Atheists are Intolerant of Faith, not really.

Now, for some reason, Atheists are looked at as the most evil, and immoral people to ever walk on the face of this planet, by many theists.

Now it's true, there are plenty of us who argue against faith, and what not, and why wouldn't we? It's a fair topic of discussion. However, as soon as the debate start..

many throw a fit and go. You can't question my beliefs! How dare you! It's my faith! It's beyond human understanding (funny, they claim to understand it, but claim that it is beyond sciences reach). You're intolerant if you don't let me believe whatever I want to believe!

Alas you see, we are not stopping anyone from believing in anything. We are simply arguing. We are talking and discussing, and we are debating. We are challenging the idea that faith is a virtue. Last I checked, belief without evidence is the most ridiculous concept I can even try to comprehend. It's irrational, and it just plain doesn't make sense..

When we buy food, we look for the label that shows us the nutrients and ingredients.
When we buy medicine, we make sure it has been tested.
When we invest money, we look at the company's credibility.
When we have faith, we do so blindy.
We have no inclination that would lead us to believe one thing over an other (in terms of deities). And in fact when there is no evidence of something, it's best not to believe in it.

But that's not the point here, The point is we atheists, many of whom are rationalists, are in fact very tolerant of faith. Just because we argue against the idea, does not mean we are attacking those who posses the idea. We don't go around gathering up theists and burning them at the stake. Nor do we go hunt witch-doctors and astrologers and gun them down (though ironically there are pro-lifers who go around gunning down doctors that abort).

We are for the most part quite gentle people who would never physically attack anyone for disagreeing with us. We may engage in debate, but since when has, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" stopped applying. We won't be the ones hurling stones at our opponents, though we may hurl arguments, and try and know the idea that faith is a virtue of it's over-glorified pedestal. However the feeling is not mutual. There are plenty of faithful people (not all of them, and this is not to say that they are bad people, simply delusional, and consumed by indoctrination) who are willing to attack us physically (though it would make sense since there is no rational argument to justify faith). Just look at all the places around the world where people get killed for having a difference in opinion, then look at their levels of blind faith in something. The two are usually positively related.

So yeah. We are infact very tolerant, yes, many of us are against indoctrination, and would like to see religion's role severely diminished, and that people stop killing eachother over whose imaginary friend is cooler. We would like to see a world where reason trumps blind faith.

 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Homeopathy: Why it better not be right.

So an interesting thought occurred to me. Given that we live in a age where some people consider alternate medicine to actually work (granted it can have a placebo effect, but that proves that placebo works not the actual alternate medicine) I mean, if it actually worked, then it would be medicine.

Anyway back to the business of homeopathy.

These homeopaths claim that even though the water they sell has no amount of the active ingredient in it, it takes on the properties of whatever the ingredient was in the water to begin with, and since water it all magic and stuff, even after that ingredient is gone it still somehow remembers it. So can you even imagine how much nasty stuff has been in water over just the past few million years. Think of all the fecal matter, and carcasses, not to mention all the doings of marine life, coupled with pollution and chemicals and what not. So the water you drink supposedly can remember and holds the properties of all this nasty junk.

Think about that the next time you consider listening to a homeopath. (Also think about how there is no scientific proof in favor of the mumbo jumbo "medicines")

On a side note, I just had an awesome idea for a business.
I could sell flavored water, that had "medicinal properties" and my products tagline would be. "Like Homeopathy: but with better taste!"

Rat Brain Robot

RAT BRAIN ROBOT!!!

So yeah, for those of you that don't know this is a thing worth checking out.
It's a robot that is controlled by rat neurons. All in all, this is a cyborg. You know that fantasy of having immortal bodies with keeping nothing but our brains. well that's one step closer now.

Of course this brings in moral issues, and we should discuss, where these new cyborgs fall into in the spectrum of ethical treatment and such. and I think that it will be really cool to see where all this go.

It's truly remarkable how far we humans have gotten thanks to science in the past few hundred years. Imagine how far we would be if even more people were influenced to take up science, I'm of course talking about all those children out there that are taught science incorrectly, if they are taught it at all. but yes. I'll leave it at that for now.. science is cool.

Double Standards... Does Religion get undeserved respect and power?

Alright.. lets rewind to the freshman year of my highschool.

I had a gym class in which for three weeks we had a unit on square dancing.. anyone who knows me knows that I dislike dancing with a passion. I just can't dance... I don't know why, and I don't like dancing. If I can help it I'd avoid it for a long long time..

Anyway, what happened is that students who had a "religious" excuse were permitted to not dance, and could partake in a supplementary activity, which was working out. So without saying a word as to why I was doing it, I partook in the supplementary activity. I knew the other two guys who were doing it to. Neither of them were very religious, but because of their parents religion, they were able to squirm out of dancing, no questions asked.

On the other hand there was me. My parents are hindu, (they're very liberal, which is awesome) and well, I was an atheist in practice, an agnostic when questioned, though I preferred to avoid the "what religion are you?" question all together, and where I could help it, I would pretend not to listen to it, or would quickly change topics, or exit the vicinity of the question by actually leaving. It isn't that I was ashamed to admit that I don't believe in any kind of a god, just as I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't believe in Santa Claus, or that I don't believe in unicorns and fairies.

 I just know of the social stigma that comes with being an atheist.. you know, people see you as a immoral, baby eater who is going to fall to eternal torment (granted that this is the US, and the majority of it's inhabitants are followers of some kind of abrahamic religion). Though I must disagree. I do have morals, you can thank my parents for that. You can thank them for being good people and passing that down to me. Also I would never eat a baby. that just sounds plain nasty, and eternal torture, well, there's no evidence for it, so it's probably not going to happen.

Anyway, I digress. What happened then, is that I was put in a bind.. apparently to not fail, I NEEDED a note from a religious leader saying that I was exempt. Darn it. I knew there would be a catch. However, it wasn't going to end like this.. I was about to challenge their logic. So on the spot I made up a "religion", in accordance to this "religion", I was not allowed to dance. Now what? they would have to be hypocritical to fail me for those three weeks. Unfortunately it seemed that the school had no issue with that. I was called into a conference with my teacher and counselor. Well, a chance to defend myself. To defend the fact that personal convictions should be valued just as much, if not more, than religious convictions. The only difference
between me and the other two students was that they had years of tradition on their side. I did not. However their motives could not be questioned, because that would be attacking their beliefs.. yet my own personal beliefs, they had no problem tossing aside as though they were trash. The hammer was brought down on me, and well, thinking that I was completely alone, at that moment. when they threatened to fail me, I broke down.
I felt truly alone. At the time, I thought I was the only person in my entire school, maybe my entire town, heck maybe even the entire state, who found religion to be fairytales taken way too seriously. It was a feeling unlike any other.. A feeling of hopelessness. One that I wouldn't forget for a while. I guess, one could say I could somewhat empathize with the witches during the witch hunts.

Luckily for me, they were somewhat understanding. They told me never to pull a stunt like that. And since I had done the supplementary activity, I was allowed to get a passing grade, a D, for those 3 weeks of gym. On the other hand the other two students got an A for those 3 weeks, only because they had a religion behind them. That sounds a little too similar to discrimination I would say.

Though you must understand, I have nothing against the school nor the people that worked there. What I'm attacking is the double standard that society has set forth, the one where we are forbidden from questioning faith (which by the way is the illogical belief in something in the face of no/ contradictory evidence) From my example you can see what happens though. One persons "faith" is worthless and that person could be considered illogical, or stupid or insane. However when many people have faith and they organize.. it suddenly becomes reasonable and taboo to say otherwise.

As it happens our society give waaaaaaay too much respect to faith. Even more so than to reason. I think that this double standard needs to change. We need to if anything, respect the individuals convictions. However none of this should be done on religious ground. Why is that pacifists are fair game to be drafted, yet priests are not? Why is it that one's political stance can be criticized, but one's religion cannot. Heck, society will go as far to slander the morals of secularists/atheists/agnostics  but it won't even lift so much as a finger if those morals that are derived from a religion. (for more on that check out my older blog, "atheists have no morals?")
This kind of discrimination needs to end. And REASON needs to be valued over FAITH.

The Meaning of Life- Part 1: Evolution?

Yay, Time to speak out on another issue concerning science and it's clash against faith.

Now, this is a legitimate concern in our society, there are people that think that evolution is a hoax. That humans are not animals and did not originate from "monkeys". Actually, their claim is that they could not have, how is it possible that humanity spawned from the monkeys..... because you know.. that's totally what evolution is. One day there was a monkey and the next day they were human beings.. that's completely ridiculous. and yes.. that is.. to assume that evolution takes place that rapidly would be to spit in the face of science. Of course that's not true. That's not science, that is not evolution.

Evolution is a process that takes millions of years. It's gradual, and it's cumulative. It's not like one day, randomly there is random mutation and a monkey gives birth to a monkey man.. No.. not at all. In fact in all reality, it's no surprise many dismiss the theory of evolution so easily and would rather go with the idea of having a deity create everything. However this is because evolution is incorrectly taught in many places.. or at least not enough time is spent on it. I mean.. the facts are all there.. it is a theory that explains far more than creationism ever could, mostly because unlike creationism it does not rely on having an all powerful and untestable source.

 Evolution has evidence, that is something creationism lacks (no sacred texts do not account for evidence)
Anyways, evolution works, it really does. however it is not possible to see it's effects in one lifetime, but rather over thousands of lifetimes. Think about it.. think about the animals that roamed the earth millions of years ago and those that roam it today.. the ones today are vastly different than they were millions of years ago, at least for the most part. Can creationism explain how that is possible? Not really. (Also before you bash me for not giving the creationist theory equal chance, and yell about the missing links and stuff, please go do some real thorough research on evolution, look at the evidence and read the real theories of evolution and natural selection, and go find this on a reputable website or book. Besides, I know you have the internet at your disposal if you are reading this. Also please don't bring sacred text jargon in as evidence.. it really isn't.. )

Anyway.. think of evolution as a cumulative process. Think of it like this.. say you have an hourglass of red sand, 10,000 grains of it to be exact, and once every generation, one of those red grains is switched out for a grain of pink sand. now from one generation to the next, heck even spanning a gap of 100 generations, it would be hard to tell the difference between the hourglass.. however if one were to take the hourglass as it was at the beginning of the process and as it was at the end, they are two different things. One has red sand the other has pink, and all the hourglasses that came in between are intermediate stages. However while after a few thousand generations in between the difference between the hourglasses is apparent, between a just a few generations, the difference is hard to notice..

Anyway.. that's all for now, I'll get back to this topic, once I add in how natural selection and all that jazz works maybe people will come to understand evolution in layman's terms, but at least properly, and not have a skewed view of the sciences.


Note: As I cannot possibly give an in depth look into them, Please study the scientific subjects I have touched on more thoroughly on your own time, it will be rewarding,  



        

Atheists have no morals?

I'm writing this post here out of a kind of frustration that has resulted from many fundamentalists belittling me for being an atheist, and for using  hard scientific evidence and theory and statistics to back up my claims of morality rather than faith, religious beliefs and a popularity poll that somehow fallaciously claims that the more people believe in something the more honest it gets. 

I also don't like how these fundamentalists are allowed to attack science, yet the second I try to turn the tide, by questioning where their evidence is, they simply say that they could be right because I can't disprove them. So I asked them, in that case why do you not believe in the gods of other religions, you can't prove that they don't exist either.. again, they say that it is a matter of faith.. 

Anyway, this happened when we were debating divine command theory. 

The theory that anything that morals are derived from god. god tells humans what is right and wrong. 

Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, that their deities could exist. (Please refer to science if you want to know why I don't believe in such a being). I had to point out that the probability of the sacred texts not being true, or being misinterpretations of events, or even fairytales is more likely than them being the truth. Of course that was shot down, because they were right because they had faith that they were right, and were unwilling to listen to evidence that contradicted their beliefs. 

also since that day every time the moral question of sacrificing an innocent life is brought up, their one and only argument is that god condemns those who kill... that's it they won't lay a hand on an innocent person because they are afraid of eternal damnation. One of them even said.. what's to stop people from killing others if not for God. Then they went on question where atheists got their morals from. And this is a question that has been asked by fundamentalists over and over and over again, and we have answered, over and over and over again. And the answer is that our morals our based on reason. They are based on being tolerant, open minded, and decent human beings, because we value this one life that we have, and wish to live it to the fullest. 

Also if somehow it were scientifically proving that their religions were hoaxes. What would happen to their morals then? The atheists would still retain theirs, regardless of weather or not a divine being exists. 

All I'm saying is I am tired of the double standard that is constantly imposed against those who would listen to evidence in favor of those who won a popularity contest of belief and faith. Even after many of those beliefs and faith have had evidence presented against them. 

  Also in case anyone tries to start bashing science after reading my rant, please make sure you understand the actual scientific theory, and not just an "interpretation" or "opinion" of it. and if you wish to argue against it, please formulate a proper scientific experiment, and run several trials and then get evidence that after properly analyzed would refute a certain theory, and I guarantee that the scientific community (after following the proper scientific procedures) will revise their theory if the evidence after thorough research shows need for revision.  

      

East vs. West.

So just the other day in my Asian American Studies class, we were talking about the separation between the "eastern" world and the "western" world, among other things.

It's just interesting to me, that if you were to look at a map. The extreme edge of the east, and the extreme edge of the west are the exact same thing... In one sense there is no separation. Just thought I'd put it out there.

GAH.. I love/hate my brain.

So, here I am, in a bit of a bind, and I'm looking over some of my past assignments and stuff.

And well there's my homework. I went over the stuff again, and all the stuff was right.

Then I look at the midterm that kind drop kicked me. And well... apparently the way my mind works is that it likes to take things and flip flop them and what not. so for example. if I were to solve an equation that was x-2= z-y. Under normal condition and I have two of the variables, I would under normal conditions solve it easily. but under pressure, or rather when dealing with problems I cannot visualize I find myself unable to understand how to properly solve things or something. GRRRRR... It's like if I could relate it to visual image, math is a cakewalk. Physics was easy, as was Calculus, but take away my visuals and numbers suddenly become well, close to indistinguishable from eachother, at least when I'm under a time limit, or have something on the line.

It's frustrating at times. It's like I can understand the dynamics and motions that a complex machine could go through, and calculate the torques and everything. but the second it turns into just theoretical numbers. I find myself in a situation where my mind thinks it knows what it's doing, because it tries to create a visual aid thing and grrr. it fails.. >_<.. sigh... stuff that cannot be visualized is apparently beyond my comprehension,

Album Review: Guardian - Aetherborn

/So I recently found an up and coming band by the name of Aetherborn.

They have put out one E.P. to date, and it goes by the title of Guardian. I am about to review it.

Ascension: A hauntingly beautiful instrumental track that introduces the album, almost putting it on a majestic pedestal as it transitions flawlessly into the next track.

Re-pulse: This is by far my favorite track on this album. It sounds like something that would fit almost perfectly into a megaman soundtrack. The guitar riffs, coupled with the vocals that are similar to something from an Evanescence song, though distinct enough to stand out by them self. The amazing guitar solo at the end, making it feel like an epic battle is taking place. A wonderful song, made even better when listened to alongside ascension.

Guardian: This is probably the most famous song on the album and it is the titular track, although it is also the one that sounds the most "mainstream" though it's dark lyrics set it apart from similar songs. The vocals really shine on this one, and the instruments are on par. Also towards the end, the addition of the male vocals adds an interesting harmony.

Darkness Falls: This one sounds has a very dark feel to it, and it really showcases the drums and bass. Also the male vocals add depth to it. All I have to say is this would make an awesome song to spar/train to.

Rulers of All: This sounds like a battle theme from final fantasy game at first, which by the way is awesome. Once the vocals kick in, it makes me question why this isn't a opening song to some amazing new anime. all the instruments and the vocals kick it into high gear for a finale that was worth the wait. Also the piano towards the end, and the guitar solo. THIS IS WHAT A LAST STAND/FINAL EPIC BATTLE THEME SONG SHOULD SOUND LIKE!!!

OVerall: I kinda wish, this was the soundtrack to an awesome videogame or something, because it is a great album. And in the days of commercial music, this is truly a diamond in the sand. Obviously, there are things that could be improved on, but for a freshman effort this is truly amazing. I look forward to hearing more songs from them soon.  4.5/5

Link: http://aetherborn.tumblr.com/

Note: A score of 5/5 does not indicate that the album/EP is perfect. It just means that it's really really good, and one of the best that I have heard.

Single Player Video Games

You know what made the classic games classic?

The fact that a couple decades later you can still pop the game into the system and play it and enjoy it as much as you had back when you first played the game. This is because the single player modes were great and focused on back in the day. However then another fun aspect of play was introduced. Multiplayer. Now you could play with your friends and such, and it paved the way to social gaming. Soon it was followed by online multiplayer, something that made games such as Halo 3, Halo Reach, Call of Duty Modern Warfare. However the question I would like to pose is this. What happens if I don't have internet. What happens if ten years from today I pop the disk in, and the lobby is closed. I can't play the amazing multiplayer that the game is famed for. I mean, sure they offer decent 5 hour campaigns but even those get boring after playing through them like once, and most of them serve as essentially tutorials for the multiplayer aspect.

What I'm trying to say is that I wish that games would make both amazing single and multiplayer modes. which is possible, though it requires more time and money, and well, it's kind of sad when money gets in the way of artistic vision.

Technique is Speed, Speed is Strength

Well, I know a lot of people, guys especially, have a tendency to want to build muscle in order to look tough and stuff. You know they think that power is derived from muscle mass.

Yes this is partially true, but that works better for heavy lifting. Now if you get into an actual fight. It quickly becomes apparent that the thing that trumps all is speed and technique. After all, generating power and momentum is essential to combat, and physics is essential to generating power.

Many people have the misconception that simply adding muscle mass will give you more of a bang behind your punch or kick. while the fact is that having proper technique. Using the concepts of angular momentum, levers, conservation of momentum, center of mass, and a bunch of other stuff that a lot of people learned in highschool physics and forgot soon after the final exam.

Anyway if you read up on these, and apply them, it will pretty much make sense that the trick to fighting is actually a science that is far more sophisticated than purely bulking up.

Also as a bonus think about this. Velocity * mass = momentum

so v*m=p

so say you can generate a velocity of 10, and have a mass of 2. That gives you a momentum of 20.

Now if you have more mass, chances are you will be a tad bit slower.

say, you have double the mass, but only 3/4's the velocity. yes, you will have 50% more momentum, but the faster person will land the hit first. Also this is where technique comes into play. If you properly apply the laws. Then you can increase your momentum several fold.

So yeah. Once Again, I emphasize. The trick to being a good fighter is having technique, speed, and being in good shape. However, just bulking up will get you usually only a false sense of confidence.

Edit: As it was pointed out, by a reader, this isn't foolproof. There are flaws in this argument and yes, having no muscle will prevent you from generating powerful strikes and such. Also muscle is needed to generate velocity, however it is unwise to think that getting musclebound will make you a good combatant, which unfortunately is something I find many people think. basically don't judge someone's fighting capacity simply by their bulk. A muscular, 250 pound, 7 foot guy might actually have a weaker strike than someone who is half his weight, not as well built, and around 5 feet tall. 

Hello Bloggers

Hello there fellow internet addicts.

So here I am, about to kick off my blog.

What shall it be about?

I will make it simple.

Anything I find interesting shall be posted.

Basically stuff that has to do with Music, Robots, Martial Arts, and well art and engineering related stuff in general that is cool, in addition to a few philosophical thoughts here and there. Hop on board if you feel like it.