Quote of the Day: The Thinking Atheist

This one is for you Hitch!

In a pod cast on the life of Christopher Hitchens and what he meant to us, Seth (aka The Thinking Atheist) said something about Hitch that really resonated with me.

"Christopher [Hitchens] made me feel empowered and strong... and stupid... all at the same time."

Ditto. 


Christopher Hitchens will be sorely missed. 

Christopher Hitchens Passes Away

Christopher Hitchens passed away on Thursday, December 15. He was 62. 


Of all the Gnu atheists I perhaps feel closest to Hitchens. I found his radicalism, his advocacy, and his contrarian outlook reminiscent of my own. Admittedly, however, his intellect far surpassed mine and his words were far more eloquent than anything I could ever possibly muster at a whims notice. His oration skills were second to none, in fact, I would go as far as to say he was the Ingersoll of our day. His whit was sharp, and his commentary always had a touch of that wry Anglo-American humor. Hitchens contained a sophisticated blend of cultural insights and bravado lending to a keen mind perfectly suited for his chosen profession as a journalist tackling the headline issues of his day.

Even with all this going for him, most people found Christopher Hitchens polarizing. You either loved him or hated him--strangely enough, usually for the same reasons. I for one admired the guy greatly. Perhaps what I respected most of all was the fact that he was honest--brutally honest--and never ducked a question. Even as many felt he was a tad arrogant, I felt Hitchens was confident in what he knew, but more importantly he wasn't above correcting himself, constantly taking great pains to reminds his captive audience of how little qualified he was to talk on specific matters far out of the reach of his expertise. 


Hitchens's writing could be found regularly in Vanity Fair, Slate, and elsewhere. I could only dream of writing half as well as he did. But it is no secret, his books were usually poorly researched and many of his historical claims were shrouded behind the veil of his overpowering rhetorical voice. Even so, he usually knew a thing or two about what he was talking about--especially when it came to politics and history. So regardless of his erudition, or whether or not his facts all lined up, his resonant voice and slightly British accent made anything he said completely captivating. Truly, his finesse with words and lightening quick mind truly made him impressive.


Hitchens verbal skills were bar to none. Coupled with a laser-like intellect he was fully equipped to carry the dialectic better than anyone. He was truly a force to be reckoned with. Hitch could stand his ground equally against pompus talking heads on various news networks, he could face down ignorant politicians, and he never retreated from a chance to interrupt a blathering theologian or holy man and correct them on an important historical fact. 


In fact, Hitchens would often keep on talking until he would be cut off by the host. Not because he loved to hear himself speak, mind you, but because he so despised allowing people who clearly knew nothing of what they were talking about the chance to pollute the world with their ignorance. If you wanted to go up against Hitchens--you had to be prepared. Something many of his debate rivals found out the hard way as they faced the onslaught of his verbal admonitions, among the most eloquent you'll ever have the pleasure of hearing, and sharp Ockham-razor like reasoning.

Hitchens was more than an just an atheist though. He was a self proclaimed anti-theist. He detested the idea of an all knowing, all watching, supreme being who would punish you for thought crimes. It should come to no surprise to us that Hitchens so despised this form of theocratic dominion, for he was a student of Orwell, and much of Orwell's voice could often be heard echoed in the words--and concerns--of his own. 


The very notion of policing people's thoughts was the ultimate offense to individual freedom--and Hitch realized this as an inherent danger woven throughout the religious schema, which he so vehemently opposed.


Hitchens felt faith was the most overrated of all the virtues, and even then, he hesitated to even call it a virtue. Religion to him was a poison which slowly saturated everything and made people's lives worse off in the process. Religion was so distasteful in his eyes, that his life's preoccupation was to build up Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state. 


His detractors considered him petulant, but his supporters felt they had a champion in their corner. A man who would never back down from a fight--which he proved in 2009 when he got the living shit kicked out of him by SNPN skinheads in Lebanon. Of course, true to Hitch fashion, he bounced back, with a vengeance, determined to vanquish his enemies by showing them once and for all that the pen was truly mightier than the sword.


Soon enough, Christopher Hitchens's short rhetorical jabs and sarcastic quips became known as the infamous "Hitch-slap." If you got on his bad side he would be sure to inform you that only his friends were allowed to call him "Christopher."


Like his favorite brand of scotch whiskey, Johnnie Walker Black, Christopher Hitchens had a bite to him yet was smooth and sophisticated at the same time. Whether or not you could stomach him depended on how strong of a constitution you had. Whatever you feelings were with regard to Christopher Hitchens, hearing him lecture meant you were guaranteed an unforgettable time of it, and he certainly made a lasting impression wherever he went. There is no doubt about it--Hitchens will be missed.

Does Faith make you Retarded? [Warning: Explicit Language]

Around this time of year my Facebook lights up with people praising the Lord for all their blessings. Tis' the season, after all.


Over the past year I have been testing what appears to be an unabashed urge of religious people to blather whatever their beliefs are (for no apparent reason) on the web by countering it with a contrary point of view.


My prayers were answered, they will say. Prayer doesn't work, I inform.


I am an asshole, I know. But with good reason.


When someone cannot control their urge to thank God for a prayer, or feels they need to let the whole world that they are praying for you, I have taken the initiative time and again to remind people that prayer is not valid. It has been falsified. Scientifically.


I am not saying this to be offensive. There is no offense in simply holding a difference of opinion. But the reaction is always as if I have started World War III.


After gasps of pure horrified shock that somebody with a different opinion would have the audacity to share it in a forum dedicated to proclamations of faith and belief subside, I brace myself for the inevitable fallout. Like a loud buzzing, I can hear the vibrations of their wicked tongues warming up as they prepare a blitzkrieg attack aimed to sting the so-called naysayer.

(Note: Naysayer means a person who denies or opposes something. In that sense, yes, I am denying the person of faith to idly and mindlessly accept incorrect beliefs and tout these beliefs as something worthy of being shared and broadcast. By opposing their sacrosanct opinion that their faith should merely be respected--even when it is patently false--I am revealing their hypocrisy. In my defense, however, opposing a falsehood should never be viewed as wrong. If correcting our mistakes was wrong to do, we would forever be mistaken, forever ignorant of the truth. I feel that people who proclaim to have the truth cannot afford to be so naive as to deny others the right to correct their mistaken beliefs. I refuse to respect their faith for this very reason. If your faith cannot handle cordial disagreement, and you fly off the handlebars anytime someone disagrees, and feel it is somehow alright to put them in their place by viciously attacking them (simply because they think differently), then this is not alright. If you can't agree to disagree, then perhaps it would be best to simply keep your beliefs to yourself.)

Usually when I call someone on a belief I know is completely and totally invalid, I get people saying things like, "I don't attack your beliefs, why do feel that you need attack mine?"


This pisses me off to no end.


I urgently tell them I am not attacking their beliefs, merely correcting their mistaken information. After all, they wouldn't continue to believe things that are false if shown--beyond a reason of a doubt--that they were false, failed, erroneous beliefs, right?


Wrong.


They merely get defensive. They don't want to relinquish their wrong beliefs, because these beliefs make them feel good. So instead of taking the time to question their beliefs, or why they might be wrong, they instead call me "intolerant."


Yeah, the guy who shared his beliefs, because you felt you needed to share yours first, is intolerant simply because his beliefs do not agree with yours. What was I thinking? I must have forgot that only religious people have the right to share their stupid thoughts.


On the other hand, if I do happen to take the time to provide them with decades of research which show, under various conditions, that something like prayer never works... ever... not under any circumstances or conditions... I then get accused of being, not only intolerant, but also elitist. Why? Simply because I asked them to take like two minutes out of their busy schedule of going to church pot-lucks and bible study to, I don't know, read a ten page science article from a peer reviewed science journal.


Really? They guy who points out of the fact of the matter, that your beliefs are not merely wrong but they are sooo wrong that they are absurd, and in many cases borderline offensive, is the one being arrogant? Really?


The person humble enough to correct his mistaken views, who takes the time to review the evidence, and who pauses to reflect on the implications--and who doesn't make it a habit to broadcast his beliefs 24/7 is the one who is being arrogant? Because he refers to hard won evidence, and wants you to consult it too, instead of just barfing blind professions of faith based conviction everywhere, and merely asks you to take two minutes to think about what your saying and how this holds up against the evidence--is elitist? Do these people even know what the term elitist even means?


Imagine if they thanked Jesus for all the blessings in their life, and I called them a whole bunch of  hate-filled names for no good reason. Instead, I may point them to a quote or snippet from a history book about the historical Jesus and the development of early Christianity--but I don't throw libelous hate and slander at them simply because we disagree. When they ask me, "Why do you feel you need to attack my beliefs, I don't attack yours..." I want to ask them, "Seriously, what's wrong with you people?"


I realize that a lot of the time I am wasting my breath on those crippled by the retarding powers of faith, but I am trying desperately to make a point.


If you can't accept someone else's opinion, and upon hearing their opinion become so enraged that you feel compelled to tell them that they are elitist, arrogant, intolerant, angry, and deserve to burn in hell, etc. then you are merely making unjustified personal attacks on someone because you don't agree with them. First off, this is immoral behavior. It's not okay. Second of all, it is bigoted.

Knock it the fuck off.

Now, some religious people might say I am being cruel by claiming their religion makes them stupid--or by saying that faith retards their mental faculties and makes them act like morons.


Actually, I am not being mean here. I am making a straight up observation. I am being honest.


If your faith compels you to do something, or say something, that is completely ABSURD... not to mention totally WRONG... and you are called on it... and your first reaction is to ATTACK that person, instead of being cordial and accepting that there are different opinions out there, then this is, in my estimation, INAPPROPRIATE behavior.


Once I gave up religion, and relinquished a three decade long faith, I realized how foolish I was acting a lot of the time. Needless to say, I felt horribly embarrassed for many of the things I said or did because of my religious beliefs. I felt like a fool for thinking my non-Christian friends would go to hell. I felt silly for believing in an imaginary place, for that matter. I felt guilty for having used small children's fear of this imaginary place against them just to blackmail them into believing the same thing I did. I felt stupid for believing this was the right thing to do, let alone at all okay. Terrifying children for no reason is NEVER okay. My faith often retarded me into a dogmatic conviction spewing moron.


Now, when I see other people doing the same, I feel the uncontrollable need to point out their mistake. I feel embarrassed for them. As an advocate for reason--I speak out. How can I not?


The thing that pisses me off, however, is the reaction I typically receive. In a backlash of hypersensitive, whiny-two-faced, religious defensiveness where I get called all sorts of horrible names--for no good reason.


I want to scream at the top of my longs--I am NOT attacking your beliefs. I am attacking BAD beliefs which are just flat out INCORRECT! Meaning: Un-fucking-true, you mindless-faithy-self righteous blowhards! Your choice to believe them is your own... but shut the fuck up about them if you don't want to fucking be called on their absurdity. For Christ's sake people.


A) nobody needs to hear your incorrect, absent-minded, and completely unjustified beliefs spewed all over the place, and B) even if (and it's a big if at that) you do have good reasons for what you believe--unless the beliefs are going toward a cause which will actively help others in the immediate future--then nobody wants to hear about it.


Just shut the fuck up about baby Jesus, why you're thankful to God, and what prayers came true this week--and go do something productive... like suck a dick. At least then you'd actually be productive and helping to make someone else happy.


If the Catholic Church really wanted to make the world a better place, they would turn their Cathedrals into elaborate brothels, where anyone could go at any time to get a good old fashioned fellatio from a priest. Yeah, stop fucking and raping children, and suck some adult cock. Christianity is full of cock-suckers anyway, why not incorporate that into the religion? Less kids would be getting raped and more people would be satisfied--sexually--everyone wins!


So am I an angry atheist? Well, not all year long. Just at the time of year when religious people think because it's the holidays and what not, they can barf out their faith based convictions all over the place for no goddamned reason other than it makes them feel good. It makes me angry when I get attacked for having different beliefs--in in the same instance get told I am being oppressive and intolerant of their beliefs. I am too nice to say, "You have it fucking backwards, mother-fuckers."


I am wayyy too nice of a person to actually tell religious people this directly. Other than the few times I have shared my differing points of view, I usually let people display their stupid all over the place like a dumb-ass peacock. I only hope that one day they will realize how horribly idiotic they were being, and in a bout of remorse for their relentless stupidity, turn about face and begin to actively seek to help correct the misinformation, the false beliefs, and set about trying to get a better hold on the truth while helping others to do so too.


[I realize not all Christians are bad people. Heck, I used to be one. My entire family is Christian. Not all Christians are loud mouthed bigots either. Although I used to be one. But before anyone gets offended and hits the unsubscribe button, just realize I am not so angry at other Christians as I am mainly angry at my own stupid behavior when I was a Christian. A retarded behavior I see reflected in other Christians daily.] 


[My frustrations seem to stem more from the anger I direct at myself--but at the same time, please realize, that after getting beat down every time I share my opinion--among so-called "friends"--who proceed to verbally harangue and assault me for simply having a different opinion, this is not something I feel I should just idly sit by and tolerate. Nobody likes taking it up that ass. Having to respect other people's stupid beliefs for not good reason is just like being asked to bend over for them. No, I am afraid that's not how it works. You want my respect--you have to earn it first. And since I can't reach through my Facebook and punch the idiots in their stupid faces for attacking me without justification, I vent my frustration here. Happy holidays!]

Jesus Claus & Santa Christ

Student: Did the baby Jesus grow up to be Santa Claus?

Me: Yeah, sounds about right.

True conversation I had yesterday with my second graders at Elementary school. They have no idea who Jesus is. And this was after a class where I explained who he was! I explained that Christians believe Jesus died and became God. One girl asked, "What's a Christian?" 

Yup. I love Japan!

Quote of the Day: Louis C.K.

"I have a lot of beliefs, and I live by none of them - that's just the way I am… they make me feel good about who I am." --Louis CK 

Science and Truth: More Lisa Randall Quotes

"Scientists actively approach the door to knowledge--the boundary of the domain of what we know. We question and explore and we change our views when facts and logic force us to do so. We are confident only in what we can verify through experiments or in what we can deduce from experimentally confirmed hypotheses." --Lisa Randall (Knocking on Heaven's Door)

"Although there is much we don't yet know about the evolution of the universe, we have a spectacularly successful understanding of the universe's evolution based on the so-called Big Bang theory supplemented by a period of exponential expansion of the universe known as cosmological inflation... This theory has agreed with a range of observations, including observations of the microwave radiation in the sky--the microwave radiation left over from the time of the Big Bang.

"Originally the universe was a hot dense fireball. But during the 12.75 billion years of its existence it has diluted and cooled substantially, leaving this much cooler radiation that is a mere 2.7 degrees kelvin today--only a few degrees Celsius above absolute zero. Other evidence for the Big Bang theory of expansion can be found in detailed studies of the abundances of nuclei that were made during the universe's early evolution and in measurements of the universe's expansion itself." --Lisa Randall

"In some cases, we will understand the observations sufficiently well to know what they imply about the underlying nature of matter and physical laws. In other cases, we'll spend a lot of time unraveling the implications. Regardless of what happens, the interplay between theory and data will lead us to loftier interpretations of the universe around us and expand our knowledge into currently inaccessible domains.

"Some experiments might yield results soon. Others could take many years. As data come in, theorists will be forced to revisit and sometimes even abandon suggested explanations so we can improve our theories and apply them correctly... even when new results might require abandoning old ideas.

"Our hypotheses are initially rooted in theoretical consistency and elegance, but... ultimately it is experiment--not rigid belief--that determines what is correct." --Lisa Randall

Gravity follow up Question

I received a really great question concerning gravity after my previous article about Space-time, Quantum Mechanics, and the Cosmological argument for God.


The question was raised:

In addressing "why there is something rather than nothing" your article states:

"Likewise, the related question of why there is something rather than nothing (within the universe) can also be explained. The answer is gravity. Entropy x gravity = clumping. This clumping of matter is what creates stars and planets. Gravity, in other words, is why we have something rather than nothing in the universe."


Honest questions here:

*Why is there something available to be clumped? You say gravity is the reason for there being something rather than nothing, but if there was nothing for gravity to act upon, there would still be nothing.

*And isn't gravity a function of mass (mass of a something)?

Maybe you just shorthanded your treatment of this question. What am I missing in understanding this?

I don't think you're missing anything. As you correctly state, gravity is a function of mass, but let's not forget a function of energy also. 

Why is there something available to be clumped? Because of the big bang. At least that's how I have come to understand it from reading physics books. All the energy in the universe (as far as I can tell) spontaneously popped into existence via the quantum fluctuation, or singularity. Next, as the MIT physicist Alan Guth has posited, inflation takes over and this hot dense plasma is spread out across a great distance via inflation. Gravity then begins to collect the gas clouds of mainly helium and hydrogen and eventually the mass of this gas gets so dense that it ignites a nuclear reaction from the sheer pressure of the mass being compressed. This chain reaction creates a stellar furnace of super giant primordial stars.

Eventually, as any astrophysicist would tell you, these super stars go super nova and explode and create new elements baked in their fiery furnaces. All the natural elements we have identified thus far are known to come from stars. Every piece of matter that exists today was baked up in a star then distributed back out into space in that stars subsequent death. 

Gravity, meanwhile, continues to clump the stuff of stars together along with the other gases and dust swirling about. Soon after, gravity forms nebulae. Eventually the right type of star goes super nova and collapses in on itself forming a black hole. With enough nearby gas, dust, and debris a galaxy can form. Like our own Milky Way galaxy, eventually planetary systems are formed, and all of this spins around the massive black hole at the center.

Meanwhile, the with the recent discovery of dark energy, physicists have a good idea of what is driving the universe to expand exponentially. 

At least, this is how I understand the evolution of our universe to be like from reading physics books. However, I am by no means an authority on the subject.

My point about gravity being the answer to why there is something rather than nothing is this. If there was no gravity, then there would be nothing acted upon. No effect in other words on the stuff after the big bang. Basically the hot plasma after expansion, minus gravity, would never clump and dark energy would continue to force all that energy apart while entropy would erase it from existence. Nothing would ever come to be. 


This causes me to feel that theologians are asking the wrong question about the origin of something with regard to nothing. Because even with all the energy left over from the big bang, without gravity, we would still have nothing. We wouldn't even exist to ask the question. 

So the answer of why there is something rather than nothing is quite clearly: because gravity.

The answer of where did this something come from is: the big bang.


How did stuff form after the big bang? Physicists suppose it has something to do with Symmetry breaking.

The answer of what caused the big bang is currently unknown. Or, perhaps I should say, not fully understood. 


Most physicists think it was likely a quantum fluctuation (of some kind). Yet the field of quantum mechanics is fairly young and it is not completely understood either. Luckily this is why various branches of cosmology and physics exist--so we can continue to investigate the unknown elements of our universe perchance discover why it is the way it is and how it came to be. 

I feel that I must now point out that although we don't currently understand everything about the nature of reality, scientists are making steady progress at increasing our understanding of the over all picture of reality. 


Gradually they are pulling the curtain which veils reality and hides her from us further and further back revealing hitherto unforeseen truths. With each new discovery our understanding of the overall picture of reality grows ever more complete. 


Although I can only speak for myself, it seems to me that if religion were true, according to the claims religion makes for itself, then it would be the vehicle to revealing all the truths of reality. Since this is not the case, it makes me highly skeptical of anything religion has to say with regard to reality--the world--the universe--or myself.

Now, it stems to reason, that if you assume something "caused" the big bang--although this assumption is illogical knowing that causation cannot exist outside of temporal space-time--even if we wish to ignore the erroneous nature of the question and simply rephrase it--the question would probably have to push back to where did that initial energy fluctuation come from? 

That is still a question currently undergoing investigation. Physicists are currently working on figuring that out--from many different angles--so it is too early to tell with any certainty. 


Which brings me to the second part.

Many physicists, including Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku, posit that gravity exists multidemensionally. At least, the math seems to suggest it (as I am not a physicist I am inclined to take their word for it--esteemed as they are).


If so, then gravity would exist whether or not our particular universe did.

As I hopefully showed in the article, the logic behind the Cosmological argument is Newtonian. But modern physics and cosmology goes far above and beyond that type of reasoning. Especially where gravity is concerned. 


Modern cosmology suggests that there is a minute vacuum energy to the quantum foam of space. This vacuum energy has recently been tested by Swedish physicists who used a virtual mirror to push a virtual particle out of the vacuum energy and it immediately formed into a tangible light particle. That is amazing. They literally tapped on vacuum energy, the closest thing to nothing there is, with a oscillating magnetic field and got a light photon out of it. 

Basically they made light from nothing. That's just cool. Although it doesn't provide ready answers--it is a step in the right direction. Slowly, but surely, we are piecing together the puzzle of how the cosmos came to be.

I think I should mention that gravity is also mysterious. It may even be multi-demensional (according to several physics theories). We have only been able to measure it indirectly. But new instruments are being developed which will have the required sensitivity to measure gravitational radiation in the near future (see the Michio Kaku video below). As I understand it, its frequency will tell us a lot about the nature of gravity and how the universe functions/behaves. So I am eagerly anticipating that discovery.


It seems to me, and this gets back to my initial point, if there really were a theistic deity of a power and magnitude such as the type which theologians claim, then this power has to interact with reality (otherwise what good is such a power if it remains forever unknown? It might as well not even exist--if that's the case). If there is a God, such as the one theists posit, it can be assumed that it interacts with the universe and so should also have observable effects. The fact that we don't see any, would, it seems to me, suggest there is no such being.