is a really terrible dad, by the way. The very archetype of the Bad Father. But wait, don't focus on that god, we have a newer, friendlier version to distract you from Leviticus! Yay Jesus!
Silliness. Children should have more sense.
I have done the same, only I believe that God is what you refer to as the big brain and we are all connected yet separate as individuals.
ReplyDelete------------
If you believe that, then why are you prejudiced? Don't get it.
And also, since you and I both 'investigated' this reality and tried to make sense out of it, why have you not studied nature and science? One would think that it would be the first thing you'd do. For whatever is the "Truth" it must fit in and explain the phenomena that we can observe 'down here' on earth.
Of course, your god doesn't do even that, now does he? No, 'it's a mystery.' (They say this whenever the real answer would make them look like idiots)
Hey, in fact, getting back to the Big Bang and that kid...
ReplyDeleteHe's worried about the carbon, saying that it wasn't made in the BB?
Neither was anything else, except for a lot of hydrogen, some deuterium and a soupcon of lithium. So no iron, no silicon, no rock-forming elements at all!
In fact, if he's been through the education that the articles say that he's been through in such a short time, he should know that like the back of his hand. That is what is bothering me. It's really, really basic. He's studying astrophysics? Not very well, apparently. He should have learned that in like, the first two days.
So, why is he not nearly as smart as they're saying that he is? All I'm coming up with here is that he's very smart (for a kid) but the interest in him is generated by him happenning to think the Big Bang is false, and that's a christian dogwhistle if ever there was one.
Again, poor kid, he doesn't know what he's in for.
"It's turtles all the way down.", Brian.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, you can learn more than enough to realize for yourself how incredibly wrong the boy is, just by watching science channel and other science specials. Or reading one good book by Brian Greene. No university required. So where is all the information that he's supposedly absorbed so fast from an actual astrophysics class?
ReplyDeleteYeah, but I'm an atestudinist, peeb. So that doesn't fly.
ReplyDeleteI love how christians hate science so much, disregard it altogether whenever they feel like it, but then when some little kid comes along that *seems* to be proficient in science (to a bunch of science-illiterate morons) but happens to think that the christians are right about the Big Bang, well they turn right around and trumpet it to the world, don't they? Yay! Science RULES! (as long is it's properly 'godly.')
ReplyDeleteInteresting take on the article about Jacob Barnett.
ReplyDeleteLink
This is more like it!
Brian said,
ReplyDeleteI love how christians hate science so much, disregard it altogether whenever they feel like it, but then when some little kid comes along that *seems* to be proficient in science (to a bunch of science-illiterate morons) .
----------------
Brian I just thought you guys might think it was interesting… Why must you be so abusive? It’s like if any one disagrees with you they are useless scum especially Christians…. My God get some help.
Funny how that last link to an article I posted has an author that agrees with me, that he's being used. By right-wing christians.
ReplyDeleteThey do love to use people in their 'cause.' And lies. And lies plus people, as in this case.
Hey, christians are a plague on humanity, so you think I should just let that slide, huh? Live and let live, and all that?
Spoken like a true plague on humanity. Not a chance. I'll keep speaking out against the evil that plagues this earth till my dying breath.
And you thought it would be interesting because the article had in the heading 'disprove the Big Bang theory.'
ReplyDeleteBut you didn't have the tools in your chest to tell that the science was faulty, now did you?
Therein lies the problem, I guess. When you don't KNOW, believing that you do is the next best thing.
It’s like if any one disagrees with you they are useless scum especially Christians….
ReplyDelete-------------
Not at all. It's not the disagreement. It's the insistance on your parts that your way is the only path, and your condemnation of those who do not take it. Your bigoted religion blinds you to everything, but most especially to to your own pride and lack of empathy. It's like ultraviolet to you. Just can't see what I'm talking about when I mention it. So, given that you have political power, and that you're not sane, the result is that you are incredibly fucking dangerous to the entire planet. And people are blinded to the evil of your religion, by the two-millennia of PR it has laid down specifically TO blind them. So I'm speaking out. So are a lot of others.
The more, the merrier.
I didn't want "You are a fucktard" to be my final post (over at Marcus's blog), so I thought I'd drop by here. Life, the universe and everything has severely cut back on my time on line as well as my interests are moving in other directions. Truth be told, I'm glad life is getting me off line. But I really wanted to let everyone know, especially Harry, Brian and Ian, how much I've valued your thoughts. Maybe sometime in the distant future we'll cross paths online.
ReplyDeleteMike, you are a fucktard, no other delicate way to put it.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post, especially about getting in and out if Christianity. Hope the best for you and your family. Have a good life.......
Aw shit, that really sucks.. for us, I mean. Good for you, having a life and all. Who knew? ;-)
ReplyDeleteWe'll miss you here, for as much longer as this lasts. After all, I seem to be developing a life too. And really, we've said all there needs be said. Now it's more of a social gathering of old friends. I do still value that, but the blog isn't one of my priorities lately, and it shows.
Best of luck in everything, Ryan.
Mike, if you're still around:
ReplyDeleteI was just thinking...
You know, if I were to have a sudden conversion to christianity, with all that I know about it now, how far it has deviated from say, christ, for instance, I'd be convinced that most people who call themselves christians are posessed by demons and I would strive with all my heart and soul to try to save them or kill them. Whichever one worked best. Because after all, they're demons and all...
Gonna miss your input Ryan.
ReplyDeleteWe had lots of laughs.
Hasta la vista, Ryan.
ReplyDeleteGonna miss your wit!
Question.
ReplyDeleteObama, bad socialist president or worst socialist president?
(in that he's not socialist at all!)
It's not as if he didn't jump right in and buy the right wing narrative that 'it's all about the budget, folks' after spending the first year telling everone that we had to spend our way out of the depression.
He seems to be buying the economists(who are all right wing shills) narrative that the American people are to the right of himself but a little left of the GOP, in the face of polls showing that the vast majority of people are all for draconian measures that don't affect themselves.
Of course we're self-centred when it comes to this kind of thing, but many more people can see that unions are not intrinsically bad things, just ideologically bad, if you're a big share-holder in a big corporation.
If you're not, then to cheer union-busting on is to cut your own nose off to spite your face.
I'm going to miss the shit out of you, Ryan.
ReplyDeleteBe well, Sir :-)
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteAsà es la vida, y voy a extrañarte hombre. Que te vayas bien.
On a more shallow note, you consistently kicking Eric's ass in four lines or less compared to his tomes of obfuscation, was one of the most amusing things I've gotten to experience on any blog.
Judge you!
Okay, so I'm tired of all this talk of religion.
ReplyDeleteSO, NEW POST IS UP.
I set you all a challenge. I throw down the gauntlet.
Hey, let's have some fun. It's better than talking about the mindless sheep.
Let's burn some dendrites!