Aniversario de un año!

[English version]

Sí, hace (poco más de) un año que empecé este blog ¡Comparemos expectativas y resultados!

Esperaba hacer múltiples posts sobre el Inteísmo. Resultó que uno solo fue suficiente. ¡Fracaso!
Esperaba no tener más lectores que amigos, familia, y un par de internetantes cualesquiera. ¿Éxito?
Esperaba abandonarlo todo después de un par de meses. Lo hice un par de veces, pero siempre vuelvo. ¡Superé expectativas!
Esperaba traducir todos los posts, siempre que fuera posible. Mi vagancia me superó. ¡Fracaso!
Esperaba usarlo para pseudo-filosofía y diatribas, en lugar de detalles sobre mi vida personal. ¡Éxito!

Dos fracasos, dos éxitos, y un sobre-éxito. Soy el amo de las bajas expectativas.

One year anniversary!

[Versión en castellano]

That's right, it's been (slightly over) a year since I started this blog. Lets compare expectations and results!
I expected to develop multiple posts on Untheism. Turns out I didn't, one was enough. Failure!
I expected not to have any readers other than a few friends, family, and the passing random intertuber. Success?
I expected to forget all about it a few months in. I do it from time to time, but I always come back. Exceeds expectations!
I expected to translate all posts whenever possible. My laziness got the best of me, lately. Failure!
I expected to use it for random philosophical musings and ranting, rather than details of my personal life. Success!

So 2 successes, 2 failures, and one over-success. I am the master of lowered expectations.

Rebuttal:NationForMarriage.org

I recently issued a challenge which included, amongst other things, showing how same-sex marriage should be illegal. Today, I found a website that claims to do just that, so I being as open minded as I am I read through it, wondering if this was the one that would finally convince me there's actually a reason for all of this. I'm sure you can guess how that went. In case you can't because you are terminally stupid, no, I did not decide I'm an evil deviant that doesn't deserve rights. Partly because I'm not really gay, partly because nationformarriage.org are full of crap. Point by point rebuttal to follow, of course.

For starters, this is the phrase they claim sums up their position:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

First off, it's not just gays and lesbians that are "redefining" marriage. As mentioned above, I'm not gay (my sexuality would best be described as "complicated" without going into much detail) and yet I agree with them. Plenty of straight people do too. Second, you are implying that a huge social issue nowadays is nothing more than a discussion of semantics. What if it was decided that the state no longer recognises marriages, only civil unions (or whatever other term) which have no gender requirement? Would you be ok with that? You can keep your special word that you apparently love so much, everyone gets equal rights, and we don't have to deal with "separate but equal" crap. No complaints, right?

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

Problem is, that is exactly what you want. As I pointed out above, there's a simple way to avoid the dreaded Redefinition of Doom that will apparently destroy us all. Therefore, if you were against redefinition but not for banning same-sex marriage, you shouldn't have any objections. Anyone taking any bets on whether they will?

Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

If you take into account the fluid nature of language (that means, definitions change over time), the fact that you are trying to protect a single word to the extent of denying other people rights seems kinda nonsensical. Makes one wonder what's so bloody great about a word that's already undergone a few changes in definition (Amount of spouses, age of consent, etc.)By the way, I wonder what you would think if we redefined "husband" or "wife" instead.

We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

How cute. You really think that legislation will silence the gay rights movement. Reality check, you'll have the issue on your face until you give them the right to marry the people they love.

Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

That's why childless couples are forced to adopt and the sterile aren't allowed to marry, right? Wait, no. But I'm sure you have some evidence to support why this should be the case. I'm all ears

Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

And your method of avoiding confusion is to put up pretence to defend a lie? Cold facts here, no study shows two parents of the same sex will be significantly worse at raising a child than two parents of different sex. If you can show otherwise, you are welcome to do so.

Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

Tip: Saying minorities can't be bigoted is a fallacy, just so you know. Offensive truths aren't any less true, and as it turns out, the overwhelming majority of people trying to keep same-sex marriage illegal are doing it out of homophobia. Guess what? That makes you a bigot. Your way of marriage being old does not make it better, and not granting rights is the moral equivalent of taking them away. In the case of California, rights were actually taken way, and if you succeed you'd be doing the same to Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, and Vermont. Finally, "common sense" isn't an argument.

Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

You've still to show any benefits coming from heterosexual parenting. Until then, null hypothesis means a certain gender is not a specific requirement in a parent. Plenty of kids grow up deprived of a dark-haired parent. Should we demand that all marriages be between a dark-haired and a light-haired person? If you are thinking that sounds absurd, take a good look at your own beliefs and show me how it's any different.

Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

The issue won't be settled. It's that simple. Even if you get your amendment, people will still fight for their rights. There's nothing you can do about that, and you'll have to learn to deal with it.

What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

And you think your right to holding on to an archaic definition is more important than other people's right to marry?

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

Hate to break it to you, but you already are, and deservedly so. Your belief is not based on facts, but on prejudice. That makes you a bigot. The legal status of same-sex marriage will not change that. It might show it more clearly, but it won't change it.

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

First, I've yet to see anything that makes me think this would happen. Second, it's about fucking time they joined us in this century

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

So? Do you want schools to lie to children? I'm not even sure that'd be an actual consequence of same-sex marriage, anyway.

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

Homophobia is bigotry. This talk about children needing mums and dads is either ignorant crap or a thinly veiled excuse for that homophobia. If those are the values you wish to instil in your children, go ahead. You are free to teach your kids as you see fit, but don't expect the rest of us to give our silent consent, because we won't and you don't deserve it.

Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Been through this before, your right to your special word isn't more important than people's right to marry those they love. If you really care that much, I refer you once again to the plan I outlined in my first point.

What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

"Mess" with marriage? We want to fix it to account for a situation it doesn't. Simpler and less discriminatory. And yes, the issue (or part of it) is benefits. Get over your delusions, marriage isn't what protects children. Parents, married or not, are.

Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

OK, that really doesn't make much sense. At all. How is more people getting married going to weaken marriage? By the way, did you know the highest rates of divorce in your country, after Nevada, are in the Bible Belt? Coincidentally the most homophobic area in your country. Gets you thinking, doesn't it?

Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

Put up or shut up. Show how different-sex parents are better at childrearing than same-sex parents.

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

Talk about missing the point. And considering you are answering your own questions, that is something of an accomplishment. This question (when asked by a rational person) aims to show that childrearing isn't the purpose of marriage. Also, once again, give us a reason to buy your crap about children needing male and female figures.

Note: Digging through the site, I found a document that is supposed to support their assertions on heterosexual marriage being better for children. Curiously enough, all the statistics provided were about single parents, unmarried couples and divorced couples. The difference between single parenting and same-sex parenting should be obvious enough (hint: one of them has half the amount of parents). Those about divorced and unmarried couples do not apply to married couples, unless they assume that homosexual and heterosexual couples have significant differences in parenting, which is of course what they were trying to prove in the first place. We call that particular fallacy begging the question or petitio principii.

I haven't yet checked the sources of the statistics either, they linked to americanvalues.org which is not exactly an unbiased source. Not one study on homosexual couples raising kids, I noted. The document repeats some of the bullshit above plus adds two quotes as scare tactics. Too bad any two random people who may or may not have been misquoted are not representative of an entire movement, otherwise they might have a semblance of an argument

In conclusion, the challenge is still open.

Speaking of religion

If, hypothetically speaking, I had readers, I'm sure they would've noticed that I frequently voice my opinion on matters of religion. Additionally, they would have noticed that I myself am not a member of any (real) religion. For some mysterious reason, I never found the combination of those two factors paradoxical. Thank Ungod for idiots in the internet trying to silence their opposition without actually providing any arguments.

The specific idiot I'm talking about responded to someone's comment advocating all or none religious education by something to the effect of: "What is your religion, [commenter's name]? Or are you one of those that live as if there is no God and you still talk about religion?" There is not one idea expressed in that comment that I don't find ridiculous.

First, that the religion of the commenter is relevant to the discussion. How? I seriously have no clue. If the same idea had been expressed by a Hindu or a Muslim or a Catholic or an atheist, would it make a difference? Basic logic tells us that an argument is not judged by the one who words it, but by its own merit. Therefore, the question can only be a waste of time or an attempt at an ad hominem. Probably both. What's wrong about that should be obvious enough.

Second, and here's where it becomes slightly more interesting: The remainder of the mental defecation I referenced above implies that the reason the question was asked was that the writer believes those without religion should not speak on the subject. My first reaction to that was mostly incoherent due to the sheer illogic of the concept interrupting my usual stream of consciousness. The reaction immediately following that was bewilderment at the idiocy of the concept. What possible reason could there that causes my opinions in the field of religion to be invalid?

I'm no theologian or even close, but I do know more about religion than the average person (not a difficult feat, honestly). Limiting myself to Christianity, I have explained canonization to Catholics and quoted Paul and Jesus to Protestants. I've read more of the Bible than almost anyone I know (personally, not online). I've studied to a greater or lesser extent the claims of all religions I've come across. This holds true for a significant portion of all the atheists, agnostics and other non-religious I've met. The why seems obvious to me, really. When you hold a position that differs from the mainstream, you are driven to the question of who is right and who is wrong a lot more frequently than those whose ideas are not challenged by the majority. Those that leave religion do so after taking a good look at it and concluding it doesn't add up (or at least that's what they tell me). Those like me who were not raised religiously often wonder why the rest of the world holds those beliefs and we bother to investigate them.

To remove the non-religious from discussions on religion would be like demanding that only the critics that liked a film publish their reviews. If it wasn't for Hanlon's Razor, I'd say it's no more than a manoeuvre to artificially inflate the perceived value of religion. I'm quite sure a number of those that use it in fact have that exact purpose, even if they don't put it in those words.

So, my esteemed internet moron: if the best argument you have is saying that I don't have a right to participate in the discussion, perhaps you should reconsider your position, or at least find a new argument. The only defence you can find for an idea being a fallacy is often a signal that the idea is flawed. Just a friendly warning :)

Hetero-normatividad

[English version]

Paradigma hetero-normativo. Para una frase que suena tan bien, el concepto que representa me da ganas de vomitar.

La hetero-normatividad es la creencia de que hay una cierta norma para la sexualidad e identidad de género, específicamente, que las personas con penes se identifican como hombres y les atraen las personas con vaginas, que se identifican como mujeres y les atraen los antes mencionadas portadores de pene. Todo lo que se desvía de esa norma es tratado como una abominación, inexistente o una decisión consciente e inmoral de destruir la sociedad. Exagero, pero no por mucho.

Por supuesto, negarse a creer en la existencia de gente que se desvía del paradigma es una posición completamente divorciada de la realidad, que sólo puede ser sostenida por aquellos cuya edad se expresa en un solo dígito. (aunque, los creacionistas, geocentristas y tierraplanistas todavía existen, así que debería saber que a la realidad no siempre se la tiene en tan alta estima como se merece). La homosexualidad, la bisexualidad, la transexualidad, el bigenerismo, el androginismo, y la intersexualidad destruyen completamente esta posición. Algunos de éstos son más aceptados que otros (sobre lo que me quejaré en otro momento), pero la mayoría de los seres humanos admiten la existencia de por lo menos uno. El problema yace más comúnmente en las otras dos reacciones a los que rompemos la norma.

Tratarnos como si elegimos tener un cuerpo, sexualidad o identidad inusuales también va en contra de la lógica y la evidencia, pero en cierta manera es menos conspicuo. Está demostrado, por ejemplo, que la homosexualidad es causada por factores genéticos y hormonales, pero ese es el tipo de información que los homófobos (y la mayoría del resto del mundo) no tienen o ignoran cuando se les presenta. Por qué alguien elegiría ser parte de una de las minorías más odiadas del planeta me escapa, pero en la mente de algunas personas, tenemos control absoluto de nuestra sexualidad y la gente se levanta un día y dice "che, que ganas tengo de cojerme a alguien con mis mismos genitales hoy" (parece que todo el mundo es bisexual en su mundo de fantasía. Ojalá...). Y por supuesto, los trans solo se hacen pasar por el otro sexo porque son una manga de pervertidos.

Y después están los que nos consideran una aberración, una perversión del orden natural del universo. Son los que nos dicen "Sí, naciste así, pero sigue estando mal. Es una enfermedad que tenés que curar o estar eternamente avergonzado, no otro estilo de vida". Son los que mandan a su hijos gay a programas de "reforma de homosexuales". Son los que dicen que los transexuales son despreciables por tratar de vivir como lo que sus mentes les dicen que son, en vez de lo que tienen (o no) en su pecho y entrepierna. Al carajo con lo que realmente sos, viví como los demás o volvete un paria.

Hay mucha superposición entre las tres posturas que describí arriba, obviamente. No es inusual que alguien niega la existencia del bigenerismo, mientras que dicen que las lesbianas eligen ser como son y que los intersexuales nacieron deformes y tienen que esconderlo para siempre. Cualquiera sea la especie de retrasado a la que pertenecen, tiene una cosa importante en común:

Nunca terminan diciéndote la razón por la que lo que somos está mal. O por lo menos una buena razón. Ya escuché apelaciones al orden natural de las cosas, pero ¿en qué basás esta idea de un orden natural? ¿lo que sentís que 'es así'? ¿Cualquier absurda deidad en la que creés? (por cierto, si sos cristiano, te recomendaría leer Gálatas 3:28) Eso es una pelotudez, pura y simplemente. Es mi vida personal. Cómo la vivo me afecta a mí, y a aquellos que deciden ser parte de ella. A nadie más. Si no te gusta el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, no tengas uno. A la mierda, si querés, corta todo vínculo con las personas que tengan uno, lo más probable es que no te extrañen. Pero no obligues a los demás a vivir como vos querés. No crees leyes discriminatorias que les prohíben casarse con la person que aman. Si no estás cómodo con la transexualidad, ¿sabes qué? Nadie te está pidiendo que te cortes la pija. Nadie te pidió que empieces a usar pollera. Lo que te piden es que les dejes vivir su vida como les parezca.

Yo tengo suficiente suerte que mi disrupción particular de este orden aparente es algo que puedo esconder fácilmente. Sé perfectamente bien que cuando les diga, la gente va a pensar que estoy confundido o que quiero ser especial o alguna otra idiotez, y aunque no me gusta, puedo vivir con eso. Preferiría poder vivir mi vida completamente como quiero que ocultar parte de mi personalidad, pero sobreviviré. Otros no tienen tanta suerte. Otros no son un punto medio como yo, sino que están por completo del otro lado. Y cuando viven como ellos mismos, son atacados, insultados, por algo que no le hace mal a nadie.

Esto es un desafío abierto. Cualquiera que pueda mostrarme por qué la hetero-normatividad es mejor que reconocer que el sexo físico, la sexualidad, y la identidad de género son un continuo y que cada punto es igualmente válido, que hable. Decime por qué los trans tienen que vivir según su género de nacimiento, por qué el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo debería ser ilegal, por qué deberíamos cortar los genitales de los intersexuales para hacerlos 'normales'. Si no podés, amablemente te pido que te vayas a la mierda y dejes que la gente viva su vida.

Hetero-normativity

[Versión en castellano]

Hetero-normative paradigm. For such a nice-sounding phrase, the concept it represents makes me want to puke.

Hetero-normativity is the belief that there is a certain norm for gender identity and sexuality, namely, people with penises identify as men and are attracted to people with vaginas, which identify as women and are attracted to the aforementioned penis-havers. Anything that deviates from that norm is treated as either an abomination, non-existent, or an immoral, conscious choice to destroy society. Hyperbole, but not by much.

Of course, refusing to believe in people that don't conform to the paradigm is a position completely divorced from reality, which could only be held by those whose age is expressed in single digits. (Then again, flat-eathers, geocentrists and creationists still exist, so I should know reality is not always held in as great an esteem as it should be). Homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, bigenderism, androgyny, and intersex conditions completely demolish this position. Some of those are more accepted than others (a rant for another time), but most human beings with a working brain acknowledge at least one. The problem lies more commonly on the other two reactions to norm-breakers.

Treating us like we are making a choice in having an unusual body, gender identity or sexuality also goes completely against the evidence and logic, but somewhat less conspicuously so. Homosexuality , for example, has been shown to have genetic and hormonal causes, but this is the kind of information homophobes (and most other people, for that matter) don't have or ignore when presented. Why someone would choose to be part of one of the most hated minorities in the world is beyond me, but in the minds of certain people, people have absolute control over their sexuality and they just wake up one day and say: "Hey, I totally feel like fucking someone with my same genitals today". (Apparently everyone is bisexual in this fantasy world of theirs. If only...) And of course, trans people just feel like acting as the other sex because they are freaky perverts.

And then there's the ones that consider us an aberration, some perversion of the natural order of the universe. They are the ones that tell us "Sure, you were born like that, but it's still wrong. It's a disease to be cured or be perpetually ashamed of, not another lifestyle." They are the ones that send their gay children to "homosexual reform" programmes. They are the ones that say that transsexuals are despicable for trying to live as what their minds tell them they are, instead of what they have (or not) in their chest and crotch. Screw what you truly are, live like the rest of us or be a fucking pariah.

There is a lot of overlap between the three positions I described above, obviously. It's not unusual for people to deny the existence of bigenderism, while saying that lesbians choose to be that way and the intersex were born deformed and should hide it forever. Whatever the breed of retard people happen to belong to, they have one big thing in common:

They never come around to telling you the reason what we are is wrong. Or at least any good reason. I've heard appeals to the natural order of things, but what do you base this idea of a natural order on? What feels "right"? Whatever absurd deity you happen to believe in? (incidentally, if you happen to be a Christian, I'd recommend reading Galatians 3:28) That's bullshit, plain and simple. It's my personal life. How I live it affects me, and those that choose to be a part of it. Nobody else. If you don't like same-sex marriage, then by all means don't have one. Hell, go as far as cutting all ties with those that do, odds are you won't be missed. But don't force other people to live like you want to. Don't create discriminatory laws that forbid them from marrying who they love. If you are not comfortable with transgenderism, then guess what? Nobody is asking you to cut off your dick. Nobody asked you to start wearing a skirt. What they ask you is to let them live their lives as they see fit.

I happen to be lucky enough that my particular disruption of this perceived order is something I can easily conceal. I know full well that when I tell them, people will think I'm merely confused or wanting to be special or some other retarded crap, and while I don't like that, I can deal with it. I'd rather be able to live my life fully as I see fit than hide part my personality, but I'll survive. Others are not so lucky. Others are not a middle point like myself, but fully to the other side. And when they live as themselves, they are insulted, attacked, vilified, for something that harms nobody.

This is an open challenge. Anyone who can show me why hetero-normativity is better than recognising that physical sex, sexuality, and gender identity are a continuum and every point of it is equally valid, speak up. Tell me why transfolk should live by their birth gender, why same-sex marriage should be illegal, why we should cut off the genitals of the intersex to make them "normal". If you can't, then kindly fuck off and let people live their lives.

Natural vs. Supernatural

[Regla 2.718]

Wandering through the web I happen upon this website, which repeats the tired drivel about how atheism is based on faith and whatnot. Nothing too unusual, but it annoyed enough to write a response to the most moronic, uniformed and illogical excerpts. So, let's start from the beginning, shall we?

"Atheism is a lack of belief mentality which rejects the existence of anything supernatural. By default, atheists are also naturalists and evolutionists."

WRONG! Atheism rejects one specific type of supernatural entity, gods. This bothers me to no end, because it's a mistake made by theists and non-theists alike. One can be an atheist and believe in souls, healing crystals, the monster under the bed, homoeopathy, psychics, astrology, ID, and leprechauns. Sure, most (myself included) don't, because the strongest motivations for atheism are rationality and scepticism, which discard all of the above. But I despise over-generalisation with a passion worthy of a better cause.

"If matter and energy cannot be created, how did they originate? Where did the entire physical universe come from?"

We don't know yet. It is necessary to point out that scientific laws are only a provisional understanding of how the world works and are changed to account for new evidence constantly. We don't know enough about the circumstances at the beginning of the universe (if there even was such a thing) to explain why, if at all, it goes against conservation of matter and energy.

"It would seem to the unbiased either matter and energy made themselves from nothing or a supernatural creator made them"

Holy false dichotomy, batman! How about matter and energy always existing is some form or the other? How about being caused by something other than a supernatural creator?

"Why couldn't the universe have always existed? Because nothing that has a beginning and an end could have always existed."

True, yet irrelevant. The universe could be the result of the collapse of a previous universe, for example.

"Today, virtually all scientists accept the Big Bang theory which says the entire universe came into existence at a particular point in time when all of the galaxies, stars and planets were formed."

10 points for blatant misrepresentation of science. Galaxies, starts and planets took quite a while after the Big Bang to form. The universe didn't come into existence from nothing, it expanded from a singularity.

"There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of matter and energy."

And this is what we know as the "God of the gaps" argument. It is, in essence, saying "We don't know what causes X, therefore X is caused by God". Problem is, we keep filling the gaps with naturalistic explanations, so God keeps getting smaller and smaller. Back in the good old days, everything from the weather to catching the flu was the fault of some god or the other. Over time, we discovered that lightning isn't Zeus' rage, disease is not demonic possession, rainbows are caused by the refraction of light and earthquakes are caused by tectonic plates. How long until we convince you the same principles apply to evolution and the Big Bang?

"The Law of Biogenesis
This law is composed of two parts. The first part states that living things only come from other living things and not from non-living matter. Life only comes from life. The second part of this law states that when living things procreate, their offspring are the same type of organism they are."

Ah, fundies love this one, even though it's so patently made up it hurts. There is no such law in biology, period. Biology is based on the theory of evolution, which states the exact opposite of the second part of your "law". And evolution has been observed, repeatedly. As for the first part, look up "abiogenesis". Thousands of experiments have shown that you can create organic molecules from non-organic chemicals in an environment similar to the early Earth. Though we yet have to fully create life artificially, it has been shown that every step in the way is possible.

"Some people feel biogenesis is not a scientific law, but biogenesis is a law because no one has ever documented a single case of non-living matter coming to life in self-replicating form."

You haven't a fucking clue how science works. We have shitloads of evidence showing abiogenesis is possible. The simple fact that life exists is pretty compelling evidence for abiogenesis, don't you think? Am I assuming that the cause of abiogenesis is naturalistic? Yes, much in the same way you are assuming it is supernatural. So what's the difference? Easy.
A) The evidence shows that entirely natural processes can have as a result self-replicating molecules
B) In the entire history of science there have been exactly zero instances of a supernatural explanation replacing a natural one, and endless examples of the opposite.

"How could DNA and RNA evolve from something very rudimentary into their present day intricacy when the organism containing the basic genome would require the more complex, present day DNA and RNA to replicate?"

It wouldn't. Any molecule that creates imperfect copies of itself evolves. Replication does not require DNA and RNA.

"The scientific method is held in high esteem by most atheists and it is composed of the following parts...

1) Careful observation of a phenomenon.
2) Formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomenon.
3) Experimentation to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or false.
4) A conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Nobody has ever observed the creation of matter or energy.
Nobody has ever observed a molecular cloud collapse or any planet form.
Nobody has ever observed abiogenesis.
Nobody has ever observed the evolution of any genome.
Nobody has ever observed any phylum, class, order or family change. "

First of all, you apparently are working with a primary school understanding of the scientific method. Check wiki if you want something resembling the common understanding of the method.

Second, you are getting the "observation" phase completely wrong. The phenomena observed in this case would be the existence of the universe, planets, and the existence and diversity of life. The hypotheses (which have become theories after thorough testing, retesting and modification) imply all of the things you've mentioned. Some of them have yet to be directly observed, but we know they happen or happened in the past because that's where all the evidence points. If we get new evidence that points somewhere else, we'll reconsider. Until then, shut the hell up.

"The definition of a miracle is an event which is inexplicable by the laws of nature."

And as I explained before, our understanding of the laws of nature is in constant evolution. Time dilation would've been thought of as a miracle before Einstein, but now it is an observed and explained phenomenon.

"If you want to believe in naturalism it is fine with me but please don't make the erroneous claim that "science" is on your side."

Science is naturalistic. Naturalism works. No supernatural event can withstand scientific scrutiny. And anyone who can prove otherwise can go ask James Randi for a million dollars. Yes, science is on our side.

"Can God be scientifically proven? No, it would be nice but his existence cannot be proven scientifically. The reason is God is supernatural; he exists outside the natural, scientific world."

Whoopsie, know what that means? You just admitted that
A)Science is naturalistic and therefore on our side, when you stated the opposite two paragraphs previous.
B)A universe without God would be exactly the same as a universe with God. That's exactly what you are saying when you claim that something cannot be analysed scientifically. Otherwise, the differences between both universes could be measured and tested, thereby providing us with the necessary evidence.

"It is interesting how atheists reject any notion of the supernatural because of what they perceive to be a lack of evidence when they could use that same objectivity to reject their naturalistic world view. Most atheists are not even honest enough to apply the same burden of proof for naturalism that they demand of supernaturalism."

Oh really? Since science exists, the supernatural has been continuously tested and found lacking. The natural, on the other hand, is always there for us. Every single last accepted scientific theory is naturalistic. The score stands 65,536 to 0. Methinks someone needs to reconsider the burden of proof.

"Both naturalism and supernaturalism require faith and which one you place your faith in is one of the two most important choices you will ever make."

A statement that is not only irrevocably wrong, as shown above, but also leaves a tiny hint of Pascal's wager, which is one of the things I despise even more than over-generalisation and shitty translation.

That's it for now, folks. Checking the rest of the site later, may end up making this a multi-part series.

Si Dios fuera un político

[rule 2.718]

Ayer leí la siguiente carta de lectores en el diario (primera de todas)

¿Dónde está Dios?

Se­ñor Di­rec­tor:

"Días atrás, León Gieco lanzó la pregunta: «¿Dónde está Dios en una tragedia como la de Tartagal?». Creo que esta pregunta merece alguna aclaración: si quien la formula es ateo, simplemente no debería haberla hecho porque estaría apelando a un ser cuya existencia niega. Si creyera en la existencia de un Dios todopoderoso y providente, por más que en ocasiones lo asalte la duda, la respuesta es clara y sencilla.

"Dios nos ha dotado de inteligencia y voluntad. Podemos intuir, razonar, argumentar y concluir gracias a la inteligencia; y tomar decisiones, preparar cambios gracias a la voluntad. Estas fantásticas capacidades Dios nos las dio para que las usemos en el gobierno de nuestras vidas personales y en nuestras relaciones con los demás. También los gobernantes tienen estas facultades, que deberían utilizar en el desempeño de sus cargos.

"Lo que sucedió en Tartagal podría haberse evitado si los gobernantes hubieran utilizado algo de inteligencia y sentido común. Hubo muchos informes que lo anticipaban y partidas de dinero que tuvieron otros destinos. Deberían aclararlo los gobiernos de Salta y de la Nación. La pregunta, por lo tanto, debería haber sido: «¿Qué hicieron los gobernantes para evitar lo de Tartagal?» Dios seguramente se habrá decepcionado una vez más del mal uso que hacemos de nuestra inteligencia y voluntad.

"A Dios lo que es de Dios, y al hombre lo que es del hombre."

Humberto Guglielmin

Como evidencia su frase final, el señor Guglielmin cree que no le corresponde a su omnipotente deidad ayudar a sus supuestas amadas criaturas en casos como este, sino a nuestras bastante falibles instituciones gubernamentales. Sin entrar en debate sobre si el gobierno podría haber hecho algo para prevenir esta situación, digo: La capacidad del gobierno de solucionar problemas es limitada, dependiendo de tiempo, dinero, información sobre la situación, etc. Dios, sin embargo, puede solucionar este y cualquier otro problema sin esfuerzo, inmediatamente, y sin la excusa de que no sabía que iba a pasar.

Entonces, ¿según qué criterio se determinó que la responsabilidad recaía sobre nosotros? Ninguno. Es la simple tradición histórica que nos ha mostrado que cuando esperamos que el cielo intervenga, más nos vale esperar sentados. Un famoso refrán dice que Dios ayuda a quienes se ayudan a sí mismos. Lo curioso es que la ayuda divina nunca excede lo que logramos por nuestros propios medios :)

Así que yo pregunto: ¿Si Dios puede ayudar, por qué no lo hace? Antes de que digan que nos ayudó al darnos la inteligencia para resolver nuestros problemas, les recuerdo que evidentemente, eso no fue suficiente (lo cual, por cierto, Dios debería haber previsto). Si la gente le exigiera a su dios lo mismo que le exige a sus políticos, ya hace mucho que le habrían pedido la renuncia. Si tenemos en cuenta que encima Dios sí tiene acceso a soluciones perfectas a cada problema que aqueja a la sociedad, no puedo evitar preguntarme por qué se lo sigue teniendo en tan alta estima.

Y por mucho que busque, no se me ocurre la excusa. Hay quien dice que los designios del Señor son inescrutables, lo cual es básicamente los mismo que decir, "no sé, no me jodas con esas preguntas". Otros dicen que Dios no quiere ponerse en evidencia porque eso invalida la fe. Yo les digo que, primero, eso significa que todos los supuestos "milagros" son falsos (lo cual no es una gran sorpresa). Segundo, que eso implica que en realidad no hay ninguna prueba de la existencia de Dios, que es lo que los ateos venimos diciendo desde el principio. Tercero, que Dios no puede hacer nada que no hubiera pasado sin su intervención. Entre un dios imperceptible que nunca hace nada y un dios que no existe no hay mucha diferencia, realmente.

Hay algunos que me preguntarán que quién soy yo para juzgar a Dios, el omnipotente creador del universo, blah blah blah. Esto no es más que volver a mi pregunta inicial, ¿por qué Dios está exempto de ser cuestionado? La respuesta es que no lo está. Y en cuanto empezamos, nos damos cuenta de que, si está ahí, tiene unas cuantas preguntas por responder.

Thoughts on thoughts, multi-dimensionality and gods, part 2

If you read part 1 and were left thinking "wait, where do gods fall into this?", it's not that you didn't understand me. Part 1 and 2 were supposed to be a single post and had to be split. You might have guessed where they will come in, however, 10 points for you if you did.

Anyway, as I said in part 1, after my initial conclusions, I revisited T. Something that had been bothering me was that, if T is no more and no less than the sum of the entire existence of a human, then for T to reflect on her own existence she would have to introduce a change in that existence. After all, thinking is a process and as such requires time. Therefore, if T actually is aware of her nature, then her nature changes. So it seems that T is actually only the mega-you for a fragment of her existence, and then she is something else.

So what is she know? Is she the sum of someone else's existence? Is she something completely different? A mixture of both, I'd say. Being 4D, she can easily be in two or more places at the same time. She can be in all places at the same time, for that matter. So, it's possible that T was, at some point, the sum of me, and then someone else's. Or everyone's. At the middle points between being you and someone else, she could be anything. Doesn't really matter

Of course, if at some point T is nothing more than the sum of a person's existence, then she can't have memory of the past. Memory would include being more than just one person, it'd be an entire person and then some. So, I see two options: Either T has an added property that allows her to remember who she's been in the past but doesn't interfere with this world, or that memory is not a part of T.

The latter option seems far more plausible to me. It's not T that holds memory of every person she's been. There's someone else that enters the equation, someone who is to T as T is to us, a 5-dimensional being who's the sum of everyone T has ever been. We shall call him P.

Now, if T was at some point everyone, we only need one P. If there is, for whatever reason, a larger number of T's, then we could go with one P that includes all T's, or multiple P's. If we chose the former option, the process ends there. If not, we are faced with much the same choice, and we can repeat the process indefinitely as long as we have dimensions, which I see as infinite. Sooner or later, because the amount of multi-dimensional beings must reduce or remain constant after each step, we arrive at one single being that contains the sum of the life of every thinking being that ever existed. That being now can let her own N-dimension time go by without having to transform into another sum. She can now reflect upon the vast collection of knowledge and draw conclusions from it. She's a thinking being, in a sense, similar to ourselves, although with a completely different time-space perspective and huge memory bank that collects the experiences of every thinking being ever. Lets name her N.

Now, let's say there is an infinite amount of universes with thinking beings, separated at the dimensional level they perceive but connected at a higher one. Repeat the above process in each of them, and you get an infinite number of N's. Since the universes are connected if you go high enough in the dimensions, there are N's coexisting at every dimension level that's high enough to contain one and beyond. And what should we do next? Sum them all up, of course.

But the amount of beings is infinite, isn't it? So we could keep on summing up, repeating similar processes as those described in parts 1 and 2, and get ever more complex thinkers, who, as they analysed all the thoughts contained in their memories, would start drawing more and more conclusions, which would be all summed up and already known at a higher dimension level, ad infinitum.

And that's just it. What I was going for is precisely this, the infinite succession of thinking, conclusion summation, and rethinking based by the summation. The infinite-dimensional being that sums it all up. And what do you call a being that exists both in our universe and beyond it, which is an embodiment of infinity, and that knows everything that can possibly be known? Whatever you damn well like, I guess. I chose Aleph.

You probably noticed that I've made quite a few assumptions throughout this analysis. Each one of these seems intuitively correct to me, but as I said before, my intuition proves nothing. All I can say is that it feels right to me. I'm not basing any life-changing decisions on this.

By the way, if you were wondering about my naming, T is a reference to tetra (four), P to penta (five), N is usually used to fill in for an unknown natural number, and Aleph is a reference to the story of the same name by Jorge Luis Borges and to Aleph numbers.

Thoughts on thoughts, multi-dimensionality and gods

When I'm going through my life, waiting, eating, travelling, or performing other activities that don't require a lot of thought, I like to avoid boredom by thinking stories, either developing ones I thought of before or creating one on the spot. When I get bored with one (relatively fast), I create another one. The problem arises when I'm bored with the last story and the next one hasn't appeared. In this situations, I'm bored, have nothing to do, and probably won't for a while, so I need an alternative: somewhat incoherent pondering of vaguely philosophical matters. That's how this blog was born, in fact.

The latest instance of this started by me considering other possible forms of thinking beings. I started thinking about something I've read about possible reasons we exist in 3-dimensional space, which led me to wonder about how a 4-dimensional being (which I shall now call T) would perceive our world. If what we perceive as time is that extra dimension, then T can essentially move backwards and forward through time, leading to a considerably greater understanding of the world. I'd like to elaborate on that, but I'll leave it for later.

How would T manifest in the 3-dimensional world we perceive? Well, for starters, T being 4D means that all of her can't exist completely in 3D space. Only a "slice" of T can be in 3D at any moment in time. If you have trouble understanding what I mean by slice, it helps to move things down a dimension and think of it as a cube (or sphere, or cone, or any other 3D object) trying to exist in a 2-dimensional world. At most, only an infinitesimal slice of the cube, with area but not volume, can be perceived by the inhabitants of the 2D world. If volume is the added dimension, then volume for 2D is time for 3D. As the 2D world moves through its time (volume), the slice of the cube that is in their world is a different one. If each infinitesimal slice is different from the previous, then the 2D people see this as "change", while it simply is revealing another part of the object. If that analogy was useful, great. If not, sucks to be you, because I can't think of another way of explaining it. I'll assume you understood, so we go back to T.

We can't see all of T at once, but as time goes she appears to change. And when my train of thought arrived at that conclusion, I thought of this: that wouldn't seem too unusual to the people observing it, would it? In fact, we see it all the time. Any human we see, for example, could be the result of a 4D being that intersects the 3D world. Now, the sum of all the statuses we observe since T appears until she disappears is the real T, the way T sees and understands herself. In the case of a human being, this would be the totality of their existence, from the moment sperm and egg join to the point bones decay and there are no physical remains. But, more importantly, it covers the period between birth and death, aka life. So there could be, "out there", a T that has, as part of her mind, the sum of the entire experience, memory, thoughts, emotions, etc. of the entire life of a human being. Could be you, or me. Could be we all are in fact a T intersecting the 3D world, and there's someone living in the 4D that already knows everything you are going to do, be and think for the rest of your life. T is in fact more you than yourself, considering that you are only a part of her.

At this point ended my original analysis on T and how she is so much cooler than you. Or me, for that matter. I was not exactly sure how you'd go about demonstrating any of this. Maybe it's a necessary consequence of multi-dimensionality. It seems intuitively true to me, but intuition is not a reliable way of obtaining knowledge, and I can think of no way of testing it (which makes it mostly irrelevant). But as I said originally, it was mostly a way of temporary entertainment.

But of course, I was bound to be bored again, was I not? And so I revisited T later on. I'm leaving that for a later post.

[By the way, I based this mostly on a 3-dimension space 1-dimension time model for simplicity. Current theories usually include quite a few more, but it works the same way.]