DISCLAIMER: These are my views and my views alone (though I am joined by a few who share my opinions). I am exercising my right to free speech and expressing how I feel on certain issues. I must warn the readers that there is foul language so if you're offended by that then, please stop now. But I only ask that my readers keep an open mind, and maybe will help you rethink some things in life. Thank you.
This paper is basically just random thoughts that I’ve had floating in my head for several years or even just the last few days. These thoughts range from is there a god, to why are we here, to why are we the way we are, and especially why am I the way I am?
I guess I can begin from the beginning – the beginning of the universe, as we know it. From a religious perspective there was a kind of supernatural being – god – who created all things, man, and the universe. Current trends (in the year 2005) have begun to lead people into reasoning that because the universe is so perfect; that things operate so smoothly, that there must be some kind of divine being at work. The world moves in such an orderly way that there must be some unseen hand helping it along.
Personally I don’t believe in this idea. Just the thought that there is some unseen force guiding everything that happens in the world isn’t comprehensible to me (with the exception of mother nature). However, I was raised to believe in god, and even can remember my mother telling me how when I die and go into heaven I’d be rejoined with my foot, which was lost due to the staph infection, that happened shortly after birth.
I feel that the people who believe in this kind of thing are honestly a little stupid and close-minded, though I can also say that it is a very comforting feeling to believe that there is “someone” watching over you, and has you and the world in mind, helping things along. As well as it’s a very comforting feeling to believe that there is a “father”, as religious types like to say, that you can talk to and rely on to help with your problems.
However I want to live in “reality,” at least a reality that I can realistically comprehend. Now, I know that our minds cannot possibly understand all things, with such phenomenon as ghosts, the afterlife, psychic abilities and other such occurrences, for instance as I’ve seen on TV shows when a mother gets that feeling when something is wrong with her son for example, and all of a sudden gets an intense feeling overcome them, that something is wrong, and at that same moment her offspring has just been injured, and going on the mother’s hunch calls family and finds out that indeed, her son was injured in an accident. I don’t mean the ridiculous con men seen on many TV shows that can supposedly talk to the dead and what not.
Of course I’ve been intrigued by these kinds of things ever since I was a boy. I used to watch all these shows (especially Unsolved Mysteries) that talked of ghosts, and aliens, and other odd things, that seem so hard to believe, yet thousands of people, even ones who live on other sides of the world, have similar accounts, and claim to have seen very similar things. Of course just because many people see it, doesn’t automatically mean it’s true. Millions of people believe in a god (in fact a recent poll suggests about 90% or so of people in the world believe in god), yet that doesn’t make it true. I’ve wondered if the whole talk of aliens, and ghosts are just some kind of shared group delusion (as well as the whole belief in “god”).
For example, if you’re taught to believe in ghosts, and you’ve heard and seen many accounts of things on TV about it, and you spot something out of the corner of your eye, or in a photo, that you can’t explain, you might think it was some kind of spirit. Something like that happened to me many years ago for a time when I was in my mid teens, where I was in my backyard and out of the corner of my eye I swear I saw a person, a figure, and when I looked no one was there. This happened many times. At first I thought it was my dad playing a joke on me, but I jumped off my gazebo and ran around it, hoping to catch my dad trying to hide from me, but I saw and heard no one.
Still to this day it sends chills down my spine to think of it, but when I really think about it, was that just my imagination going wild, or did I really see something? I don’t truly know, but I believe that it was just my imagination. But it proves my point. If you’re taught to believe in something, then you will tend to lean in that direction, whether or not it’s really true. Another incident was when I printed out this picture of a friend, and it had a little white dot in it, though it was blurry, and my friend said I had a ghost in my house. But I don’t believe that. I think it was probably just light reflecting somehow and it showed up in the picture…simple.
Now on to what I believe happened. I believe in the theory of evolution, and that for some unknown reason all the atoms, and elements that created our world, just clashed and combined to create life. But is that what really happened? There is some evidence, so I’ve read, that scientists are able to measure the energy still left over from the Big Bang. At least I believe that’s correct…I just read it in a book about two hours ago.
I believe that there is enough evidence to believe that humans evolved from apes or monkeys, or some kind of species related to them, since it’s been shown that we share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, as well as well as extremely similar internal organs, and even body type. I mean come on, what animal do you know that has ears like we do?? I even saw side by side a comparison of a human and chimpanzee skeleton, and aside from the fact that humans stand more upright then our ancestors, the bones in the skeletons were practically identical. Not to mention similar looking feet, hands, and similar body shape! Some claim that apes and chimps have “obvious external and behavioral differences.” Well yeah, it’s called evolution…. when things evolve and change. It wouldn’t be called evolution if that’s not what had happened now would it? Obviously things would change over millions of years. That’s why I believe very strongly in the evolutionist theory.
I’ve been reading lately that there’s a huge clash between atheists and believers in god, and evolutionists and creationists (people who believe we were created by some supreme being). Atheists not wanting the word god spoken at social events or schools, and having a complete separation of church and state; people not wanting the words “in god we trust” on our money anymore, and other such issues. My opinion on this issue is this: As far as being able to prey in schools if an individual wants to, then that’s their choice. But I also feel that the Pledge of Allegiance should be changed not to include the word ‘god.’ The reason is because of the thing that’s called the separation of church and state that was created by the creators of this country, but it seems that it’s just an illusion. I mean we have “In god we trust” on our money! We teach kids in school a pledge that has the words ‘under god’ in it. We have laws that are influenced by religion, like no stealing, no killing, and the like, which are a part of the ten commandments. Of course on a realistic level those law are necessary for a peaceful society, if people went around killing all the time…wait….that does happen all the time anyway. . Hell, even the recent law of only a women and man can get legally married in most states is based off of religion, and religious leaders were trying to influence people. That’s just insane. The whole thing about stem cell research that was opposed by religious leaders, and the moral concepts surrounding that whole idea, was based a lot on religion as well. Personally I think that’s a great idea. I think cloning is a great idea too, but again morally and stupid religious bozos don’t want us to play “god” and other such reasons. I did have a little debate with a friend over this though, about possibly cloning myself and taking the left leg and attaching it. Sounds like a great alternative to prosthetic limbs, yet what happens to the cloned person, my friend said? Wouldn’t that be horribly evil to create life and then kill it for spare parts? I can understand that idea, so I thought, since you can change just about whatever you want about the clone, why not just make it without a brain, perhaps? Not sure if that’s possible, but then would it still be “human?” To me it would just be a hunk of meat that’s alive with no feelings, no emotion, so what would be human about it? Or maybe just recreate just the limb that is needed? But it’s a fact that religion is holding us back in regard to science, and hell, even truth itself, with their crap about some magic being who created all…bla bla bla.
It’s a fact that religion is indeed interwoven in our whole society. I mean we have phrases like, “god bless you,” when someone sneezes, and “someone must be watching out for you,” and many others.
But here’s my take on it. People should be free to find their own “truth” and their own path, and not be hounded by religious freaks, and I mean that in a nice way. You know who I’m talking about…the people who come up to you and say something like, “god is awesome”, or like this one guy who came up to me at the airport a few years ago, who was with this big Christian group, and asked if I take god as my savior and I said yes because I didn’t want to get into a fight with like 20 something guys, if they got mad and wanted to challenge me. But now that I look back, why should I be afraid to say what I really think? I should’ve just said no. That would’ve been funny to see his reaction.
There’s also a debate in schools over people wanting teachers to teach kids about creationism, as well as evolution. Again I feel this is wrong because their parents or church should teach them… I mean brainwash them, about that. And again here’s a clear break from the idea of the separation of church and state. But their idea, say the representatives, is to educate people, and show people both sides and let them make up their own minds. At first this idea sounds rational, but under more thought it’s just plain stupid. Evolution is a theory which has much proof of it, and that’s what is taught in schools, facts, figures, history, etc. But with creationism, where are the facts? Where is the proof? There simply is none, and anyone who tries to say there is, is just twisting facts, and attempting to create an argument where there is none. But I look at it like this. I think these people just want creationism in schools so as to further brainwash susceptible young kids into this crap and get them on their side. I wonder if this is some conspiracy in which the religious dopes, and other brainwashed people, are trying to brainwash our youth on a much more massive scale then could they be with just church attendance and their parents’ teaching them the same bullshit they were fed when they were growing up, because just about every child in the U.S. goes to school to get an education. More importantly though is this fact. Teaching an untested, unproved religious rhetoric would be the same as trying to teach kids that the world is flat, when we have perfectly obvious facts, and proof that it’s not. It’s a fact that we have a good deal of research to point toward evolution, as I’ve gone on about, and what does religion have in the way of facts or proof? Nothing…nada. Of course another huge problem is this, which should be the most obvious! The little thing called the separation of church and state!!!! This reminds me of a phrase I saw somewhere on the Internet regarding Iraq and applies to my point perfectly.
"They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give 'em ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years and, what the hell, we're not using it anymore."
- Juan Cole
Personally, and again, I feel the idea of a god is silly, yet 90-something % of the world’s population believe in that, so the evolutionists are severely outnumbered. I figure, look, almost the entire world is brainwashed in believing this bullshit, so we evolutionists will just have to put up with it.
Or do as I do as just look at them and think, “Man I really feel sorry for you…you’ve reduced yourself to some ancient religious hocus pocus in this modern age, and gone back to worshiping the sun, or the wind, and other such things…though at least you can see those things, and truthfully experience those things. Many may say they experience god, as in god pushed me in this direction, or something like that, but you know what I
think that is? Just plain luck, or coincidence. However, this leads me to another point, which I’ve been thinking about for a few years.
When I look back on my life when I was depressed at a teenager, I used to hate god for taking away my leg, and it causing all the teasing and problems in my life. But looking back on it at this point in my life, I see how everything, even down to me losing my leg, seemingly happened with a purpose. In my mind this is how I see it nowadays: I don’t see the loss of my leg a bad thing, or for that matter that little psycho bitch Michelle, an ex girlfriend, either. I feel all these events have led to me where I am in my life right now. The way I see it if I hadn’t lost my leg would I have moved to Boston, where I’ve met so many great people and found a great martial art to study? Because I met Michele though a best friend Jacob, who I met on a bus for special needs kids. If I hadn’t been “handicapped” I wouldn’t have met Jacob, and in turn, have Jacob introduce me to Michele, and thus never have been in that horrible situation leading out to Boston.
Also in 1997 when I dated this girl who I was severely depressed about when we had broken up, would I have had the motivation to seek happiness, and in turn, find Buddhism, which helped me with my heartbreak, and my negative self image that I had been dealing with since middle school? If I hadn’t of had a prosthetic leg I most likely wouldn’t have been depressed for most of my teenage years, and been influenced by Buddhism, and started myself on this path of self knowledge and philosophy that I walk every day since 1997. Even just a few days ago I came to an astonishing realization, that it’s been nine years since the break up and when I started my journey of knowledge and truth about myself and the world…NINE YEARS! It’s gone by so fast, it blows my mind.
Now are all these events related? If I hadn’t lost my leg, would I even be sitting here? Would I still be in Ohio? Would I have met my best friend on that bus had I not lost my leg, and been on that bus and met him? Would I even like martial arts? Would I even be the same person I am today? It’s a brainteaser huh? But it’s what I’ve been contemplating on for several years. Are all these events unrelated, and just happened to lead me to this point of my life, or is there some force that has a plan for everyone? Now I don’t mean a god, though that does beg the question… is there a god and is this the plan he had for me? I really don’t think so, but if there ever is proof of a god, then I’ll accept that as a reason. At any rate, I just call it fate. Who knows why it happens, it just does. Maybe like in that movie Final Destination, where the guy discovers “death’s design” and is able to predict how he and everyone around him will die, maybe there is also a life design? Though only by looking back can we see the roads that our lives have taken us through. But what about the people’s whose lives are horrible? The ones who live on the streets with no money and old torn clothes? Is that “life’s design”, or did they just happen to make the wrong choice, that led them to their current situation? I really don’t know at this time. I guess everyone’s situation is different. Did the person get laid off for some unknown reason, despite being an excellent employee, and person, or did the guy screw his boss’s wife, and thus get canned? In one situation fate seems to have stepped in for some unknown reason’ the guy’s a good worker and does good for the company, yet gets fired? The other one, just a plain bad decision which led to his boss finding out and getting even.
Since I’m thinking of it I think I’ll jump back to the evolutionist and creationist debate, and one that really annoys me, is when non believers of god tell a believer that they want proof of god, and in an example I heard in a group of friend’s church not too long ago, when the priest was talking of this very issue, was saying how if someone says they want god to make an alligator walk across the road, then they’ll believe in god. Then when an alligator doesn’t walk across it’s proof that there’s no god right? Wrong…not in these people’s (might I say twisted) minds. The priest then said, that a person wouldn’t see an alligator walk across the street simply because he doesn’t have the belief of god within
himself, and therefore god won’t work his magic…. yeah right. Another kind of argument I just read in an article on the creationism vs. evolutionism debate online. In an article by Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D., he writes, “…creationists have an alternative interpretation of the amino acid sequence similarities reflected in the evolutionists' trees. They say that such sequence similarities in "related" species simply reflect the creator's choice to design similar species to function similarly, not only at the level of bones, muscles and organs, but also at the level of protein function--hence the amino acid sequence similarities.”
He’s writing of the very similar gene sequencing of the DNA of both humans and apes and chimps, and the similarities of body type, etc.
Ok, so what the creationists are claiming is that god just happened to create apes and humans in a similar fashion. Yeah right. Again in their minds, they twist the facts yet again.
It’s funny, the more I read about this the more I believe in evolutionism. In another example, a friend of mine who’s a devout Christian told me to buy this book called The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, in which the author supposedly makes a good “case” that there is a god. My friend read a little of the book to me and one thing that he said that stands out in my mind is the author said that something can not be created from nothing, as one of the reasons for a creator. Ok, that’s true, but that doesn’t mean that the reason is some unseen god! Duh! All it means is that there was something that caused something else to occur and that’s that. As I said before, the creationists will twist anything and everything around. I’ve thought about buying the book to get a full picture of what the guy has to say, so my opinion isn’t one sided, but hell, I don’t want to waste the money on it, and I’ve read plenty of rebuttals and excerpts of the book online, so I’m not too impressed. Another thing I realized was that Strobel was a reporter at one time, and what are reporters good at doing? Stretching the truth, and twisting facts in order to make a story more exciting or “news worthy,” and making it sound credible!
Now on to a topic I sort of touched upon above. I said how a church or parents should be the ones to brainwash kids. I came to this idea a long time ago and it’s intrigued me ever sense.
I came to the conclusion that through schools, parents, and especially church (!!!), and even society in general, kids are brainwashed into behaving as the powers that be (parents, teachers, lawmakers, etc.) want. This is a tough subject to talk about because it’s so far reaching; it affects so many things. For example, we’re taught in school when we’re little about keeping your hands to yourself, that fighting and arguing are wrong; we’re also told by our parents, as I was, about god and whatnot. In fact I can even remember my mom telling me about how when I went to heaven I’d be rejoined with my foot. That’s funny. I wasn’t given a choice on what to believe…I was told… brainwashed into believing in god. Also when I went to this day care when I was younger (it was a church that also doubled as a day care) I remember for a couple weeks they forced all kids to attend church. Looking back, that’s clearly pushing it; forcing a kid to be brainwashed, and by a freaking day care no less. But I was young and thought it was boring so I didn’t pay much attention anyway, but still that’s an example of kids being brainwashed. Hell if I had a kid who was forced to go to a church by his/her day care I’d sue for forced religion somehow. If not that, then beat the living crap out of the staff. To me that’s just downright wrong; they’re taking advantage of young kids and subjecting them to something that possibly their parents, or maybe they don’t believe (sure kids are young and may not know about that stuff, but you never know). Another aspect of the brainwashing in schools is the “cops are good” and the “look at the nice police man” syndrome. I can clearly remember when in elementary school cops coming in to talk to the class and I remember they said his name is something like “Officer Friendly” or something like that. But I think I recall seeing more then one cop a few years in school, and they were all named “Friendly.” I recall thinking when I was little how “Wow there’s a lot of police men with the last name Friendly.” But anyhow, we’re taught to always do what a police man tells us and how they’re there to help. I remember as a boy always waving to “Mr. Friendly” whenever I’d see a cop, thinking they were there to help and protect me. I later realized too, that the school’s used the name “Friendly” to plant the brainwashing seeds in our minds, in that whenever we’d see a cop we were to think of the “friendly” policeman, who we are to always obey.
Well as I became a teenager I come to see the reality of the police. When you’re a little kid you see cops almost like super heros, but when you get older the cops don’t seem to like teenagers very much, and harass teens an awful lot. Hell I consider myself to have been a good, law-abiding citizen (with some exceptions, but I won’t get into that), and a handful of times I’ve been harassed by cops for no reason, and treated very rudely, even when there was no wrong doing on my part. One time happened when I parked on the “wrong” side of the street, when I was just dropping off a girlfriend at the time, and was just walking her to the door, and leaving. Well this cop pulls up as I’m about to walk her to the door. He tells me that I need to turn my truck around, and I just say that I’m just walking her to the door, I’ll be gone in one minute…no big deal right? Well not to this ego inflated pig…I mean officer. : ) He looked straight ahead, and sighed, seemingly thinking, “This kid disobeyed me…I have to do something about this because I’m a cop and people have to do what I say (even if I have no common sense – my emphasis).” Then he repeated himself with a stern voice, “Turn your vehicle around.” Taken back by his rudeness I just say OK and he drives off. Looking back at this incident, I see a few things. One, he didn’t listen to reason, and he just wanted to pick on a teenager over some stupid thing, and two, when I didn’t respond with a big “yes sir!” he was immediately offended and needed to feel the need to puff up his ego and get rude with me. Hell I didn’t even turn the truck around after he left. I just went up to my ex girlfriend’s door and said a brief goodbye and left.
A similar incident took place a few years ago too. I was driving and a cop with his lights on came up behind me, and as I was taught to drive, I was always told to stop and let the vehicle pass you. Well I did that and the cop went around me, and I guess it pissed the guy off cause he was turning in the same spot I was, and he just had to get out of his car and in a very rude voice just started said, “When you see an emergency vehicle you yield to the right, you don’t just stop, now get outta here!” This prick seriously pissed me off, and it still makes me mad to this day to think about how this pig treated me. Now if he would’ve at least been kind and said something to the effect of sir, next time you see a vehicle it’s the law to yield and pull over, and not be a dick about it, I would’ve been Ok. It’s cops’ attitudes that piss me off. I’ve had encounters with nice cops before and they don’t bother me, but it’s the assholes that give cops a bad name. I saw on the news the other night how people don’t respect police anymore, and I immediately thought, well yeah you stupid reporter, when cops have respect for me, I’ll have respect for them. No way in hell am I going to respect anyone who doesn’t show respect for me first, period!
But as you can see, kids are brainwashed into believing cops are kind, nice people, when many times the opposite is true, as they find out when they get older. It’s also this power that allows the bad cops to lure women to rape them or kill someone, as you hear on the news countless times. These cock suckers believe they’re above the law…well if a cop ever assaulted me when I didn’t do anything, he’s going to get what’s coming to him, fuck the law. I read online the law in Boston that it’s within the law to protect yourself from a police officer if he’s assaulting you when you’re not resisting, if it ever happened I’ll sure as hell take advantage of that law. But of course the dirty pig would just lie and say I was resisting arrest and had assaulted him and the courts are always on the side of the “good guys,” because cops don’t lie…yeah, and Richard Simmons isn’t gay. So I guess you’re pretty much screwed either way, but I’d rather protect my natural rights to not be harmed by another person, and deal with the corrupt courts myself. But the bottom line is that the majority of people trust cops, and oftentimes in some situations, lower their guard, and them the dirty pig uses his “power” to hurt someone.
Another interesting aspect of the brainwashing process is something that, as I’ve been driving, come to think about. When I was in elementary school I was taught about stop lights, and this little rhyme about red means stop, green means go, and yellow means….I forgot what it was, but again, this is an example of a teacher brainwashing me to obey traffic signals. Now this isn’t a bad thing, but just an example of that process in action, because whenever I see red, I immediately go to hit my breaks. I then came to think about a theory. This is the reason brake lights are red…if they were say, green, I believe a large portion of people would run into each other, because they’re conditioned to go on green and stop on red. Of course I’m not sure if kids are conditioned in this way or not these days (with all the red light running going on I sometimes wonder about this idea), but it’s interesting to think about it, and to think about all the things I’ve been told over my lifetime so far, about things, and how many of those things was a form of conditioning and socialization, i.e., brainwashing. I like to use the term brainwashing because it sounds so much more sinister doesn’t it???
Many years ago I was reading in a book by Stephen Hayes on Ninjutsu, about why most parents don’t like to enroll their kids in real combative martial arts classes. He says that the reason is because in our society people have been brought up to be non violent and passive, and learning tried and true methods of hurting or even possibly killing someone, in a lethal self defense situation, is against what they’ve been conditioned to believe. You see girls being brought up to be accommodating and courteous, and very “lady like.” Many “tom boys” are frowned upon. Then of course the boys are brought up rough, with tough sports, and play fighting, and this all is encouraged. This, my friends, is socialization at work. The parents, churches, etc. are molding you into what they want you to be. Of course in this time (roughly 2004 to present) we’ve seen changes in these stereotypes. You read about “metrosexuals,” men who get facials and get manicures, and who are snappy dressers with clean shaven faces, and the many people who are totally against it, and call it “gay.” I guess in the grand scheme of things, I’ve come to realize, in that what’s right and what’s wrong? I mean these things we call “gay” and “lesbos” are “alternative lifestyles” that are largely frowned upon as well, because it doesn’t fit with what the rest of society finds acceptable.
Many years ago I started to ask this question to myself. Is there really such a thing as good and bad, ugly or pretty, or even short and tall? I started looking at things in new ways. I started thinking about all the taboos in our society, such as stealing, rape, robbery, curse words, and even killing, and wondering why these things were considered bad or wrong. Now you’ll say to yourself, well you must be insane! Of course killing is wrong! And I say, of course I think killing is wrong, but killing as in murder is wrong. Killing for no reason is wrong…or is it? I started to make this hypothesis to myself. What if on some other world murder was seen as an act of love? Maybe you kill a loved one to take them to a better spiritual plane, or something to that effect. Looking back on it, I think part of this thought process was an attempt to rationalize bad behavior, since I’ve always been a bit of a rebel, and had a dislike for authority, but I still think the idea is an interesting one. It’s really an exercise for your mind to go against all you’ve been taught to think and see things in different ways, and try to grasp the idea about being, basically, brainwashed into the culture along with the values and morals that your parents, and the society at large believe in.
By now I’m sure you’re saying holy shit, this guy’s a fucking psychopath! Well I am not…I’m simply taking an idea and turning it totally upside down. I’ve taken that same approach to all the things I listed above. Now I’m sure you’re wondering if I would kill anyone. Well yes if my life or the life of a loved one was at stake, of course, and if it was totally necessary. But do I believe murder is wrong? Yes, very much so. The question I asked myself was WHY do I feel this way about a particular taboo? Was this simply a product of the socialization and moralization process? From my readings I’d say no. I read a book called On Killing by Dave Grossman, an excellent book about us humans’ innate inability to kill another human, and the methods used by the militaries of the world to override that natural instinct.
Now, how do I personally feel about rape, murder and whatnot, since I’m always turning things upside down? Ok, as I said before I believe that murder is wrong. I personally feel that rape is without a doubt the worst thing a man can do to a woman. I’ve always felt that and I’m not sure why. I’ve known women that have been raped, but I had met them several years after the incident. I’ve never had to see a women go through the aftermath of such an ordeal, but I have seen it played out on the TV screen many times in movies, and whenever I see those kinds of scenes, especially when they’re really graphic I just get severely disgusted. Two scenes that come to mind, and one that I can’t even watch, is when that black girl gets raped by a few guys near the end of that movie Showgirls. That is the most horrible rape scene I’ve ever seen in a movie and I can’t watch it. It just does something to me. The other one is that one movie with Sally Field called An Eye for an Eye and is also hard for me to watch.
Ok, on to other things like cursing. Looking back I laugh about being told not to say the “bad words.” This clearly is a case of socialization and moralization at work. How in the hell can words be “bad” to say??? I can understand goddammit, because you’re using the “lord’s” name in vain, and again an interlacing of the morals and ideas of the church in our society.
Give me a break. Fuck, shit, goddammit, motherfucker. I wonder, where did these words come from? Fuck… when you think about it, is a pretty funny word, and how and when did it become “bad” to say? Silly me I can’t think of which country it is, but where they say “bloody” this or that, and that word is considered to be a curse word there. So, see how in different cultures things are looked upon differently? This is why I don’t believe in bad words. I mean how can one thing be bad in one place but not another? Another example of a taboo in another country is showing the sole of your foot. I remember a foreign language teacher telling the class about some country where it’s considered an insult to show the bottom of your shoe.
Are there any universal “bad things,” where no matter where you do them, you’ll get punished? The one thing that sticks out in my mind is killing, stealing, and rape. Didn’t the bible say some things about murder and stealing? It’s obvious that many laws are directly related to the bible…. separation of church and state my fucking ass. Ok, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, let’s move on.
Since I was just mentioning the whole separation of church and state thing, that makes me think of one other thing. That mother fucking (woops there are those “bad words” again) murderer George W. Bush. The cocksucker who killed thousands of innocent people over in the middle east and who, while trying to get reelected for a second term, spoke of god and all this bullshit all the time. I think it was just a ploy to get christians and other people to vote for him. Since he believed in god, he must be a good person, is my guess for all the moronic dicks who voted for him. And I bet that the majority of those people were christians. I have a friend who likes Bush and he told me he thought Bush was doing a good job, and that when I pointed to the documentary that writer/director Michael Moore did called Fahrenheit 9/11, and said that I thought it was really good. My friend commented that he thought it was a bunch of baloney and that it was edited and whatnot to mislead people. I’ve seen other documentaries in stores that rebut what Moore’s film said, but I haven’t watched them. Maybe some things were edited, but those people said those things… no one put the words in their mouths. For example, when one of the senators or congressmen were being interviewed (maybe it was a member of the house… I don’t know, but it was someone in washigton Moore interviews and the guy says about the totally lame Patriot Act (which steps over all American’s rights to privacy,etc) that they don’t look at half the bills they pass in congress. Now the guy did say that…I didn’t see his mouth move and other words come out of his mouth like in some old foreign film dubbed in English. But my point is that it’s been proven that Bush and the whitehouse lied to the American public about why we went to war with Iraq, when they had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks, and the bullshit about Sadam hiding “weapons of mass destruction.” A huge investigation was done and our guys never found any weapons of “mass destruction” anywhere, and therefore we were lied to, and Bush went and invaded another country and murdered thousands of innocent people, and even still many Americans still back that stupid son of a bitch. The guy doesn’t have half a brain cell. I would bet $1,000 that I’m smarter then Bush. The moron can barely talk when he makes his already prepared speeches that someone else writes for him!!
I just don’t understand how many of these stupid Americans can actually like Bush after all that’s been uncovered. I mean I’ve seen on TV people debating why Bush hasn’t been impeached when all former President Clinton did was get sucked off in the oval office, and lied about it! Bush fucking murdered thousands of people, and he’s still in there taking this nation into the biggest slump in history. Now, in whose and how many people’s mind does that actually make sense to? Well to end this portion of my rant, I’d just like to officially say that if I had the chance I’d love to slit Bush’s throat from ear to ear with my fucking Ka-Bar.
Ok, now if I may, I’m going to go in a slightly different direction here. Many years ago when I started looking into the psychological aspects of fighting and warfare, I began to look into the conditioning processes that can help overcome a person’s unwillingness to hit someone, say in a playful sparring match, or all the way up to a real self defense situation and really have to hurt someone, and even all the way up to the full use of deadly force, if it was absolutely necessary. Again, based on my learning of the conditioning used by society, I came to realize that on average kids are conditioned to behave and not get into fights, yet our egos and natural instincts take over. When we get into arguments, we puff out our chests and get nose to nose with our adversary, which I’ve done myself, and also witnessed people do that. I later read that it’s a natural posturing aspect of our innate nature. I read in the book On Killing by Mr. Grossman that calling animals’ and humans’ natural response to danger the “fight or flight” syndrome, but this isn’t correct, according to Mr. Grossman’s findings. There’s something missing in the way humans, as well as other animals react to a threat: posturing and submission. Posturing is a somewhat aggressive, well for lack of a better word, posture that an animal or human will do in order to avoid conflict if possible. Humans posture by puffing up the chest and opening our arms to make ourselves look bigger. Same reason why cats arch up and their hair poufs in order to make the cat look bigger and more aggressive. This is all done in the hopes of making our antagonist think twice before starting something.
Now back to the conditioning….
I was always someone who, unless really angered by someone, could not bring myself to hurt that person. Something always stopped me, and that always bothered me, because what if I was being attacked in a self defense situation, and I didn’t respond the way I needed to, in order to hurt my attacker and get away. So I began to do a lot of thinking about how I, and everyone else, was conditioned to become non-aggressive. A lot of what I’m writing now, is based on that pondering. Of course I can clearly remember one thing that happened in middle school that makes me wonder if I would fight back. This one guy grabs me around the back from behind me while in the gym locker room, and I immediately grab his arm and turn around to face him, and when I do I turn into a freaking tornado. It all happened so fast I don’t remember everything very clearly, plus the fact that it happened a good 12 years ago. But right as I turned I just started swinging. I didn’t even think; I just started to hit anything; I think I recall even hitting the row of lockers that were right to the left of me. I’m pretty sure I remember hitting the guy in the shoulder, but not sure if I got the face, though he was taller then me so I’m not sure. But it’s not that I did that on purpose. I felt someone grab me from behind; I didn’t know what was going on, and just reacted…not as skillfully as I probably would now a days with the training I’ve had over the last couple years, but still it solved the problem. Unfortunately I’m not even sure if he really was trying to hurt me, or just messing around, but he was pretty mad, but hey he put his hands on me, so it was hit fault. But anyway, this is an example…I didn’t care about hurting him; I just reacted purely by instinct. Of course now that I think about it, anyone who is attacked suddenly will just react however according to their instincts. I guess the main thing I wanted to train myself to do was to seriously hurt someone if I had to. There’s a big difference between just throwing punches to sticking your finger in someone’s eye socket. I suppose there are levels (which now that I think about is true from my reading of On Killing) to which a person (or even another animal – don’t be a moron and say that us humans are not animals…I’ll get into that later and why I feel that way) will not attack a vital spot, even if it’s left open, on the antagonist. This is that innate switch in each species’ head that won’t allow it to kill another one of it’s kind, though it does happen sometimes anyway, for whatever reason.
At one point I began to believe that if we could be conditioned in one way, why couldn’t we reverse that process, by conditioning ourselves in another way. For example, if someone was taught to be very passive (as many women are, and even some men) and didn’t “have it in them” to hit another person if they got into a fight, how could you make them more able to hit someone? Well in my own journey to, in a sense, turn on my warrior spirit, or killer instinct, as I’ve always like to call it, I began to read about visualization in martial arts training, and therefore began to envision myself hitting and hurting people in order to desensitize myself to that act. I also began using dummies to act out what I wanted to do in a self defense situation, as well as visualize it in my mind. For example, I was interested in learning to use a knife for self defense and had to get over my aversion to cutting or stabbing someone, so I used a dummy to use a real knife and stabbed into the dummy, while using my visualization, and in my mind pretending the dummy was a real person, yelling in agony, and bleeding, as I stabbed into it.
This kind of training, while to the average person crazy or insane, is exactly what armies for many years have done to soldiers who are going to war. They use dummies in their training of the soldiers in the use of the bayonet, and teach them to yell “Kill!!” with each thrust into a vital area.
A few years ago, before learning about the conditioning process used by the world’s armies, I still believed in the “blank slate” theory, in that we could mold ourselves or someone else by reconditioning them to do the desired task. Well I went on a martial arts forum on the internet and posed to them my idea, and asked them what they felt were the best methods of training in order to be able to use lethal force in a self defense situation.
Well, looking back, I can understand their shock. I was met with harsh criticism. Partly because I kind of bashed traditional martial arts because I said that most martial arts today are not combative, in that they don’t teach you the realities of combat and self defense. I told them that the reason I felt they were so against those ideas was because they were not trained in true combative martial arts, and that what they did were sport forms, or ritualized forms of martial arts that didn’t need to, or want to, talk of such things because most martial arts want to promote good sportsmanship, good character, etc. This is exactly what Stephen Hayes was talking about. Martial arts teachers have to appeal to parents and children; kids make up the majority of enrollment in schools, so to not appeal to kids and parents with promises of better grades, better attitudes and behaviors, is just not good business. I don’t think there’s a parent in the world that would enroll their kid in a class where their kid was being trained to gouge out someone’s eye, and really instill that killer instinct, to train to survive if brutally attacked.
Well I debated back and forth with my detractors. Some people said to me on the forum, ‘Well why would you want to learn to do such things??’ I said for self defense, and no it’s not every day that we face a dangerous attack, but there are predators out there who wouldn’t think twice about sticking a knife in us in order to take a couple bucks.
But there was one guy on there who I could tell was pretty smart and a good debater, though not as good as yours truly. Well this guy came out and said how I must have low self esteem and why would I want to think about such things. He even took a pathetic approach to debating with me, and empathetically asked if I was bullied a lot in school, as if he was trying to “figure me out.” I find that funny. I told him that I was bullied in school, and I agree that my bullying has indeed had an impact on my personality, I’m still a good person, though because of my past experiences I feel I must become a good fighter in order to best any possible future threat or bully, and in a sense, beat the old bullies in the past. By becoming a good martial artist and fighter, I’ve slain my demons of the past because I know without a doubt that I could beat up all those bullies and assholes who teased me during my school years. I’ve looked deep into my psyche and I know myself, and I understand myself. That guy was just trying to discredit me, making me look like some self esteem deficient guy who likes to think of himself as a bad ass, which wasn’t the case, and I didn’t really like him trying to make such a pitiful assumption.
The guy on the forum even tried to “test” me, trying to say I was all talk about having killer instinct. His test was he proposed a hypothetical question to me. If I was attacked by a group of men with a bat, a gun and a knife, and I had one of my legs broken, and an arm numb, would I still be able to fight back and defeat my attackers?
Well the answer is an obvious no unless you’re armed with a gun and just then were able to get to it would you have a chance, or maybe someone came to your rescue, and I said you might be able to fight back some, but ultimately you’re going to die because your leg is broken, and you can’t move or run away, and if your attackers want to finish you, then no amount of killer instinct is going to help you. I said that if someone got into that situation they really messed up in the earlier phases of the situation, and will pay for it with their lives most likely. Well this guy came back with a post all smug and full of himself, saying that it was a trick test, and that I really don’t have killer instinct because of the fact that I said there’s really no fighting back in a situation like that.
Well this made me realize what this guy was talking about. His idea of killer instinct was to sacrifice yourself in order to get your attacker. I said that I didn’t think that was a smart idea because that’s why it’s called self defense; you’re supposed to limit the damage to yourself as much as possible, and learn to survive in a situation.
I later came to learn of this ideal of sacrificing yourself as being more of a military-like idea, and useful in that environment. For example, say you have fifty men fighting and your group’s goal is to get through all the enemies no matter what. Well in the grand scheme of things, that’s why the military drafts people, because to them we are expendable. If you are seriously injured or killed, you still have a group of guys behind you to keep on fighting. But in a self defense situation, many times it’s just you being attacked by some thug, so why in the hell would you sacrifice your life, or risk serious injury, just to get the guy?? It’s not logical, or smart to say the least. Too bad I didn’t come to that realization before I left that forum to stick it to that smart ass. But oh well.
Another guy on the forum debated with me because he studied psychology in college and was telling me that once the imprint of childhood and learning is in the brain, you can’t change that, and I later found out from my readings about psychology that it’s true what he said. My idea of the blank slate was incorrect, however my theory about conditioning was correct. Looking back I find it pretty cool that I came up with the idea of conditioning without even realizing it. I just was incorrect about how it worked.
I suppose I’ll jump back to another topic now. I’ve been thinking about the idea of philosophy and modern society lately. We all are motivated because of the way the world is to always have to make more money, or have the better stuff, or to be successful. We live in a very material world where if you don’t have the latest stuff then you’re just not a cool person, or you’re just called a loser, or poor, or both. Back to the idea of a material world, if you don’t have enough money you’re screwed. As the saying goes it takes money to make money. I see quite a few homeless people here in tattered clothes begging at freeway exit ramps for money and at stoplights (or maybe they’re just people pretending to be homeless to make some quick cash from some nice people. I think I’ve had people come up to me a few times who seemed like they were well off with nice clothes, a mini van, asking for money for their kids to eat. Feeling bad for them, yet also being cautious I kindly said I couldn’t help for fear it was a scam, but if it wasn’t I do feel bad.). I began to wonder that if these people didn’t have an addiction to alcohol or drugs or had some mental disorder, why couldn’t they go into some place and beg for a job, and get back on their feet? Well I quickly realized, what employer would want to hire a guy who comes in for an interview dirty and in dirty, old clothes, even if they did seem nice, stable people? I mean even average citizens have to freaking dress up all nice to make a “good impression”, which I always thought was dumb anyway. Just cause someone is in nice clothes doesn’t automatically make them a more decent candidate then someone who’s just wearing jeans and a t-shirt!
This idea reminds me of another aspect of the law that I don’t like…prejudices in cops, the court system and any other branch of the “law enforcement community.” Now I’m not opposed to law enforcement, if there is even such a thing. I could go kill someone or steal something right now, and probably not get caught; it’s the stupid people that get caught, but I’m a smart cookie. But anyway, one thing that shocked me about the way our “justice” (and I use that term loosely) system is set up, is that if you have money, nine times out of ten you will walk. Cops and judges, like other people, have likes and dislikes, and the prejudices that come with them, which I think is unprofessional and stupid. The law is supposed to be black and white (Justice is supposed to be blind remember???), though with each case things are always different, but I’m talking about law makers’ personal feeling towards different races, or taking things personal, or just being plain retarded, egotistical assholes. As I talked about earlier with some of my experiences with cops, there was no need whatsoever to be a dick about it. But to get to the heart of the matter…I caught myself rambling here, is that if you’re dressed in jeans and t shirts and whatnot, you will most likely be treated with contempt by the law. Someone wearing a nice suit is usually viewed better, but why? Because he, or she, sorry ladies, is a better and more productive member of society? There are plenty of killers who dress nice…a person’s looks don’t determine what kind of person they are, although as I talked about before, looks mean a lot in this society, and if you look better you get ahead faster, which really is too shallow for words; we live in a shallow society, and this has been proven, with the many news reporters, who are in reality very attractive and skinny women, who dress up in fat suits and see how people treat them differently. It’s disgusting, but I can relate to that. People have treated me different all my life, and as I switch gears again, that’s why, even still, I someone have trouble being loud or, “improper” in public; I don’t want to draw undue attention to myself and have people judge me. Though I’ve come out of my shell quite a bit over the years, and don’t care nearly as much about what people think of me. There’s lots of people who like me, and like me for me, and if someone doesn’t like me, then I say fuck off you shallow bitch. They will see my leg and without even talking to me and getting to know me, make a decision that I’m not good enough. But I guess that’s just how society is… I’ve done the same thing a couple times in my life and I’m not proud of it, because I know you can’t judge a book by its cover. But again it’s how society is, and like all programming, it’s hard to rewire what’s been engrained into your mind, but it can be done, at least to a certain degree.
I was going to start off talking about why there’s a need in modern society for deep thinking and philosophy, but I went off a bit there, so I’ll begin that discussion now. Well to reiterate, today’s society is largely based on success and getting ahead…in the same way this is a very material world, as I briefly alluded to before; in that everyone wants something better, more money, etc. But I figure what’s more important? Finding the truth about yourself and the world, or material possessions? This idea is based on some of Buddhism’s idea of impermanence and attachment; that is that nothing lasts forever, even our own lives, and everything we’ve gained or achieved in our lifetime will be wiped out and left behind, so what does it all matter? So many people want more, more, more….more money, more fame, success, more women, sex, more material possessions like cars, houses, whatever. But if you sit down and really learn about the world as it is, and learn about yourself and learn to find real happiness…that isn’t dependant upon trying to gain more. In essence Buddhism teaches you to let things go, and find the happiness that’s in you, and not the temporary satisfaction that worldly possessions and things bring.
But at the same time I also see the reality of the situation and that is, you can’t just do like olden times and go in a cave and seclude yourself…well I suppose you could…but it would be hard to live if you didn’t have a decent shelter, good food, or money. But it is possible to do both. You can’t go to the extremes and either be a recluse or become completely blinded by wealth and material things, but you can make a living, and at the same time find yourself, and find the reality of life.
I guess now is a good enough time as any to go over why I called us humans animals. Ok, first off, we are in fact mammals; we have the same characteristics as other mammals and obviously, because we evolved from a line of ape like ancestors. I’ve read that there was a splintering off of the tree of evolution and humans, and our ancestors, evolved from chimps, and monkeys, while the main branch with apes and monkeys remained and evolved further, which is why there are still monkeys and apes around today. I think that’s pretty accurate.
There’s been something that I’ve been wanting to get off my chest for a little while. Not too long ago I bought this book called god: The Evidence. You might ask yourself why I don’t capitalize the word ‘god.’ It’s simple…to me god is equal to a mundane word like chair, or even more relevant, fairy, or unicorn. We’ve all seen pictures in books and heard stories about such things as unicorns, leprechauns, and fairies, yet no one has ever seen them, or proven they exist. In fact I’d bet only the most moronic person would even truly believe they do exist, and that’s how I feel about god. We’ve all heard the stories, but like the others, they are all just a figment of the human races’ imagination. Anyway, back to the book. The book is by Patrick Glynn, and after seeing the title I had to get it and see what “evidence” this guy comes up with. Well I didn’t have to read for long to see that this book is yet another attempt of twisting facts around, and trying to create an argument out the most pathetic of so called facts.
Some of this guy’s so called evidence is this: Glynn says that in a study done people who go to church get sick less, and are happier; are less likely to commit suicide, and less likely to get depressed or divorced. Ok… what kind of evidence is this??? I’ve never been a member of a church and I don’t even believe in god, yet I almost never get sick, and I’m very happy, and I bet there are many people like me too. But a more important point is this: people go to church to see their friends and be social and when you have a good network of supporters you are happier, and another reason of course is to be brainwashed. I had to throw that in, I couldn’t resist. He even uses the tired argument about how the universe is so orderly and balanced, that some being must have created it. Well there’s even some evidence in a book I’m reading now that talks about how things can just happen without any helping hand; just by nature it’s self, but I’m still reading the book and as I get into it, it gradually gets more and more complicated, so I don’t want to repeat anything fear of misinterpreting something, but it’s a fascinating book; it’s called Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, by Daniel C. Dennett.
But back to the discussion on why the above aren’t good arguments. It’s been proven that faith is a very powerful force. If you believe enough that something will cure you, or help you, it’s bound to help. I feel that the idea of faith healing and whatnot are a form of placebo. In many such tests there are two groups of patents; one group is given the real drug, and the other something like a vitamin pill, or something that would never help their condition. In those tests it’s been shown that sometimes people, if they believe strong enough in the drug, their symptoms will lessen, or completely go away. It’s the same thing with faith (which by the way, if you’ve never looked it up in the dictionary, the definition is: a firm belief without logical proof, Oxford Dictionary), in which god miraculously heals them, when if it’s not some hoax, it was the person’s strong belief that god could heal them, that did it. Which again is another one of Glynn’s arguments in his book, which I just killed two birds with one stone on that one. But anyway, even I’ve experienced a sort of placebo effect before. About a year and a half ago before I had a hip replaced, I was having a lot of pain in my right hip due to severe arthritis, and when I went to the doctor about a replacement they took x-rays of my hips. I found out that my left hip was in very bad shape also, though I wasn’t feeling any pain at the time. After I found out about the condition of my left hip, that’s when I all of a sudden started to have problems with my left hip. I believe that it was the knowledge I had gained about my hip being in bad shape, and so I was more aware of it…kind of like a reverse placebo effect. Now that I knew my hip was in bad shape that’s when it started bothering me. But the doctor told me to start taking glucosamine supplements with other vitamins and natural substances that are supposed to be good for achy joints and arthritis, and help rebuild tissue. Well not too long after I started taking the pills my left hip began to feel much better, and now after about a year of taking the supplements daily, I haven’t had any problems with my left hip since. But now I have to think: are the pills really helping me, or is it just my belief that they are, so therefore they are helping? Well I don’t care either way as long as it feels good, and that’s all that matters. But to sum it all up, the book is pure bullshit; evidence my ass. That’s akin to false advertising and completely misrepresenting his book, big time!! Well to sum it all up I firmly believe that I’ve single-handedly debunked every bit of “evidence” these magic man in the sky worshipers can throw out.
I think I’ve covered the topic of god and whatnot pretty thoroughly so I’m going to move onto another topic.
When that old girlfriend dumped me it turned my whole world upside down. I had been dumped before, but why she made such an impact on me I don’t know. But regardless, that was a springboard into a mental journey that I’ve been on for the last nine years. I’ve learned a lot about myself, and when learning about yourself, you also begin to learn about other people, because in a society that brings people up, for the most part, with the same standards, morals, and beliefs, people will tend to come out of the process with similar attitudes, with some obvious differences of course. No person is raised exactly the same, or taught all the same things.
I’ve learned a great deal about myself over the years. A lot of it is a bit personal I suppose because many of these things reach down into the very heart of my being and my thoughts, and motivations. Plus that has always intrigued me. Why am I the way I am? I’ve come to realize, as I’ve mentioned before, the whole thing that made me, me was the loss of my leg. I grew up with parents that didn’t treat me any different then other kids, though I remember my mother being painfully smothered me. I remember times when I’d get in trouble for doing something “dangerous” when it was really no big deal. Or even when I was a teen, I’d just be in the backyard and if I didn’t tell my mother where I was going she’d get on me. Of course the issue really got bad when I hit my teen years, when all kids want to cut the leash off so to speak, and my mother didn’t want any of it, which in reality wasn’t her fault. I was her only child who she had almost lost at birth so it’s understandable, though it was a huge pain in the ass. Hell I had to move a couple states away to get the independence I wanted. But I feel that could be part of the reason why I don’t like authority figures. I just plain don’t like being told what to do, even to this day, because I had worked so long to get out of a worrying mother’s hold all those years and her trying to control the choices I made. It’s called live and learn. You can’t grow as a person if you’re not allowed to make mistakes and live your life. Period.
One of the issues I had was anger, which honestly is much better then it used to be, though can still cause some problems. Back after the breakup, when I started looking inward, I came to the realization about the reality of anger. Anger is all about control. People get angry because they can’t control the events in their life, whether it’s a girlfriend who leaves, or a remote control that isn’t working. You can’t fix those things, thus control their behavior, so you get angry. I can’t think of one thing in life that isn’t a control issue that causes anger. That’s why I believe so strongly about that. I realized that you don’t have to control everything, so just try and let things flow. No sense in getting angry over things in which you have no control. I read in a book by the Dalai Lama about anger, in which he says that what’s the point in getting angry in a situation that has a solution because you know you can fix it. Also what’s the point of getting angry over something in which you have no control or no solution, because there’s nothing you can do about it anyway, so why get mad about it? But obviously anger is a strong emotion, and often controls people’s lives, and hard to contain. But if you try to sit and think; rationalize your situation, and try to think of a solution, instead of blowing up and breaking something, like I’ve done I don’t know how many times!
Another thing I came to realize about myself back during the summer of 1997 was that I was keeping the anger alive; that I was throwing gas on the flames. With all the teasing, bullying, and name-calling I put up with, I had a horrible self-image. Even if something had happened years before I’d replay the memory in my head over and over, and I’d bombard myself with all this negativity. This led me to another discovery. Countless people suffer from low self-esteem because they keep the past alive; like me, they replay the horrible things people say to them over and over. In time they feel those things that were said to them are true, even if it’s not. It often doesn’t matter what it is, if someone is told something enough times, they’ll begin to believe it, even if it’s not true (ding ding ding! Same thing with that god B.S. Maybe I should just go around and tell people there is no god…maybe it will sink it, though in reality highly unlikely with all the damn churches to reel people back in). A good example is girls who are overweight, at least by societies standards, who after getting teased get depressed and ends up eating to help curb their stress, eat then go throw up, or just stop eating altogether. And all because of the standards in which society has set, and the horrible teasing they’ve endured, they’ve let their bad memories torture them and they’ve severely harmed their bodies because of it, and most times, unless they’re seen by a councilor, or hospitalized, they’ve started a cycle that can be hard to undo.
Like people in that situation, I’d constantly reply all those bad thoughts, though I didn’t have issues with eating or weight, I was teased about my leg. Some things that stick out in my mind is one time in high school this group of guys teased me every day. I remember one day they asked if I had termites, which I thought was a dumb question, but then realized that they were talking about my leg. Another time, that happened in middle school this time, had this girl who’d been harassing me for some unknown reason yell out to the class, “I’m not sitting by no cripple!” when we all were assigned seats. It’s funny, at first she was nice to me, then all of a sudden, like Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde, she was just this huge bitch to me all the time.
But it’s these bad memories that so many people keep alive within themselves, and on a daily basis think negative thoughts about themselves, which is a horrible habit that takes time to change. Looking back it took me about six months to stop playing all those bad memories, and wallowing in self-pity. I still remember one thing that my dad had told me when I had been depressed, and that was when you’re at the bottom (emotionally) and you can’t get any deeper (though I think the people who do go deeper end up committing suicide) there’s only one place left to go and that’s up. I know my parents knew I was depressed about that girlfriend, but they didn’t know just how depressed I was. I thought about suicide many times, and looking back, I think if I had access to a gun, I might have done it. I was that low. I remember throughout even my middle school years thinking about suicide, and how I might do it. Maybe I’d stab myself in the stomach, cut my wrists, my throat, or maybe hang myself, or shoot myself, or even take pills. At times I’d think about that a lot. But I remember thinking I wanted it to be fast and painless, and make sure it worked. I even thought about trying to break my own neck. It’s funny when I think back on it, but when my parents put me in a mental hospital for depression, but in reality it was just to get me out of Michelle’s (an ex girlfriend) house because I moved out of my parent’s house and moved in with her, which I found out through a conversation I overheard. Still to this day I know wasn’t depressed, even though the hospital diagnosed me as having “severe depression” – that says a lot about that place! I think since I was in there they felt that I had to have been depressed (otherwise I wouldn’t be in there), and therefore since I wasn’t acting depressed; they figured I was in denial. Since I was 18, there was nothing else legally my parents could do to get me out of my ex’s house, then to have a therapist, who was a family friend, say I needed to be put in a hospital. The lady at the psychiatric hospital asked me when I was checking in if I’d ever thought about killing myself, and I said no. She then asked me if I did kill myself, how would I do it? I told her I don’t know. And she said, good, that was a trick question, which I figured as much. Hell, I’m no idiot. If someone asks how you’d kill yourself and you can think of a couple answers, it obviously means you’d been thinking about it. I’m no dummy lady. But all in all, this was all part of my “life design” I guess to get me out of that bitches house and move to Boston. All things happen for a reason; it’s just beyond my comprehension to imagine how or why it all happened as it had. Or maybe there really is no life design. Maybe it’s just the way I’ve chosen to look at the events in my life. You can either see things negatively, or positively. This “life design” approach is positive, because I can see good in even the seemingly bad things that happened to me.
When you look deep within yourself, you find the good along with the bad, and with my new understanding about myself and the world and seeing things in more clear ways, I’ve come to have quite a bit of an ego to be honest. An almost – pardon the phrase- ‘ god-like’- feeling, in that I have a higher understanding then many people, and in turn makes me feel superior. I’ve done good though to keep that feeling under wraps, because Buddhism teaches compassion for all, and with that higher understanding comes the responsibility to help others. The last several years I’ve noticed a pattern in that so many of my friends come to talk to me about their problems. I’ve always been a good listener, but now with the new outlook and understandings about things, I feel I can give answers and try to help them with their problems, though most I feel is lost on them unfortunately because it’s a way of life. You have to take what you learn and apply it daily, and only then will you get results. I learned long ago that there isn’t any magic man in the sky to help me with my problems. I only got better and cured my depression and negativity through my own hard work and self-knowledge.
Lately though I’ve felt a bigger need to help people then ever. I want to tell them what I learned and help them, but it’s tough. This one woman I used to be friends (sort of – she was so emotionally damaged that I don’t even know if the word friend applies) with was severely depressed. When I spent time with her she’d often just start crying and telling me about all her problems and things that happened to her in the past; people who abandoned her and hurt her. I told her that she couldn’t keep living in the past, and that she needs to think positive, but there was no reaching her at all. In fact often she’d turn her pain towards me and tell me how people “like me” who had a family who loved me, and had a house, and friends, and how she doesn’t have anything, and how all she’s gotten in her life is pain and no one to care for her, almost getting to the point where she was very mean. One time I almost thought she was going to get up and hit me, which worried me because I didn’t want to hurt her if I had to protect myself. After a while I just stopped trying to help; there was no reaching her. I haven’t seen her for about a year now and I wonder where she is, if she’s living with another friend, or possibly even dead. The last time I talked to her she spoke of killing herself. I sure hope that’s not the case. I feel bad for her, but she has no one to blame but herself, and that’s too sad for words.
I think part of the reason people don’t take to heart what I tell them is because when I tell them this is what I’ve learned from Buddhism I guess they feel I’m trying to push a religion on them. I’d feel the same way if someone told me to read the bible or turn to god. But I don’t see it like that. I think of it more in terms of principals, and ways of thinking that happen to come from a certain religion, which according to the definition, a religion is a belief system that believes in a higher power, in which Buddhism does not, so I guess it could be fare to say that Buddhism isn’t really a religion at all. Besides, I don’t consider myself Buddhist…well at least I didn’t before, but now that I’ve joined a Buddhist group I guess I can call myself a Buddhist now. I guess a lot of people think of Buddhism as some strange thing, when really, I feel that it’s about truth; universal truth, although I feel there are some religious aspects of it also, in that it teaches about reincarnation, which I’m not too sure about, and taken to it’s extreme, becoming a monk and living with no real material possessions to speak of. The monk who leads the group I go to lives with a women who basically took him in, and some of the people who go to the Buddhist group bring him food, or donate money to help him. The purpose of this is to let go of your ego; I can’t think of anything that will break down your ego and selfishness more then to become a beggar and depend on others for things, though it does lead to a very stress free life, as all the monks I’ve met look many years younger then they really are, which I think is due to their non stressful lives.
I’ve been working on this paper for just a little over a month now, and am almost half way through the book I mentioned before by Daniel C. Dennett called Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. I mentioned how the book has given logical answers to how we were all created. Now that I’ve read this much of the book I feel more comfortable explaining a little bit about how science has found how this may have occurred, or has Dennett admits, this may be found to be false at some later date, or possibly a similar process, but different details on how and what occurred. But what the book talks of is how Darwin didn’t set out to explain the origin of life itself, but the origin of a species; us, which has confused people because the title of one of Darwin’s book is The Origin of Species, which implies how it all got started, but as Dennett expertly points out that Darwin did something smart; he started from the middle. He went to provide a logical and scientific explanation as to how Homo sapiens came to be.
But Dennett’s book, I feel, is fascinating and shows how Darwin’s theory of evolution can help to explain how all life got started, and even the world itself. Dennett describes the process as an algorithm. If the building blocks of living things were maybe just separate entities, and then somehow came together to start forming more and more complex life forms, and over time, discarding ones that didn’t work, from the simple amoeba all the way to the ape, and to us, along with all other forms of life. But I think the “dangerous idea,” at least from what I’ve read so far is that if the elements didn’t combine and interact the way they did to create gravity, and the necessary oxygen, all the other things that inhabit this world, we wouldn’t be here at all; in that this world seemingly happened by chance, and no intelligent being had any hand it in, though sometimes it may seem that this process has some intelligence to it. But Dennett explains this with the example of a coin-tossing match, in which there is one winner. There can only be one winner and one loser, and therefore someone will come out on top, and that’s basically what happened in the creation, or should I say, random coming together of proteins and other building blocks, that created all forms of life. Even the universe or our world, could have been created in this fashion. Maybe this world wasn’t just created, but for an eternity has cycled itself and been recreated over and over? Maybe the “dangerous idea” is that we were merely an accident, and during the cycle of creation and extinction, once the cycle changes or starts over, there will be a totally new, or different kind of living creature on this planet. I haven’t gotten that far in the book yet, but I can see how the idea of evolution is so powerful, as Dennett even states. Everything the majority of people in the world hold dear could all just been some accident, and our ideas of god, and how we all came to being, could be destroyed by Darwin’s idea. As I’m soaking all this in, it’s a new approach to thinking, but it gives answers to questions that have plagued me for years about how life got started. Of course, I’m sure some creationist will say, what then created those elements that came together? Maybe the book will hint at some idea; I’m eager to find out. Maybe we will never know, and I think that scares a lot of people. Hell even pondering that idea about not knowing is a bit overwhelming, but I want to know the truth, at least the truth as far as I, and the human race can understand it.
I’ve come to a realization that I’ve been contradicting myself all these years saying how murder, rape and hurting others could ever been OK, even if fighting and what not was taught to us and being wrong. Hurting others, I’ve come to a full realization, is wrong however to protect oneself or a loved one I don’t feel is wrong, but is within your rights as a living being to protect yourself, just as any other animal in nature (well most anyway) only fight and hurt other animals to protect itself, it’s young, or territory. So under this new understanding, how can those acts of murder be “OK” for, say, me but not for the murderer George W. Bush, for killing, who I wished death upon earlier? So yes without a doubt killing, stealing, and other acts of unnecessary violence is wrong, no matter who you are. These are universal truths in life, which are required for a peaceful society, and is why the major religions, such as Buddhism and Christianity, teach that such acts are wrong. Of course, if Bush is supposedly some born again Christian and belief in god as he said, then how can he be within his “rights” to murder thousands upon thousands of innocent people? It’s against what the bible is against, although I’ve read of one passage which most peace loving christians don’t ever speak of and that of the other commandments, and more then the all to spoken of ten, which I found them listed, and they are surprising. I only listed a few, but they are the most surprising.
The following was taken from the website: http://www.faithvsreason.org/blog/?p=12
1. Death penalty for witches, animal-philes and false-god worshippers (22:18-20)
2. God will kill you with a sword if you wrong a widow or fatherless child(22:22-24)
3. Worship the Lord only and destroy the images and buildings of other religions. (23:24)
4. Honoring the Sabbath is mentioned again and again. Those who fail to honor it are cut off and even put to death (31:14)
So I guess Christianity can’t really be seen anymore as such a loving religion, and neither can “god” be considered such a “loving creator.” Of course as one example by many atheists as to the nonexistence of a god is why would such a loving god allow all the killing (even his ‘his’ own name! Ala the prez. Bush) and horror that goes on in the world. Of course you can’t forget the bible verses that speak of going to hell if you don’t worship god, or worship other “false gods,” as the verse goes: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” “Do not make for yourselves images of anything in heaven or on earth or in the water under the earth. Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the LORD your God and I tolerate no rivals. I bring punishment on those who hate me and on their descendants down to the third and fourth generation. But I show my love to thousands of generations of those who love me and obey my laws.” ( taken from the website: http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/10commandments-texts.htm)
It seems as if christians want to ignore parts of their faith and preach others. And this is “god’s” and christians’ legacy???
From reading these verses it seems as if many of the christians are worshiping “god” not by choice, but by fear of punishment, of course I realized this long ago. Even some of my friends who are faithful christians kept telling me that if I didn’t believe in ‘god’ I’d go to hell. That’s just funny to be honest. How can this “loving father” be considered as such if he forces you to believe and love “him”, and do what “he” says, or else? Doesn’t sound very loving to me. But isn’t it obvious how the many religious types are just preaching the good, and ignoring the bad?
Of course I wonder where in the hell did Moses supposedly got that tablet that was, again, supposedly and magically had carved into it the “10” commandments (at least the ones they want to you know about). And where did this Moses guy get all this information? Was he, in reality, just an insane person? In this day and age anyone listening to a voice in the sky or in their heads would be put into a mental institution in short order. I sometimes wonder if some of the people from “bible times” were suffering from some mental disorder, which obviously wasn’t able to be diagnosed at that time, because of the lack of knowledge. I did see a show about how healers would cast out the evil demons that would cause some illness or disease, but as I stated earlier in this writing, the power of faith is immeasurable. If someone believes something will work to heal them, there’s a good chance it will.
After thinking about what I wrote before when I said how killing was wrong, and how I’d love to kill Bush, I suppose I’m in violation of that as well. In another book I’ve read called Every Man and Women and Island, by Robert Clapp, he says how it’s against the law to kill, yet members of government do it every day; police, military, etc., in wars, shoot outs involving police (some unwarranted shootings by trigger happy pigs), and the death penalty. My first instinct on the death penalty is that it’s justice, yet they still are breaking their own laws (though what the hell else is new when it comes to the government and fucking pigs) anyway you look at it. But I then had an idea, and one I think would really be good. Instead of killing someone, chop off an appendage. I used to think about that idea about how rapists should be punished, but no don’t cut it off all at once, but do it one inch per offence. Eventually the fucker will either get the message, or he won’t have anything left to rape with. I mean when you think about it, what does condemning a person to death really do anyway? I mean, if they’re not alive, they’re not suffering….though I just had a thought. Maybe, since it seems like religion is so interwoven into society and the law, the idea of killing the person is to speed up his or her eventual death in order to “stand before ‘god’” and be punished and sent to “hell.” I’ve never read that about the death penalty but I don’t know; it is logical, but might not be based on any reality of why it’s done. Maybe it’s like the old saying an eye for an eye, in that if you kill then you will be killed, but you don’t see people’s things being stolen if they happen to steal from someone. But maybe a justice system like that could be developed? If someone steals from you, then you can take something of theirs (plus get your own belonging back as well), if someone assaults you, you get to do it back to them while their tied up, if someone shoots you…well you get the idea. Not too many people are scared of prison these days, and putting people in jail isn’t slowing crime rates any.
It’s a new year, and it’s now nearing the end of March, 2006. I’ve been working on this paper for about four months now, and I have finally finished that book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Much of the last half of the book was about societies morals and values, and the best way in which there could be a standard in morals, where everyone lived by the same ones. I believe we all should abide by what we each individually feel is right, or wrong, based on our live experiences.
I’ve also quit going to the Buddhist group for the last month; debating if Buddhism is for me…it seems like a great religion without as many of the trappings as many of the others, but even in the books I have that teach you about the “path to enlightenment”, it speaks of being reborn in hells if you don’t obey certain things, though the Buddhist lama at the group said that if you don’t want to think of a hell as being some eternal damnation when you die (or when you are reincarnated depending on the religion), then you can also think of it as just your own personal hell in the present. I take that to mean that if you do something “bad” then you will face the consequences and feel badly about it, be it a friend being upset at you or say you get angry and scare your pet, and then feel bad because of it, something of that nature. I’ve also read in books that the Buddha once said that he didn’t want you to just follow what he said blindly, and to analyze what he says and if you can apply it in your life then great, and if you don’t agree with it, then discard it, unlike the morons who believe that the bible has to be agreed with, or suffer in hell. Which reminds me of another thing. I have a Buddhist bible at home, and have read much if it, but unlike many religious people, I don’t take all the stories and things said literally. Like the bible, my Buddhist bible was put together over many generations and cannot always be coundted upon to be totally accurate, though many of the stories may have happened, just maybe were exaggerated, or be more symbolic, as is the great flood tale in the bible. Archeologists have found evidence that there was a huge flood that happened, yet to say that “god” did it, and noah build some ark and put all the species of animals on board, as well as all the people, is just absurd.
It’s a fact, whether or not people want to see it, that gods were created by man in order to explain natural phenomenon that they experienced millions of years ago. People used to believe that god struck down lightning because he was angry with us…people used to think that gods brought us sunlight and rain, and did dances and preys in order to bring rain. But in the modern age, and because of science, we know the truth about all these things.
I was thinking just the other day something interesting. Why is it that when greeks created their gods, like zeus, why people don’t believe in that anymore. Now that I think about it, probably because of christianity, and how the bible says that you’re not supposed to worship any other gods, and therefore to obey god, people did away with the others. But it’s funny, because people back then believed in zeus, just as people today believe in god, yet you ask anyone nowadays if they belief that zeus is real and they’ll just look at you funny. This is the exact same thing, except people just don’t want to listen to the truth.
Back to what I read in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, one thing that strikes me as fascinating is the thought that we humans are basically vehicles for our genes to be protected and to allow them to reproduce and further the species. I felt a bit taken back by this idea…almost as if my body isn’t mine, it’s my genes’ and that I’m just simply some carrier for my genes until I can reproduce, then later on, I die. It’s a very interesting idea, and when looked at logically I does make sense. It even gave me an idea for a new theory, though others have probably thought of it. But the reason why people get urges to have sex is to reproduce, and make sure the species keeps on going. Yet something that Dennett says is that even though our genes want to propagate, we are given the choice what to do to our bodies, whether or not to have children, to harm to our bodies, etc. An idea related to the above would also be about monogamy and marriage. Is marriage mainly a religious ceremony, because it doesn’t always feel natural to stay with one person, and which would also limit a man’s ability to “spread his seed” and further propagate the species. Of course it’s obvious that if someone did choose to override that instinct to propagate, as is the case with the genes as spoken of before, then it would be possible.
Well I think that this pretty much sums up pretty much my ideas about my life, and life in general. I don’t really know what else to say. Just that I’ve known for a long time that like many writers, and philosophers, their ideas could be hated and they could be condemned because of their beliefs. I’m very well aware that I wouldn’t want this paper to be handed out to just anyone, that is unless my name was taken off of it. In fact I may even do that just to see people’s reactions, though I know without a shadow of a doubt that the majority will hate it and not agree with much if it. My reply to that would be that yes many people, depending on the way they were brought up, as well as in what kind of environment, have different ideas of right or wrong, and many different views of this world. This is mine, and mine alone, though many do share some of ideas, which is comforting, especially in the arena of the religious debate. I feel that part of the paper will be hated more than any other because we have so many brainwashed people in the world. I don’t know if the facts about evolution (at least of what he know as of now at this point in time) will ever be wholly accepted with the brainwashing pope, and other religious “authorities” (and I use that term very loosely) not wanting their self-appointed power to be brought down by a simple idea from a man decades old.
But I suppose this is one of our freedoms (which again is being pulled out from under us as I type), the one of free speech and the freedom to express our personal views without fear of anyone, be it another citizen, or corrupt government, or religious wacko, trying to shoot us down from speaking what I feel, or what anyone feels in their minds, is the truth.
And finally, before I leave, I’d like to share something that is on a shirt that I have, which expresses just how I feel about our immoral and corrupt government. In case you don’t know, it’s a spoof of that movie with Ben Stiller called Meet the Fockers.
But before that, I’d like to leave with you this paper I found on the internet by one of my new favorite authors, Daniel C. Dennett, and covers some new issues that have cropped up in the evolution verses creation debate. Dennett’s logic is so good I just had to share this article.
SHOW ME THE SCIENCE [August 29, 2005]
by Daniel C. Dennett
Introduction
"The proponents of intelligent design use an ingenious ploy that works something like this," writes Tufts philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, and author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea. "First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach."
To date, scientists have held back with regard to engaging the proponents of "intelligent design" on the battlefield of scientific discourse, reasoning being that by simply having a discussion, the ID crowd gains a respectable platform for their views.
"The fundamental scientific idea of evolution by natural selection," Dennett writes, "is not just mind-boggling; natural selection, by executing God's traditional task of designing and creating all creatures great and small, also seems to deny one of the best reasons we have for believing in God. So there is plenty of motivation for resisting the assurances of the biologists. Nobody is immune to wishful thinking. It takes scientific discipline to protect ourselves from our own credulity, but we've also found ingenious ways to fool ourselves and others."
In this connection, in the past week, the 43rd President of the United States as well as the Majority Leader of the United States Senate have both come out in support of "teaching the controversy". The stakes are high. The battle must now be joined.
"Is 'intelligent design' a legitimate school of scientific thought?" asks Dennett? "Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done." he continues.
Read on.
Blue Hill, Me.
PRESIDENT BUSH, announcing this month that he was in favor of teaching about "intelligent design" in the schools, said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." A couple of weeks later, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, made the same point. Teaching both intelligent design and evolution "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone," Mr. Frist said. "I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."
Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.
First, imagine how easy it would be for a determined band of naysayers to shake the world's confidence in quantum physics — how weird it is! — or Einsteinian relativity. In spite of a century of instruction and popularization by physicists, few people ever really get their heads around the concepts involved. Most people eventually cobble together a justification for accepting the assurances of the experts: "Well, they pretty much agree with one another, and they claim that it is their understanding of these strange topics that allows them to harness atomic energy, and to make transistors and lasers, which certainly do work..."
Fortunately for physicists, there is no powerful motivation for such a band of mischief-makers to form. They don't have to spend much time persuading people that quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity really have been established beyond all reasonable doubt.
With evolution, however, it is different. The fundamental scientific idea of evolution by natural selection is not just mind-boggling; natural selection, by executing God's traditional task of designing and creating all creatures great and small, also seems to deny one of the best reasons we have for believing in God. So there is plenty of motivation for resisting the assurances of the biologists. Nobody is immune to wishful thinking. It takes scientific discipline to protect ourselves from our own credulity, but we've also found ingenious ways to fool ourselves and others. Some of the methods used to exploit these urges are easy to analyze; others take a little more unpacking.
A creationist pamphlet sent to me some years ago had an amusing page in it, purporting to be part of a simple questionnaire:
Test Two
Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? [YES] [NO]
Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? [YES] [NO]
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? [YES] [NO]
If you answered YES for any of the above, give details:
Take that, you Darwinians! The presumed embarrassment of the test-taker when faced with this task perfectly expresses the incredulity many people feel when they confront Darwin's great idea. It seems obvious, doesn't it, that there couldn't be any designs without designers, any such creations without a creator.
Well, yes — until you look at what contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: that natural selection — the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge — has the power to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs.
Take the development of the eye, which has been one of the favorite challenges of creationists. How on earth, they ask, could that engineering marvel be produced by a series of small, unplanned steps? Only an intelligent designer could have created such a brilliant arrangement of a shape-shifting lens, an aperture-adjusting iris, a light-sensitive image surface of exquisite sensitivity, all housed in a sphere that can shift its aim in a hundredth of a second and send megabytes of information to the visual cortex every second for years on end.
But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work — all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multicelled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago — we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.
We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have detailed computer models to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says.
All it takes is a rare accident that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate — this was Darwin's insight — eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.
Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process.
If you still find Test Two compelling, a sort of cognitive illusion that you can feel even as you discount it, you are like just about everybody else in the world; the idea that natural selection has the power to generate such sophisticated designs is deeply counterintuitive. Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, once jokingly credited his colleague Leslie Orgel with "Orgel's Second Rule": Evolution is cleverer than you are. Evolutionary biologists are often startled by the power of natural selection to "discover" an "ingenious" solution to a design problem posed in the lab.
This observation lets us address a slightly more sophisticated version of the cognitive illusion presented by Test Two. When evolutionists like Crick marvel at the cleverness of the process of natural selection they are not acknowledging intelligent design. The designs found in nature are nothing short of brilliant, but the process of design that generates them is utterly lacking in intelligence of its own.
Intelligent design advocates, however, exploit the ambiguity between process and product that is built into the word "design." For them, the presence of a finished product (a fully evolved eye, for instance) is evidence of an intelligent design process. But this tempting conclusion is just what evolutionary biology has shown to be mistaken.
Yes, eyes are for seeing, but these and all the other purposes in the natural world can be generated by processes that are themselves without purposes and without intelligence. This is hard to understand, but so is the idea that colored objects in the world are composed of atoms that are not themselves colored, and that heat is not made of tiny hot things.
The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory — but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.
To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.
Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.
Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.
William Dembski, one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design, notes that he provoked Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response that Dr. Dembski characterizes as "some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers." What looks to scientists — and is — a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to most everyone else as ridiculous hair-splitting.
In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.
To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.
To see this shortcoming in relief, consider an imaginary hypothesis of intelligent design that could explain the emergence of human beings on this planet:
About six million years ago, intelligent genetic engineers from another galaxy visited Earth and decided that it would be a more interesting planet if there was a language-using, religion-forming species on it, so they sequestered some primates and genetically re-engineered them to give them the language instinct, and enlarged frontal lobes for planning and reflection. It worked.
If some version of this hypothesis were true, it could explain how and why human beings differ from their nearest relatives, and it would disconfirm the competing evolutionary hypotheses that are being pursued.
We'd still have the problem of how these intelligent genetic engineers came to exist on their home planet, but we can safely ignore that complication for the time being, since there is not the slightest shred of evidence in favor of this hypothesis.
But here is something the intelligent design community is reluctant to discuss: no other intelligent-design hypothesis has anything more going for it. In fact, my farfetched hypothesis has the advantage of being testable in principle: we could compare the human and chimpanzee genomes, looking for unmistakable signs of tampering by these genetic engineers from another galaxy. Finding some sort of user's manual neatly embedded in the apparently functionless "junk DNA" that makes up most of the human genome would be a Nobel Prize-winning coup for the intelligent design gang, but if they are looking at all, they haven't come up with anything to report.
It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the classrooms. The scientific participants in these arguments vie for acceptance among the relevant expert communities in peer-reviewed journals, and the writers and editors of textbooks grapple with judgments about which findings have risen to the level of acceptance — not yet truth — to make them worth serious consideration by undergraduates and high school students.
SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts.
The Discovery Institute, the conservative organization that has helped to put intelligent design on the map, complains that its members face hostility from the established scientific journals. But establishment hostility is not the real hurdle to intelligent design. If intelligent design were a scientific idea whose time had come, young scientists would be dashing around their labs, vying to win the Nobel Prizes that surely are in store for anybody who can overturn any significant proposition of contemporary evolutionary biology.
Remember cold fusion? The establishment was incredibly hostile to that hypothesis, but scientists around the world rushed to their labs in the effort to explore the idea, in hopes of sharing in the glory if it turned out to be true.
Instead of spending more than $1 million a year on publishing books and articles for non-scientists and on other public relations efforts, the Discovery Institute should finance its own peer-reviewed electronic journal. This way, the organization could live up to its self-professed image: the doughty defenders of brave iconoclasts bucking the establishment.
For now, though, the theory they are promoting is exactly what George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said it is: "Intelligent design itself does not have any content."
Since there is no content, there is no "controversy" to teach about in biology class. But here is a good topic for a high school course on current events and politics: Is intelligent design a hoax? And if so, how was it perpetrated?
This was a fantastic read…Dennett is an amazing thinker. I can’t wait to read the rest of his books. But now on to the last, and one of my favorite parts of my paper…see below.
-NO PICTURE AVAILABLE -
Scratch that…only 2 more years left now…and let’s all hope the U.S. is still here by then….
This is the end, but this paper isn’t an exhaustive work on every single of my ideas, though it hit upon most of them over the years, but as always, I’m constantly wanting to expand my knowledge and continue reading and learning. I hope you enjoyed it, or at least make you think about some things. But one last word…don’t let anyone tell you what to believe. Look for facts, and proof in what you learn and don’t be persuaded by any idea, just because many people say so. Just like many many years ago a man was put to death because he challenged the belief at the time that the world was flat, but now we know, because of science! So that’s proof right there that, as I said before, just because many people believe in an idea, doesn’t make it true. We have the ability of reason so I suggest that you use that ability unlike the majority of the population.
Good luck on your quest to the truth. I hope you find it.