What would Zeno do?

What if someone knocked on your door, and when you answered it, they told you that they are convinced, (for reasons they can't rationally explain), that a space alien named Zeno is probing your thoughts and will punish you after you die unless you join their cause, cast wishes at Zeno and offer your time and money and otherwise organize your life around the organization of Zeno followers? What if they asked you, "can you feel the presence of Zeno" and your significant other said "yeah, well, I don't know...maybe"?


Would you buy into it? NO? Well, welcome to the world of nonbelievers.


We've heard the Zeno pitch. We've heard versions from all around the world. We've heard countless tales of how it makes sense to believe something that you can't really prove the possibility of, for reasons you can't rationally explain. We've heard it countless times before. We've been told countless time about how there must be something wrong with US because we don't presume to feel the presence of Zeno.


(And, here's a clue: telling even more Zeno stories, (that apparently were good enough to convince some other people) isn't going to change how preposterous the offer is).


But what if you're wrong? Surely it's better to spend your life on your knees casting wishes at Zeno (who gives the appearance of not being there) than to die a nonbeliever in Zeno.

There. Are you convinced yet that you need to join the Zeno org?

No? Why not?


But Zeno's followers are wise and use impressive terms like "Exegesis", "Hermeneutics", "Illumination", and talk about how Zeno's thought-probes "indwell" in them.


Ready to join?

No? Don't you want to be wise like them?


Tom from around the block said that he cast a wish at Zeno about receiving a raise at the anniversary of his hire, and he did.

Convinced?!

Ready to dedicate your life to Zeno?

No?


Sally prayed for her cancer to go away. It either will, or Zeno's answer will be 'no', or she'll need to wait and see.

Convinced yet?

No? Why not?



Zeno has countless followers and someone wrote an old book.
There! Now SURELY you are convinced to dedicate your life to the spreading the news of Zeno, right?

No?



Some people say that the holy Zeno books have crazy things written in them. This is said by "low minded" apostates and nonbelievers. You just need to take all the troublesome bits and call them metaphor and all your problems with the old books will go away.

There, now it makes perfect sense to organize your life around Zeno's afterlife insurance policy, right?

No? Why not?



Well then, there can be only one rational conclusion.

There must be something wrong with *YOU*.


Now, doesn't that make good sense?

No?

Yes, but what do I REALLY think about theism?

Here's the low-down skinny on my take on religion, faith, theism and all magical beliefs like supernaturalism and paranormalism. (And, keep in mind that this isn't a piece containing argumentation, but rather declaration). It's all bollocks, bullshit, unfounded piffle, balderdash with just a smidge of horse-feathers and humbug tossed in for good measure.


It's all patently absurd, and I'm not just talking about talking snakes and 'god' pushing the sun back in the sky an hour or so just so Joshua can manage to kill more people in the name of his 'god' in a good day's work. I'm talking about the presumption that there needs to be a large magical designer before the universe can manage to exist. I'm talking about the idea that the most likely scenario for the origin of life is the idea of a magical force willing it into existence for its own anthropomorphic occult motives. I'm talking about insisting that a complex universe just has to have a complex designer, and that it itself doesn't. I'm talking about people insisting that an acausal complex universe is deemed unlikely, and yet an acuasal and even more complex universe designer wouldn't be even more unlikely.


There are two main types of religious "believers", those that believe the written humbug literally, and those who make up the humbug as they go along. Invariably, the "on the fly" humbug is preferred by people who dislike dogma, and in contrast the 'dogmateers' prefer the written message, (because written nonsense is so much more impressive apparently). The 'on the fly' group, invariably "moderate" believers, will sometimes still reference the written dogma, but that's OK since they merely pretend that it doesn't say what it does and pretend that it does say what it doesn't, and thus all remains well and nonthreatening in the invisible magic kingdom.
But of course, both types insist that nonbelievers can't criticize what is literally said or written, because nonbelievers don't have special magic ghost powers of understanding.


It's said that I often engage in atheist/religious "debate" online and in person. This is not literally true. There is no debate. There is a hobby. The magic believers make specious, meaningless, absurd-nay ridiculous claims that really behooves no one to refute since claims with zero merit have no merit to remove. Religious/supernatural claims have zero merit, and since a claim cannot have less than that, then there is really no onus placed on the reasonable person's shoulders at all. The reasonable person speaks in reasonable terms, and the magical thinker speaks in magical terms, often giving unearned credence to magical beliefs that he or she is only too happy to challenge you to prove wrong. And since you, in all probability, cannot prove the nonexistence of neither fairies nor magic invisible lunar cows, then the magical believer considers this an impressive won point. Yes…daft. That is what the reasonable person chooses to contend with in such so-called "debates".


So, why this "hobby" of mine? Well, first of all, I find it entertaining. The bible (for instance) is so contradictory, and there are so many different beliefs based on the same written material, and the delusion/self-trickery of the believers is so blatant that it seems to be an endless source of amusement. Talking to someone who is CONVINCED that the earth is a few thousand years old and that they will be whisked away in the air when Jesus "soon" returns is somewhat like talking to someone who is CONVINCED that they are a chicken. Secondly, I like puzzles, paradoxes and logical conundrums, and the sheer number of absurdities and amusing puzzles that any given Abrahamic religion gives birth to is enough to embarrass Lewis Carroll and confuse the Cheshire cat. And last but not least, that people actually believe, or otherwise pretend to believe and give stock to these absurdities has direct ramifications on our political, judicial, and legislative environs. This last bit should serve as a wake-up call.


The radical Muslims are not playing some pandering pseudo-political role. They are not pretending to be faith-heads. They actually believe what they're saying. They're not kidding. And neither are our domestic terrorists who blow up abortion clinics. The truth is, Christians just can't wait to die. They dream about dying; and I'm not just talking about them "going home", I'm talking about how they can't wait for Jesus to return and exterminate the human race on earth and to give everyone their "just dues". Yes, "sinner", or poor person who misinterpreted that scripture or verse, the "True Christians" (everyone but you) just can't wait for Jesus to come back and put you through your paces & tribulations and to teach you people a lesson or two. The "True Christians" just can't wait for you to be really sorry for not being in fascist mental lock-step with them…er, I mean "with the Lord and master".


Of course, the Return-of-Jesus massacre involves him destroying the world, and creating a "new heaven and earth", a "new Eden", and then repopulating it with slaves to his will, either still alive (by some miracle) or newly re-alive resurrected zombies slaves of course.


Yes, I wouldn't call what I do "debate". That would simply dignify the magical beliefs in an unearned way. The proper response to the ridiculous is ridicule. However, I'm not boorish, and I don't stand up during Thanksgiving grace and yell "poppycock", but if you wish to "throw down" in the proper forum, then I'm more than happy to give the proper ridicule where it is soundly deserved. I do what I do to present both sides to the fence sitters (as a public spectacle) and those who sit on the sideline reluctant to publically choose sides. Such "debate" is such a ridiculous spectacle that reasonable people will no doubt choose the side of reason, and those predisposed to thinking badly will prefer to lie to themselves and to chase their magic castles in the sky. As Jesus would say, there is no saving those who won't save themselves.


I don't "defend" the theory of Evolution, although I may choose to make a point or two about it occasionally. Why? Because even if Evolution were perfectly false, it wouldn't make anyone's 'god' come true, so it's irrelevant, isn't it? To "defend" the Theory of Evolution and to pretend that creationism is an alternative to argue against is to give credence to the patently absurd. Creationism really doesn't deserve the dignity of a cogent response. In short, it's stupid to hold such beliefs. Well, I should say that it was an ignorant idea, born from the ignorant when such an ideas were invented, but it's a stupid idea for modern people in first-world countries to hold in our modern 21st century world.


I'm not a "hard atheist" insisting that there are no 'gods' hiding anywhere in the universe, and this is for several reasons. One reason is that it would be unscientific for me to do so, but of course, this is NOT suggesting that there is the slightest bit of "doubt" or merit on the theist's side of the "argument". I'm simply not committing the same egregious error they are by pretending to "know" and presuming to make claims about what I have no way of knowing. Secondly, taking a hard atheist position is to, again, dignify the opposing 'position' by pretending that it's an idea that deserves a sound refutation. It doesn't because it's meritless. No one is behooved to or otherwise has the onus of disproving other people's preposterous bullshit.


I'm an atheist in the truest sense of the word. I'm a non-theist. That is sufficient and all that is called for when the opposing position has zero merit. I also don't believe in fairies, but no one is behooved to disprove the existence of those, are they, and to not disprove the existence of magical fairies in no way implies that "fairies exist" has some sort of merit to the idea. This is obvious, and again, doesn't require any real argument.


Theists give unearned merit to meritless claims, and pretend that the only viable argument against this line of thought is to either prove their presumed prime agent nonexistent or to offer a proved alternative theory that excludes theirs. "Hard atheism" and arguing the Theory of Evolution as an opposition to creationism is to pander to and to fall prey to this fallacious idea. The 'atheist/theist' consideration isn't about what we certainly know; it's about giving or not giving unearned merit to ideas that haven't earned said merit.


Just because creationism (and all its ramifications) is a stupid idea, doesn't mean that all atheists are intelligent. I'm not a boorish clod who makes an ass of himself during Thanksgiving or some other mass "prayer time". I don't boycott Christmas or choose to recognize "solstice" instead. Frankly, I think such ideas are stupid, and there are several very large atheist orgs that pander to such stupid ideas. Holidays fall into several categories, independence days, birth days, the beginning of the new year (in whatever culture you prefer) and the rest are, more or less, days that religion has attempted to hijack, and these attempts have been unsuccessful because these days of forced reverence in turn become days of absurdity. Easter? Easter was named for the human turned fertility goddess Ester, whose symbols are the fertility symbols of the egg and the hare (big-assed rabbit). The vile first-born baby killing "holiday" of Passover was hijacked by Jesus, and Jesus' holiday of death has been hijacked by the original pre-Jesus pagan myth of Ester. Virgin Ester got divinely knocked-up on Easter week and had her demi-god son nine months later on the winter solstice. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? St Patrick's day? It has nothing to do with the exiled English patron saint who brought Catholicism to Ireland. It's now a day to drink green beer and hit your buddy if he isn't wearing green. Christmas? That hijacked day has been re-hijacked by Santa and his absurd flying mule deer. "St" Valentine's Day never really had anything to do with Catholicism, and it's become a day to try to get ones carrot wet. All Saints Day/All Hallowed's Eve? Yes, trick or treating & witches flying around on broomsticks. To "boycott" what has already been successfully undermined with the absurd, is to be rather boorish, stodgy, idiotic and just freakin' dull as dishwater.


Now, go drink some absurdly green beer. That's an order.

Arguments cannot prove their own premises

You want to test a theory using the scientific method. You "form a hypothesis" and call it "A". You then say that if A is true, then B should occur as well, and it proves true, (B occurs when A does). So, you've proved your theory "true" in a scientific way, right, i.e. you've supported your theory with evidence?

No! That actually makes absolutely no sense at all.

This is a common mistake that is sometimes made even by professional scientists, (and, sadly, this is how the scientific method is often taught in public school).

So, what's wrong?

What's wrong is that it's illogical. You've proved nothing, and here's why.

The simplest form of logical argument is composed of a premise, an inference and a conclusion. The inference is what ties the premise and conclusion together. It's literally the actual "logic" between cause and consequence. With formal logic, you're concerned mainly with form, or structure of the argument (hence formal), rather than semantics. Why? Because even the syntactical form itself, i.e. the structure, can allow you to decide if an argument is valid or not.

However, when considering logic, the "inference is assumed" (because if the inference is screwed up, you're not doing logic anyway). So with formal logic, what you consider is the relationship between the truth value of the premise and the truth value of the conclusion. Here is how it breaks down.

Premise => Conclusion

This is often expressed in what is called a "material conditional", which is an "If-Then" statement. In other words, "If x, then y", or "If (premise), then (conclusion)".

"Valid" or 'logically valid' means that "it can happen" given the conditions of the context of formal logic. To understand logical validity, it helps to think of the (presumed) inference as a perfectly well-working logic machine or computer because this is what computers really are, they are logic circuits designed with Boolean logic. Formal logical validity is itself a matter of "form" or argument structure.

Consider…

True premise, true conclusion = valid argument (also a "sound" argument).
True premise, false conclusion = INVALID argument (it can't happen).
False premise, false conclusion = valid argument
False premise, true conclusion = valid argument

So, what do we mean by the above?

It means that if we put true information into a computer, within the context of something the computer can actually handle, and the computer is working perfectly, then we should get true information out, and if we get false information out, then the computer isn't working perfectly or your premise isn't true as you think it is. In other words, putting true info in and getting false info out of a perfectly well-working computer performing computations that it can handle in context, is not possible, ergo "invalid".

"Invalid" tells you that something is wrong in Denmark.

All other scenarios are possible, ergo "valid". We can put false info into the computer and get false info out, and we may even get true info out that's true merely by accident and not because of the false premise at all. OK, so, what has this to do with the original problem? Well, notice in the matrix above where if we have a true conclusion in a valid argument we may have either a true premise or a false premise! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LOGICAL ARGUMENT TO PROVE TRUE ITS OWN PREMISE. The attempt to do so is the problem with the flawed line of thinking in the original problem above.

Also notice that we can use a false premise and get either a true conclusion or a false conclusion, even with a perfectly well-working computer, i.e. our logic is just fine. That is, there is nothing wrong with the logic, but rather in your choice of premise (computer input). It would be irrational to blame the computer (logic) for what one gets when one uses a false premise, or if the 'input' is not something the 'computer' can handle appropriately in context. (We shouldn't blame either logic or a computer for not being able to make sense of "What is Philadelphia plus two?")


Reconsidering the original problem above, what IS an acceptable method is for your theory to be the entire argument, instead of your theory being just the "hypothesis" premise, and for your premise to be known to be true (because who cares what conclusion you get if you use an irrelevant premise, right?)

With a known true premise, if your conclusion proves true, then your theory, i.e. your argument, is valid & sound. If your conclusion is false, then your argument (theory) is invalid. So, your theory becomes "If A, then B" instead of "My hypothesis is that A is true, then I'll test my hypothesis and look for a B as supporting evidence that A is true". The former is logical and the latter isn't. As I mentioned before, even professional scientists sometimes makes this mistake. Some may see this as evidence of how logic is lacking. Far from it. There is nothing lacking in logic, but rather there is sometimes something lacking in our understanding of it.

Forever and Ever, Amen

It was another day, and Tom was already hating it, loathing it, despising it with every essence of his being. He had asked for this once, he thought to his self, he had dreamed about it, prayed for it, pleading on bended knee, but that cruel joke he played on his self lost its bitter sting a thousand years ago. He was going to the temple again, to pray for death, just like every day. The temple. The place he'll just appear in, as in a dream, this happens every day...EVERY DAY...for over a thousand years. 'If only could die' he thought. He goes to the temple to pray for death every day, but, like every day that prayer will go unheard apparently, or is it apparent? "Please 'god', please let me die". "I'm sorry, so sorry", he would pray, but nothing ever happened, much like when he was still on earth. If only he had thought it out a little more clearly, back then, back when things still mattered, before existence itself became completely tedious and meaningless, repeating day after day. Did he really deserve this kind of punishment? No!...he used to tell his self, but he wasn't so sure anymore.


He could have anything he wanted, and did, once upon a time. He had delicious food, he had girls, sex...LOTS of sex, endless sex, but there wasn't any striving at all, he just thought it and got it. Soon, no matter what the girls looked like or what he did, it became like watching the same porno thousands and thousands of times...torture. He would do things, go places he thought of, but after hundreds of years and getting anything he wanted simply by thinking about it, it all became completely pointless. Everything was meaningless. After an endless time, he started hating existence itself.


Funny, he used to think of death as the opposite of life. Now he knows the bitter truth. It's death that makes life precious, like a rose that will soon pass away. It's death that gives life meaning, purpose, sweetness. Existence...never ending existence is meaningless. Immortality is a meaningless series of events leading nowhere and for no purpose. There is no striving. Thou shalt not want. Immortality is torture--sheer torture. There is no risk here, no danger, no excitement, no escape...nothing but boredom, endless boredom.


On earth, he had the truth right in front of his face, and never saw it. Adam and Eve were slaves once, like he is now. They lived in paradise with eyes-closed and were threatened with death if they didn't subjugate their wills to the will of their lord and master. They risked death and chose freedom instead. How he envied them. Instead, back then, he wished and willed to crawl back into Eden on his own belly. He called himself a juvenile sheep, and hated his own "carnal" flesh, and he wished to shed that "original sin", close his eyes and be in that slave's paradise where they came from. Be careful what you wish for...
He heard the stories and read the gospels. He prayed and thanked 'god' for sending Jesus to suffer for our sins so that we can live...and live...and live...and live...


He understood that Jesus was completely innocent and was tortured to death. He knowingly and willfully asked, begged, nay PLEADED that this innocent person's unjustly shed blood pay for HIS crimes, his sins. A payment that he knew he didn't deserve. He knowingly pleaded for something horrible, something that no one should ask for. It wasn't a matter of whether he really DID deserve hell or whether he really DID sin, but rather that he BELIEVED it, and did the unthinkable. He asked that an innocent person's torture and death count as his own punishment, and in turn that he, the guilty, be set free from the punishment that he, deep down, felt he deserved. "There but by the grace of 'god' goes an inncent person instead of me, the guilty".
"But, Jesus is already dead, and it would be pointless for me to go to hell" he once told himself. Now he realizes that this isn't much different than a man who tortures the innocent because he will be tortured himself if he doesn't and the innocent person will simply be tortured by someone else if he doesn't do it himself. Of course, this is what everyone Nazi middleman told himself, or everyone who commits an atrocity because they want to avoid the consequences for themselves. The point he missed was that he was responsible for his own freewill, his own soul. That was the plan, the test, and he blew it.


HE chose to let an innocent person's life pay for his undeserved pleasure. He ASKED for it! He even used to go to church and look at this poor innocent fellow in his pain and suffering...and he gave THANKS for it!! 'My 'god'" he thinks to himself, "I DO deserve this place...this torture...this meaningless tedium, forever...

...this HEAVEN."