Intellectual discourse

One of my favorite quotes is when Richard Dawkins described how evolution made one "an intellectually fulfilled atheist". Here is the quote.
I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

In fact, I believe that atheism is logically tenable, but it is impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist or theist. Why? Because however many people want to say we have the ultimate answer, we do not. Although you have probably been through this many times if you are familiar to the god debate, I feel a refresher would be nice.

How were we created? Evolution
How did the first life come to exist? Abiogenesis
how did the planet come to exist? Core accretion.
How did the universe come to exist? The big bang
What made the matter in the big bang? It existed eternally, or for infinite time. Sometimes quantum flunctuations are put into this explanation.

But we keep going back, if somebody invoked an idea like the multi-verse that existed eternally, then how could this have existed eternally? Why does it exist in the first place. Does it "just" exist. Furthermore, why are the laws of physics the way they are, why are they not crafted differently. Furthermore, why is their existence at all? If their is nothing, how is existence added, which is an attribute. Quantum Flunctuations is another law that "just exists". If you attempt to explain why Quantum Flunctuations exist in the first place, then you must exist why those laws exist which caused quantum flunctuations, and so on and so on. It may appear that I am making an argument for god, but how could even a god exist for eternity. God is supposedly inttelligent, how did he gain his intelligence? Did he just, have his intelligence which is also an attribute for no reason at all. How is god eternal yet still thinks which requires time? No, god is a fully human explanation that does nothing but add more complexity to these deep questions. Basically, infinite regress takes place in almost all laws of reality, causing reality to become ultimately illogical. In fact, it causes everything to become illogical. One cannot be an intelectually fulfilled atheist, although atheism is more logically tenable then religion. However, we must all take a break from the god debate and remember that neither religion nor science can explain the mystery of reality...yet.

Deontology, a moral philosophy which has emphasis on duties and rules, often is connected to religious beliefs. However, deontology is often practiced by more liberal religious people, and many non-philosophers practice deontology without knowing it. First of all, here is how you know if you have a deontological moral world-view.

When searching the web, I came across a thought-provoking image that interconnected spirituality, science, and philosophy. I could not help looking at the site below it, which offered a well-written out, well-reasoned article that discussed how religion, philosophy, and science all were trying to explain the same thing: the nature of consciousness. I agree with most of the points that the author made, but when he tried to explain how religion believed in the "oneness" of god I could see his logic is flawed. Quoted from the article
"It will come across as a shock to many people and also seem like an unbelievable idea but the truth that lies at the heart of all World religion is the notion that a person's real identity is ultimately God. God is given many different names. In Hinduism God is called Brahman, in Christianity God is the Logos or the Christ, in Judaism God is YHWH, in Islam God is Allah and in Buddhism the equivalent term is the Void. However in all these great World faiths, when we explore deeply into their history and esoteric traditions then we discover a recurring theme. And this is the idea that our real nature is really that which is called generically God."
Really? Although the author made good points about the relationship between science, philosophy, and possibly a new spirituality, he really did not seem to grasp religion. The three major monotheistic religions do not believe our personal identity is god, rather they believe in
"the lord", a creator of the universe. Sure god is supposed to be everywhere, but he is also supposed to have created the universe as a whole. The "oneness" that the author speaks about is much more relative to Buddhism then any theistic religion. The author precedes to connect the theistic religions supposed idea of a "oneness" of god into quantum mechanics, which he does well, yet religions do not believe in a oneness of god but rather a supernatural creator. Why are their superstitions and the believe in the supernatural as the supernatural will transcend the "oneness" of the universe. To me, this article has strong arguments for pantheism and a supposed universal oneness. But he never even speaks about the supernatural, which all of the major religions do extensively. At the end of the article, he shows an image connecting philosophy, religion and science. What does this mean? In my opinion, the best tools we have for analyzing the issue of consciousness and the mind are philosophy and science. Once science and philosophy discovers the answer to these questions, a new spirituality must inform the public upon their teachings instead of monotheistic religions who tend to separate themselves from science because of superstition. This is the link to the article, which i recommend you read, although the part about monotheistic religion integrating into science should be read with skepticism as it betrays the tenets of their faith that a supernatural being created the universe.

http://www.iawwai.com/UnificationOfRSP.htm

Yesterday, I was told that the word "zeitgeist" was "too old" to be used nowadays and was a "70s word". However, the word is extremely useful as it is the only word that fully expresses the evolution of morality. In the world today, morality is at a huge standstill mainly because of th right-wing religious right who would like to have 18th century morals in a 21fst century world. However, I predict that the zeitgeist will move on, however slowly and the world will become a better place. Lets look at some moral issues and predictions I have.

Gay marriage- Gay marriage in all 50 states is something that almost half of Americans oppose today! However, just like any of the other civil rights movements, like the women's suffrage movement, or the african-american rights movement, the gay marriage movement will eventually be successful. I predict gays will have marriage in a majority of the states by about 2025, and all of the states by 2030.

Abortion- Although women are legally allowed to have abortion, their is still a huge amount of opposition to abortion in general by the conservative society. I predict this opposition will dwindle by about 2018.

Stem- Cell Research- Although Barack Obama has passed a law legalizing government funding of stem-cell research, it is still very limited. However, Stem-cell research is another ethical abortion-like issue that is opposed vehemently by many conservatives so it is not likely it will be completely funded until 2035.

Although their are other issues like genetic engineering and waterboarding, I wish to predict further issues that we must be eqquiped to handle.

Cloning- I see this as the biggest issue coming up for humanity. If we overclone, clones could possibly take over the workforce and it will be quite easy for the Earth to become overpopulated. Clones could result in a loss of biodiversity and the "best" genes could always be picked for a certain job. A sense of individualism could possibly be lost and all positive qualities about a person could be "cloned" and made better. Cloning does have some benefits of course. We could emply brilliant clones to advance science, powerful clones to work labor, and other clones to do household jobs. However, these are all taking up jobs of actual humans, and like I said could result in the loss of biodiversity. I would much prefer to have artificial intelligence do jobs for us.

Artificial intelligence- Unlike clones, robots and computers would not result in a loss of biodiversity, although they could result in a loss of jobs. The computers could work hundreds of times more efficiently then humans, and eventually humans may be able to integrade some of the properties of artificial intelligence into themselves. This will probably be a huge ethical issue. Can we become robots ourselves, becoming smarter and healthier at the expense of losing some of the intangible qualities of a human?

Their are many more ethical issues probably that I have not foreseen , and i appreciate comments concerning my writing and other ethical issues that may rise up in future years and ways we could handle them.

I recently wrote a reliigion based on fact and evidence which tries to draw awe and wonder from the vastness of the cosmos. Realizing humanity's place in the universe, or realization, can be achieved in many different ways. Below I list seven ways in which this feeling of realization can be achieved.

1. Realization in where we are in the universe, and that there are a huge number of other places in the universe completely alien to us.
2. Realization that we are not alone, and extraterrestrial creatures would regard as just as odd as we regard them.
3. Realization that the universe is not orderly, but random, and that this only makes it more beautiful.
4. Realization that the chance of us existing is extremely small, although we came to be.
5. Realization that each of our personalities are completely unique and we are all bonded together by being human but also separated by DNA, which is sacred.
6. Realization that the colonization of Earth and the buildings are equally as beautiful as life since they are created by life. This is also realizing that there are civilizations like ours on other planets, but yet extremely different.
7. These together may not seem so powerful, but realization is the word not discovery, it takes a much deeper sense of meaning then simply reading these.



1.To understand where we are in the universe, the person has to be presented the vastness of the universe in multiple ways. The person must understand the size of the cosmos in relation to the rise of our planet. Readings of Sagan’s books and other astroneners will help them understand this concept. The person will bep resented a number of objects that scale to sized of plantes when in relation to eachother. The person will be presented maps of our solar system, which is tiny in itself, and maps of the galaxy, which is dwarfed by the vastness of the universe.

2.To understand this concept, the person has to learn more about evolution. The person must understand that humans might look entirely different if not for a very simple error in evolution. The person will be put through complex evolution stimulations in which we will show how creatures from another planet may look or how humans may have appeared to look. Understanding this will open the person up to the beauty and unpredictability of life .

3. This concept is closely related to the first concept, but in its nature is different. People must understand that Earth may look normal to us, but if we did not originate here it would look odd. The person will be presented pictures from the hubble telescope, and realize that the universe is controlled by the blind forces of nature and light is scarce, while darkness is imminent. The person seeing pictures on the Hubble telescope will help them see how the many different clusters in the universe do not have any order. This helps the person understand that the universe is not only huge, but without order and cannot be fully conceived of by any mind.

4. This concept is difficult to achieve by looking only at the tiny percent chance of us existing as we are, but instead through more analogical methods. These analogical methods would consist mostly of going “back in time”, and realizing that there are numerous events that if not having occurred would result in us not existing it all. Understanding this would help the person understand the beauty and sacredness of the individual.

5.Achieving this is a rather large part of realization. To understand this the person will learn about genetics, and how different genetics may make up all of the qualities that a person will have. The person has to understand that personalities and genetic codes can never be created again once they have died, and will realize that uploading, or preserving a person’s genetic code, is a vital practice.

6.This is one of the concepts of realization that some might seem as odd, but it is definitely important. To understand the beauty of our civilization, the people must be presented virtual civilizations which are different from ours in every which way. After understanding that there are civilizations like ours in the universe, the person must to begin to view our civilization in a perspective of someone who never lived on Earth before. The person will begin to see have awe and wonder as our civilization, which is vital to realization.

7.This is the last and final part of achieving Realization. The person must bring it all together and find the deeper meaning. For the final step, nobody but the person can decide whether to take the final step and bridge the gap to realization.

The following data represents the number of atheists in certain countries in Europe. The third column represents specifically atheists, the second column represents people who do not believe in a personal deity, and the first column represents religious people.
France France 34% 27% 33%
Czech Republic Czech Republic 19% 50% 30%
Belgium Belgium 43% 29% 27%
Netherlands Netherlands 34% 37% 27%
Estonia Estonia 16% 54% 26%
Germany Germany 47% 25% 25%
Sweden Sweden 23% 53% 23%
Luxembourg Luxembourg 44% 28% 22%
United Kingdom United Kingdom 38% 40% 20%
Hungary Hungary 44% 31% 19%
Denmark Denmark 31% 49% 19%
Spain Spain 59% 21% 18%
Norway Norway 32% 47% 17%
Finland Finland 41% 41% 16%
Slovenia Slovenia 37% 46% 16%
Bulgaria Bulgaria 40% 40% 13%
Lithuania Lithuania 49% 36% 12%
Slovakia Slovakia 61% 26% 11%
Iceland Iceland 38% 48% 11%
Latvia Latvia 37% 49% 10%
Switzerland Switzerland 48% 39% 9%
Austria Austria 54% 34% 8%
Croatia Croatia 67% 25% 7%
Portugal Portugal 81% 12% 6%
Meanwhile, this data represents the most developed countries in the world.
1. Norway 0.971 (▬)
2. Australia 0.970 (▬)
3. Iceland 0.969 (▬)
4. Canada 0.966 (▬)
5. Ireland 0.965 (▬)
6. Netherlands 0.964 (▲ 1)
7. Sweden 0.963 (▼ 1)
8. France 0.961 (▲ 3)
9. Switzerland 0.960 (▬)
10. Japan 0.960 (▬)
11. Luxembourg 0.960 (▼ 3)
12. Finland 0.959 (▲ 1)
13. United States 0.956 (▼ 1)O
14. Austria 0.955 (▲ 2)
15. Spain 0.955 (▬)
16. Denmark 0.955 (▼ 2)
17. Belgium 0.953 (▬)
18. Italy 0.951 (▲ 1)
19. Liechtenstein 0.951 (▼ 1)
20. New Zealand 0.950 (▬)
21. United Kingdom 0.947 (▬)
22. Germany 0.947 (▬)
23. Singapore 0.944 (▲ 1)
24. Hong Kong 0.944 (▼ 1)
25. Greece 0.942 (▬)
26. South Korea 0.937 (▬)
27. Israel 0.935 (▲ 1)
28. Andorra 0.934 (▼ 1)
29. Slovenia 0.929 (▬)
30. Brunei 0.920 (▬)
31. Kuwait 0.916 (▬)
32. Cyprus 0.914 (▬)
33. Qatar 0.910 (▲ 1)
34. Portugal 0.909 (▼ 1)
35. United Arab Emirates 0.903 (▲ 2)
36. Czech Republic 0.903 (▬)
37. Barbados 0.903 (▲ 2)
38. Malta 0.902 (▼ 3)
Many of the non-european countires are highly atheistic also, but notice how all of the most atheistic countries are very developed. There are some developed theistic countries, but these countries are radiating more and more towards atheism. Other atheistic countries are Japan, Denmark, and finland, which are all highly developed. Now lets look at the opposite end of the spectrum and see where religious countries fall.
Egypt 100 percent
• Bangladesh 99 percent
• Sri Lanka 98 percent
• Indonesia 98 percent
• Congo 98 percent
• Sierra Leone 98 percent
• Malawi 98 percent
• Senegal 98 percent
• Djibouti 98 percent
• Morocco 98 percent
• United Arab Emirates 98 percent
These countries are all not developed, and extremely poor. Now lets take another review at the 11 most non-religious countries in the world.
• Estonia 14 percent
• Sweden 17 percent
• Denmark 18 percent
• Norway 20 percent
• Czech Republic 21 percent
• Azerbaijan 21 percent
• Hong Kong 22 percent
• Japan 25 percent
• France 25 per cent
• Mongolia 27 percent
• Belarus 27 percent
7 of these 11 countries are developed countries, and some are not considered developed because they are not considered true countries. However, I hope it is clear in your mind that less religious countries are more successful then religious countries.

Take a look at the following argument:
1. Long term patterns over history rarely go astray
2. Over history science is progressing
3. Over history this progressive science is refuting many religious arguments
4. Almost no scientific discoveries support the existence of god, at least there are many more that do not.
5. Religious arguments have always been many and varied, now there are less.
6. These religious arguments, or arguments for god, have resorted to the origins, the origins of life, the origins of the universe.
7. Eventually science will discover the true causes of these.
8. Since scientific advancement usually is against god’s existence, this discovery will be against god’s existence.
9. Therefore, goes does not exist.
Hmm, looking at this argument it is easy to conclude god does not exist by simply looking at the simplicity of it. Over history, religion has always been an explanation for things humans to not understand. But as we are becoming more and more apt to the universe, and less people are holding such strong beliefs in god. 500 years ago, almost everybody was a fundamentalist Christian. Now we have liberal Christians and moderate Christians. In addition, much less people are believing in god, but instead believing in “something more”. Atheism is on the rise over the years, and science seems to de disproving god. Many years ago, god can be concluded to exist simply because science could not explain something. Instead of looking at almost anything in the world, religion now has returned to the origins of the universe. So now the two most powerful arguments are the cosmological argument and argument from fine-tuning. Here we go again, religion is placing god into the gaps, since science does not have perfect explanations for these phenomenon’s. Look at this argument which essentially turns the cosmological argument onto religion.
1. Everything has a cause except timeless states.
2. Infinite chains cannot exist
3. God must have a cause, or be timeless
4. Since infinite chains cannot exist, god is timeless
5. God must be enormously powerful and complex to create the whole universe.
6. There is ample evidence for many universes
7. God must be even more complex to create this many universes
8. A timeless god cannot be timeless when making many universes.
9. There is evidence for a timeless state called a multiverse
10. The multiverse theory is much less complex then the god hypothesis.
11. Occam’s razor says the simpler theory will almost always be correct.
12. The multiverse theory is an alternative to god.
13. The multiverse theory is simpler then god.
14. Therefore, god does not exist.
Note: Notice how this argument does not even require scientific evidence to be behind the multiverse theory. If I just randomly though of a multiverse, there is a much better chance that would be their hen a god who is governing every human movement and who is extremely complex.
I know that their may be a couple objections to this argument, but I shall dismiss them. You may be thinking that it would be easier to conclude that there is a god then a multitude of universes. Yet this god is based on no evidence at all despire the cosmological argument itself and the teleological argument which I will later dismiss. There is also scientific evidence for multiple universes, and it is actually a theory. It is impossible for god to create multiple universes and not be extremely complex. However, the idea of their being many universes does not contradict with god, and there are no other explanations for the evidence presented for many universes. So the actual idea of many universes does not contradict with god, so occram’s razor cannot interact with that relationship. However, the multiverse is a natural phenomenon, while god is a supernatural phenomenon which can design universes how they choose, and influence humans. God supposedly thinks, while the multiverse is not alive and is a blind force of nature. In addition, the universe does not necessarily need a first cause. The universe expands and contracts an infinite number of times, allowing it to never have a first cause. Having disproved the cosmological argument, I will now go to the fine-tuning argument. This is probably the most powerful argument at the moment, and takes a sophisticated refutation. This argument states that the universe was “fine-tuned” for life, and that this must have been because of a god. First of all, their was probably an infinite number of universes, so the observer theory can be used. These universes each have different laws, so ours may be a unique one. In addition, life may not be as rare as we think. We have no true way of knowing if life cannot exist in universes with different conditions then ours, which is evident in the recent discovery of hypothermal vents, a place where we thought life could never exist. We cannot conclude that god made us simply because we live in certain conditions which fit us.

Note: Some may argue that my first argument is invalid since their are some studies which support the existence of a god,yet they are mostly later dismissed once we learn more about the universe (ex: moral argument).

I find it very difficult to believe in a heaven or hell. Besides their being virtually no evidence for heaven or hell, there is ton of evidence against it. Looking at patterns of wishful thinking, you can see why humans have invented the idea of heaven and hell. However, the true reason for heaven and hell lies within the root of religion. Religion can be pictured as a economic race in the early 1900s. Each factory had to pay low wages and have cruel conditions simply because if they did not they would be out-produced by other companies. A religion meanwhile, has to employ the idea of a heaven and hell if another religion does even if it does not hold true to its values. Heaven and hell not only allows the person to have an eternal life, but it also lets people be confident that the only way to do this is by following a certain spiritual path. Although you may be thinking, just because somebody believes in something does not mean it will happen, yet people will make themselves think many things if it allows order and happiness from their chaotic lives even when it is not clearly not true. By simply accepting without questioning, these people have a resistance to look at these ideas in a logical way. Some may say: So be it, live and let live. Unfortunately, on the opposite spectrum of heaven is, hell. Hell is a place where people have eternal torture, and apart from this being immoral, they believe that anyone of a different religion will undergo this faith. But even if their was a haven and hell, how could somebody possibly tell since there is a certain incomprehensibility of god. What if the god sent all humans to heaven, or all humans to hell? What if god valued people who questioned religion instead of those who supported it? Is their anyways to know who good would sent to heaven and hell? No. Yet people constantly discriminate against other and believe that they will go to hell if they do not believe a similar faith as them. But the most dangerous proponent of heaven and hell is that there is an eternal life. This allows people to concern themselves with their personal matters of if they are going to “make” haven or not, instead of trying to focus their attention on the future of humanity. Religion can allow death to be a much more welcome thought, which it should definitely not be. I think that heaven and hell can be replaced by a more natural idea of death that will inspire equal awe and wonder

When you look the two most populated monotheistic religions, Islam and Christianity, you see prejudice and hate written all over their holy books. However, more importantly, each popular monotheistic religion will eventually wind up like this. The true nature of a belief in god may not seem that horrendous, and it is truly not, however each religion’s attempts to depict this god are not only misguided, but also a danger to humanity in some cases. Look at each religion, they each tell their own story of how what god is. I hold the belief that there is far more evidence against god’s existence then for god’s existence, but if god does exist religion seems to be such of a futile attempt to explain it. If god exists, which I doubt, then we still have no idea about what god really wants, and I doubt anyone would truly find out. It is logically impossible for a god to have all the characteristics that many religions claim he has, and even worse is when religions try to portray the afterlife to the human. How can a god be all-loving but allow sinners to have eternal torture? Personally, one year of torture would be more then enough to decriminalize even the worst sinners. This is just a single example of a logically impossible god, and there are many more. However, more important is to realize that people believe these things that the church proclaims since the church has such power. Any monotheistic religion is based off speculation, not evidence, and this allows the religion to become corrupted. First of all, people will try to climb to the top of the religious “ladder”, the pope is the highest position, then the cardinals, etc. Once elevated to this level, the power they hold depends on the amount of followers often. How does he keep these followers? By claiming that his religion is divine and all that do not follow it will burn forever, he ensures that people will follow him. He will point out other religions as the “devil’s work” and leaves out minority groups that he dislikes. Furthermore, his followers do not denounce him because they believe his word since he is supposedly “divine”. The followers place a trust in him that is foolish and ignorant, and they believe him because so many other people do. The only way to dismantle the system is to convert the followers to another religion, which is extremely difficult, and then to reveal the darkest secrets of the church. Any monotheistic religion will try to portray a god without evidence, allowing more blind speculation and ignorance to occur which will ultimately cause fundamentalists which are backed by an army of people putting far too much faith in them.

In a progressive world, there is a constant resistance holding many people back from continuing the pursuit of a better world. The dedication that they show to spread their word and advance their unjust cause is unsettling, and sometimes even frightening. These people consider the evasion of common sense as a virtue, and promote morals which are not only based on texts which are long outdated to be used in these times, but the morals often contain prejudice. Oddly, following in the path of these wicked individuals is people who have a similarity to them, yet see that the true nature of these men. Behind the crowd of fundamentalists and moderates, there are a group of people with no religion, who may despise the fundamentalists and respect the moderates, but are largely indifferent towards the subject of religion all together. Behind these people, their stands a group who may openly rebel against religion, but are often criticized for having no spiritual path and therefore being unethical. However, the largest group by far is the moderates, who have the largest influence, as they are the most abundant out of any religious groups. Moderates, or liberal theists do not believe the written word of their holy script, nor do they live by it. These people are not overly engrossed in the religion they choose to follow, and are sometimes not well educated in the core principles of the religion they have. However, these people are the driving force behind a certain religion, and these people rarely realize that they are endorsing fundamentalists, who we can all agree are not only “wrong”, but also dangerous. Take away the liberals and moderates, and these fundamentalists would have little to no power. So as these moderates go to church, they may not necessarily go because it is the best religion for them, but they may go simply because going to church is a social norm, or they feel a duty to go. If a religion which promoted no god at all took place of Christianity, their would surely be liberals and moderates in that religion. So we arrive upon the question: Are these religions benefiting or hurting the world? The United States may be the best point to look at the influence of religion over the average person. The moderate in the United States is far more religious then the moderate in lets say, France. First off, most people accept their religion without putting considerable insight into their decision, as their parents have taught them religion since a young age. Here are a couple of surveys about the United States and common issues. "Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship." 32% of Americans wanted gays to receive no legal recognition. In another survey, the surveyors asked, "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally?" The oppose/strongly oppose percentage was roughly 50%. So many Americans are against gay marriage, why? Because the bible condemns it. These “moderates” in America seem more geared towards fundamentalism, although their definitely are Christians who approve of gay marriage. The common person is starting to radiate against gay marriage, meaning that the moderate is becoming more fundamentalist. The liberals out their who disagree with the tenets of their faith are funding these people each time they go to church! The conservative party has a odd habit of basing their morals of 5000 year old texts. Liberals meanwhile, may adopt religion but will not base their ethics on it. However, having accepted that religious power comes from common people who will naturally choose the biggest religion, you must realize that these people pose a dual threat. First, they may adopt fundamentalist values themselves, and secondly, they are always endorsing the fundamentalist when they go to church. So if a new religion could be formed that would not only persuade liberals to go over to it, but also the moderates who may be adopting fundamentalist values, then the world would be a much better place. I will further on this idea in later posts.

humans do not have much knowledge about their own brains, although considerable progress is being made and we are starting to explore the brain. These "5 sanctums" I made do not necessarily exist in the brain, in fact they they definitely do not, but i found it interesting to put different human qualities into different sections.

The knowledgable- This is the sanctum of the brain where cold hard logic is put to place. This brain contains everything you have learned that is pure fact, information remembered from what you learned in your education makes up a big part of the knowledgable. In addition, you may use this knowledge in every day life extensively if you are a certain profession. This sanctum contains information about certain people that you do not know personally, and the information is usually not altered, but rather improved when new information is added on.
The intrapersonal- The intrapersonal sanctum of your brain contains information about yourself and how you may regard youself through your life. Since the image of yourself is constantly under scrutiny and change, this is often a highly active sanctum of your brain. Things in this sanctum are not nessecarily true, but nevertheless deemd extremely important by yourself. This is also one of the most cluttered sanctums of your brain often, which needs to be cleaned out often. It contains experiences in your life which are usually either not remembered or passed to the inferential sanctum of your brain. This part of your brain often effects how you carry yourself, how you talk, and how you act in public asa you try to represent a certain image in the other persons’ mind of yourself.
The interpersonal- The interpersonal sanctum of the brain is dedicated to your relationships with other people. It helps you decide what you think of other people and effects how you view other people. Friends and family may undergo scrutiny from this part of the brain which has the job of deciding the true nature of these people.
The inferential- The inferential sanctum of the brain is responsible for combining information from the other sanctums, especially the knowledgable, to make inferences about a something. It is ultimately a quick tool to decide what you should do based on experiences. It is also responsible for putting a label on something, called stereotyping. This brain may sometimes think deeply, but not nearly as deeply as the spiritual.
The spiritual or philosophical- This sanctum of your brain incorporates the most deep thinking, and tires your brain out quickly. This part of your brain is involved in think about the greater meaning in life, combining the other four sanctums together to decide where we came from, who we are, and why we are here. This sanctum of the brain seeks to discover other creatures as intelligent then us often, discover a divine nature in every one of us, discover a god, or discover the beauty of nature. In fact, this part of our brain is so powerful that it can often fool us into thinking beliefs unsupported by evidence. It is important to use this part of the brain as it is necessary to stay healthy, but also to treat it with caution.

This is probably full of errors and other mishaps, but I appreciate criticism and comments. I probably exaggerated a bit, but so did Orwell when he wrote "1984".

I swiftly walked down the New York harbor, fearing for my own safety as well as my father’s. But that is another story which I do not have the time to explain. I quickly sidestepped another man wearing the circle, symbolic of his faction in the ongoing war. I picked up the scent of poison gas and quickly made a turn to the left to avoid a death that seemed inevitable. I would soon be discovered as a heretic, not having enough loyalty to the church. After all,I had always drew suspicion to myself ever since I was brought up into the school of western religion, or the circle. I attempted to fit in, I even wore the clothes that were regulated by the government, except for one exception. Yesterday, my father gave me a shirt which had a small double helix on the bottom, which I heard many times was the sign of evil. He told me that I must wear this shirt each and every day, and the next day after he gave me this shirt he died. So I kept my promise that I would, although once somebody notice the helix on my shirt I would surely be sentenced to death. This is only my second day wearing the shirt, I am surprised that nobidy noticed the helix yet, which had been condemned as the sign of the devil in school. As I started walking home, my apartment door opened without resistance, and I stepped inside. Under the bed, I saw a book labeled “the origin of species”. As I opened the book, I realized that it included the word “scientific” inside the first page, what a dirty book! It is surely condemned by the church. Over the course of the next few days, I finished reading the book, which fascinated me. It seemed to be some myth from a foreign religion, surely false, but still extremely interesting. Everyone knew that the church’s plan of creation was by far the most truthful and accurate. Inside this book were all sorts of words either condemned by the church, or government, or words that I had never heard of. “Logic”, “rational”, and “reason” were the words of the devil included within this book. Then as I approached halfway through the book, I noticed a picture of the same double helix that was on the tunic my father have me! It was supposedly called “DNA”. I began to ponder if my father was a believer in such a religion, and if he really thought that the absurd ideas in this book were true! Oh well, I guess my intuition about my father was wrong, he was an enemy of the church! I did not sleep well that night, I was troubled with pictures of my father and the double helix which haunted my dreams. When I woke up that night, I discovered another book outside my doorway, which was titled “Secular government”. Another book! I was shocked, but I had to go to mandatory church. So I sat down, and heard the priest chant the usual creation law that the top theologians had discovered. When asked If I felt god, although I honestly did not the past week. When I returned home, I picked up “secular government”, and started reading it. Supposedly there had been somewhere called “America”, which had a secular government. This book was full of information that would be prohibited by the church and burnt. Most of the book I did not understand anyways, how could society exist without god? Since god is real why is it even worth any value to separate government from god? Then I saw one sentence that set myself on a new path.
“Question the church”. What a preposterous idea, yet it seemed that my father would be the sort of person to advocate it. So I decided to question the church and the authority that the possessed. I started asking what the world around me is called, instead of the concepts of the supernatural they church had proposed. Suddenly a word came into my head “nature”. I remember my father talking about nature in length to me, and I remember the churches priests yelling at him for using the word. As I fell asleep last night, I dreamed of trees, waterfalls, and other things that the church had abandoned to fight the church of the eastern triangle. When I woke up, as I started walking to work I spotted a man with the double helix one his waist band! Either a coincidence or this man somehow knew me. He slipped me a note that said “tomorrow morning: 8:00 follow me”. The next morning I woke up and ran to the door, then out of the corner of my eye I noticed the same man with the double helix on his belt. I slowly walked after him, the church would surely notice us following each other if we were too obvious. After following him for about two miles, he took a sharp turn into an alleyway, and gestured for me to catch up to him. I subtly caught up to him, and I suddenly fell to the ground and lost consciousness. I was surrounded by bars, and I saw a dark figure approaching me. It was the man with a double helix, who apparently was evil, but beside him was a man with the symbol of the western church. “You have been tricked”, he said. Was my father’s double helix an attempt to trick me? Why would my father want to do something like that? These questions pained me as I went to slowly fell to sleep in my cell. Cling! I felt a lash of pain on my back and I saw the face of the man with the double helix. Where did your father go?! “ I don’t k..n.o..w.. “ I stuttered. Another lash of pain came on my back, and I told him that my father died two days ago. Clearly, the man was dissatisfied as he walked away. I spent a day in my cell, wondering about the ideas that my father talked to me about nature and science, and quickly feel asleep that night.

I suddenly woke up and saw the face of a young man who looked about 25, yet his face showed somebody who has went through considerable suffering and struggle in his life. “Get up!” he yelled! I shuddered away, thinking that this was another man of the holy church, although on his belt was the sign of the double helix. “You are Sintay’s son right?”. “yes”, I replied. He quickly poured a liquid on the bars, which caused them to disintegrate into pure vapor. This was a phenomenon I had never seen, and was amazed by the power of this liquid, yet we did not get much time to observe the gaseous metal since the man quickly told me we did not have much time and we rushed along the halls of the prison. Quickly we made our way out of the prison and I was startled by the coolness of the air in the city. We made our way into a deserted alleyway and I paused thinking that I ended up in prison the last time I followed a man with the helix into an alleyway. Yet something about this man seemed to be almost familiar to me, so I followed him until we were at the end of the alleyway, and he muttered something unheard, and suddenly we both dropped into a dark subway…

We seemed to be moving extremely quickly, and suddenly the man started talking to me. Abruptly he stated “I knew your father”. I was so stunned at the man’s cold voice that I could not speak. Although in the past few days I had started appreciating the natural world much more, I still held complete trust in an omniscient deity, who is watching my every action with the keenest of eye. The man seemed to be anticipating my thoughts, for quickly he said “Don’t worry, god is absent right now”. Now, I was truly shocked, how could god somehow be absent in any part of the world? I was surprised that a man like this was not condemned as a heretic by the church or otherwise stricken down by the supreme being.

The man looked distressed, and said “the church has trained you to think in a certain way, yet have you not found the books I gave you wonderful”? This was the man whom delivered me the mysterious books! Suddenly a conversation sprung up between us about the various complexities in the book which he seemed to know a great deal about. Suddenly the train came to an abrupt halt, and we walked down into an underground corridor. We walked for about 5 minutes through a hallway with clear white glass, until we came upon a door made of solid steel. The man opened the door, and inside was a group of about fifteen men and women ranging from the age of about 20 to 70. Among them was my father, who was sitting in a white plaid coat looking quite content. Quickly, I ran up to him and we exhanged a benevolent, intense greeting, as I marveled at they very fact of him being alive. In his scruffly voice, he exlaimed “I faked my own death, the church had found I was a heretic”. Then, my father handed me a 5-inch packet while communicating “Please read this, you will have to if you wish to understand who these people are and why they are here”.

The packet had the title “the truth”. And a subtitle which read “this packet will be destroyed when dropped in water”. On the first page, the first sentence was “to understand this book, you must try to clear your mind of what you already know, keep an open mind.” Then after that it said “this book is pure fact, without bias or changing, and everything in this book happened in history”. I learned a great deal from this book, although I was unsure of the truth of it since it seemed highly contrary to the churches opinions. After I finished reading the book, I attempted to write a synopsis, this is my attempt to write one:

Before the Eastern and Western churches were formed, their were many different religions in the world , and each had different values and opinions on the world. However, their were two prominent faiths, or religions, which names are not important. Each of these religions had three different believers: Fundamentalists, moderates, and liberals. The liberals were the least dependent on the religion and regarded the religion with interpretation, while fundamentalists were the opposite, devoting their life to their religion, which caused them to believe that the word of the prophets are inerrant, or without error. Also, there were freethinkers, or the irreligious, which did not follow a religion. Their also used to exist something called “the scientific method”. Often the scientific method leads a person to conclude that a deity does not exist, which angered the religious fundamentalists. However, the liberals in a religion embraced the scientific method and explained it as “the poetry of reality”. Science, or the study of reality, was taught to children worldwide, and helped humankind advance in many ways. Their were many more freethinkers, since astronomy and physics often contradicted with religious beliefs. Fundamentalists attempted to have certain scientific theories banned from schools. Physics, which were attempting to discover a “theory of everything”, which explains the universe. Once this theory is discovered, god would be either revealed or proven impossible. Finally, the physical scientists discovered this theory, and this theory did not incorporate a god. However, a fundamentalist discovered this theory and could not believe it, so quickly he returned to a fundamentalist church and told them the news. Enraged, the church eradicated the formula, or theory of everything, and it was lost. However, the fundamentalists knew that this theory would soon be discovered by other physicists. So huckabee, president of the United States at the time, and fundamentalist, quickly ordered the army to go on a mission to destroy science. Science was destroyed, and Huckabee was convinced he was doing “god’s work”. After science was eradicated, he assumed dictatorship over the United States, which is the country that he led. He used the power of his army and weapons to destroy other developed nations who were largely secular, and finally forced religion on each and every person. Similar events occurred in the Eastern part of the world, leading to a dictator. Now the two sections of the world are in a stalemate, with two major powers. Although these occurrences may sound frightful, what about god? Soon that question was also answered. Since science did not even fully comprehend reality, how is it possible to understand the ruler of reality? Since it is impossible to comprehend the ruler of reality, all religions must be inherently false.. After I finished reading this packet, my dad smiled and opened the door. My father invited me to sit down and told me “now you know what really has happened to the world and the lies that organized religion spreads, but do you understand why we are here? Although the numbers of the country I have established are only about three million, we are not dedicated to warring with the other two nations in the world. We are the world’s only hope to preserve knowledge and science. If we are vanquished, then humankind will lose all knowledge of the universe and turn into a permanent theocracy. Hopefully, one day people will come to their senses, rebel against the church, and we will help with the rebellion. However, until that date we must perform the duty to humanity so save knowledge and science from the entangling roots of faith, and the futile attempts of organized religion to somehow comprehend a god, if there is one at all. We even hold a copy of “the theory of everything”, in our archives, although only I and my advisors around me have ever seen it.

After reading a variety of fascinating articles about post humanism and the possibility of uploading, I came upon a question. Although the philosophy of personal identity asks similar questions to the ones I will be asking, I feel mine put a new perspective on the issue. First of all, you know that you existed your whole life, you are an individual person. Let's say when you die thier is no afterlife, for this article's sake. Proponents of post-humanism declare that a person can be basically resurrected after they die with all of their experiences and genetics intact. So let's go back to death, when the person dies their consciousness ends forever. Now, once supposedly resurected is this really the same person? If you were to change a single genetic or experience, would the person who died really be being ressurected, or would it be a near clone, an entirely different person? I would love comments and insights on this issue.

Although litttle sayings we have like "oh my god" or "god forbid", I hear both atheists and theists say, sometimes the use of god in everyday language goes a bit too far. The horrific hurricane that recently struck was of course credited to god by Pat Robertson and other dogmatic fundamentalists, yet hatians also credited some of the people who were saved to god. God, was not responsible for these actions, but people were. In fact, I see this as a recurring theme in society these days, when people were saved it was "because of god" and the saviors were simply "god's tools". Now believe in god or not, this is definitely going too far with god in society. Instead of focusing on the supposed greatness of god, why not instead focuse on the basis of soemthing which very much exists in reality? In a world ridden with greed and terror, god may be a source of hope, yet the least religious countries are often the most sucessful. Anyways, we must seek out goodness in humanity and realize that their are stil people willing to guniely do good for the sake of humanity, not god. Quoting the daily news

" Joyful witnesses shouted "God lives" as Jean Mercilien pulled Paul Derlice, 4, out from under the rubble of his apartment building, where he had been buried alive for three days.

Although I did not think of the ideas in these questions myself, I find pondering them can enhance your view on life. I may answer some of them in further posts, but the simple questions are enough to invoke awe and wonder.

1) what is the nature of the universe? Where does it come from? Of what is it made? How did it come to exist? What is its purpose? By what process does it change? Is it evolving or devolving? Does it function by itself or would it degenerate to chaos without some kind of intelligent control?

2) Is there a Supreme Being? If so, what is His nature?

3) What is the place of man in the universe? Is man the highest fruit of the universe or is he just an insignificant speck in infinite space—or something in between?

4) Does the spirit of man descend into matter from higher spiritual realms, or has it evolved from matter?

5) Is the universe conscious or unconscious of man? If it is aware, is it warm and friendly to him, or cold and indifferent, or even hostile?

6)) what is reality?

7) What is mind?
(a) What is thought? Is thought real?

(b) Where do ideas come from?

8) Are there laws that control thought?

9) Which is superior: mind or matter?

10) Has mind created matter or has matter evolved mind?

11) What determines the fate of each individual?

12) Is man a creator and mover of his life, or does he lives at the effect of forces over which he has little control?

13) Does free will exist or are our lives determined by outside factors—and if so, what are those factors?

14) Is there a Supreme Force that intervenes in our lives?

(a) Or is everything pre-determined from the beginning of time;

(b) Or is life just random, full of coincidence and accident?

15 What is good and what is bad or evil?
(a) What is moral?

(b) What is ethical?

16 Who decides good and bad, right and wrong; and by what standard?

17 Is there an absolute standard of good and bad beyond one’s the personal opinions?

18 Should good and bad be determined by custom, by rational law, or by the situation? do we have no choice.

19 What is the ideal relation between the individual and the state? Should the individual serve the state or the state serve the individual? What is the best form of government and what is the worst? When is a man justified in rebelling against the established order and creating a new state?

20 What happens at death? Is death the end of everything or is there a soul in man that continues to exist beyond death? If so, is that soul immortal or does it too eventually cease to exist? If the soul does continue to exist after death, what is the nature of that existence? If there is an existence after death, is “good” rewarded and “bad” punished? If so, how do you reconcile this with the concept of predestination? __________________

Culture. Most of the time, when people think of culture ideas come up of ethnic practices and in general, culture is a positive word. However, I think culture is something to be treated with skepticism, as it does not always produce positive results. Traditional cultural practices are considered cherished parts of a society. But what are the negative effects of culture and ethnicity. First of all, culture divides people similarly to religion and nationality. Sure, two people from different cultures marry all the time, but it is always harder to do. Culture contributes to the separation of humanity into different groups in society. People tend to be "in their own little world", and do not see that humans are all extremely similar to on another, most people in certain cultures are far more alike people in other cultures then people in their own. People do not necessarily have to be racist to contribute to this negativity in culture. Many people simply want their "way of life" divided from people in other cultures. However, ones own personal identity is tied to one's culture, which is a betreyal of the sense of an individual. The most extreme cases are of course when parents do not let their children intermarry into different cultures, yet even the more open tend to favor people of their own culture over others? Why? Because of a random accident of birth, if they were born into another culture they would surely judge other cultures as not necessarily lesser, but different. Some tend to hold the "separate but equal" motto. Yet this will eventually cause for people to self-identify more with their own culture, which will inevitably cause indifference and hate. Culture and tradition do not hold any treasures for humanity, it is only a weak attempt to cling onto practices at childhood. Imagine a world with no culture. Imagine a world where each human identified with nobody but themselves. Imagine a world where people to not hold on to countries, religions, or cultures. Imagine a world where the only difference of us all was our different perspectives on political, scientific, and philosophical ideas, which are gruonded on logic and reason. Imagine a world in which we identify as humans instead of Americans.

After learning about Ayn Rand and her philosophy, I must say that I agree with almost all of the concepts of objectivism, which supposedly leads to laissez faire capitalism. Regarding personal rights, I believe that a person can (and should) be free participate in whatever activities in their life that they want as long as they are not having an affect on another person's happiness. Actually, I find objectivism to be full of great ideas back up by evidence except one: Laissez faire capitalism. Now, objectivism does lead to personal rights, as each living thing should have freedom. But why does it lead to a restriction of economic rights? I am not an economic analyst so I will not delve into complex arguments about capitalism, socialism, and communism, yet does economic regulation really restric your rights? Let's say that the socialists and communists are right, that the poor working class fairs off better with a more regulated economy. Although economic freedom may be restricted, if the human species benefits as a whole from this occuring, then why should these rights not be restricted? Objectivism should not be an argument for capitalism. Yes, each human should have control over what they do, but not if they are harming others, which these business owners often do intenionally or uninentionally. It is often argued that the market is "natural" and the government need not interfere for it to be successful. Well, their was a time when the government decided not to interfere at all with the market, in the 1800s, and this lead to sweatshops and tenements. Objectivism holds that man ought to do what he wants as long as he does not infterfere with others rights. In a perfect world, this would work. But men are greedy, and laissez faire capitalism may make it harder for the working class to have their own "rational self-interest", and freely pursue their life as they have smaller leisure time, and do not have the freedom to increase these leisure time . Now, the above is what socialists and communists think about laissez faire capitalism. So capitalism can only fit into objectivism If, and only if, it functions better then socialism or communism. does it? Nobody really knows the absolute answer to this question, which is why it is being hotly debated. But for objectivists similiar to myself, lets take a look around at the different political ideologies before deciding to jump to capitalism.

I generally want to post my own ideas on this blog, but after reading “unweaving the rainbow”, I feel is only just to share some of Dawkins ideas with the world. One of the most poetic concepts about humanity and the universe is simply the chance that we existed. Quoting Richard Dawkins
“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.”
Thinking about the relatively tiny chance that you exist makes the universe seem all the more greater and more complex. Yes, we lead relatively short lives in comparison to the almost infinite cosmos, yet we are lucky to be born in a universe that we can observe. Putting it simply, you should not exist. To express the chance that you will exist, try this simply experiment. Put 10 marbles of different colors in a bag. Let the blue marble represent “you”. For the blue marble to exist, it needs to be picked randomly more than 15 times in a row, or ten to the fifteenth power. Lets pretend its 10 to the tenth power, letting the chance that you exist go up a bit; but the numbers are easier to work with. Ten to the tenth power is ten billion, now remember that chance you exist is much tinier then one in ten billion. Anyways, theoretically the chance that you exist is more than the chance you would win a lottery in which every person in the world would sign up. You would probably not even spend your time to sign up for such a lottery, yet you will realize “that you very much are alive”, as Dawkins said. We may die some day, as Dawkins says, but that makes us the lucky ones, the ones to exist and spend a short time looking at this world that we have around us. Why is their such a small chance that we exist though? First of all, there is a high chance that this universe would not have the characteristics we needed to live, and instead other intelligent organisms would have developed here. Of course, we were also lucky that our solar system formed, which was in just the perfect place for our kind of life. Then we got lucky when the first organism came from the primordial soup, and eventually evolved into our kind of life. Then your family tree had to dodge numerous marriages that would have resulted in you not existing. Finally, you were not aborted early, and you have the certain genetics that make your yourself.

protest to the pledge
By David DeMatteo

I wrote this in a "protest" format for fun.

Today I would like to perform my duty as a student and as an American by questioning the government and lawmaking authorities, which have higher authority than I. Before presenting the issue, which I would like to be solved, I would like you to know that I am deeply interested and deeply dedicated to equality, politics, and atheism. The issue I wish to present is one that ultimately must be solved at a national scale, however I have not yet obtained the ability to influence people in such a way. However, I think I can make a substantial impact on the policies of the local community and school. So I have come forth with an event that happens every day, which according to the constitution, should not. I trust that you are familiar with the principle of separation of church and state, a fundamental principle when the founding fathers created the United States Constitution. Separation of church and state can be split into 4 basic principles:
1. People can run for office regardless of what religion they believe or if they believe in religion at all.
2. What religion you believe or do not believe should not influence or impact your chance of winning a political office.
3.Public school cannot promote religion in school, promote not believing in religion in school, and therefore the schools must be secular.
4. Public school cannot treat, offer, or in any way treat a certain child in a different way based on what religion they believe or if they believe in a religion at all.
The principle being violated every day is the third, so I must explain in more detail about this principle. The promotion of religion in a school does not necessarily have to be something that is forced upon the students, but merely a certain thing that is said to the students that conveys the school’s views about religion. I am not an absolutist, so of course remarks by the teachers or the occasional “Oh my god” will not be considered to be violating church and state. However, a certain practice that is part of the school’s schedule that may impress a view on religion or a view against religion is definitely violating the principle of separation of church and state. Oddly, every day we are not only hearing a remark about god on the loudspeaker, but we are encouraged to say it. I am talking about the pledge of allegiance, which is a direct promotion of god. The pledge of allegiance may be memorized, but just to refresh it I shall state it. It reads:
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.
The words that must be focused on are “under god”. Literally, the term means that our country is under god, and that god is above us. Metaphorically the term under god means that god is watching over our nation and that our country is blessed. Either way, god is supposedly completely existent, which conflicts with atheistic beliefs, and not only is he supposedly existent, but the United States must pay tribute to him! For some reason, people cannot accurately imagine being in the atheist’s “shoes” when they hear this pledge, so I will offer an alternative. Imagine that you were brought up to be an orthodox Jew, had a bar mitzvah, and had a strong belief in Judaism. Yet every day when you go to school imagine having to say “one nation, under Allah”. Allah is the Islam god, and the same way that a Jew would feel when he is encouraged to make a statement contradictory to his religious beliefs at school is the way an atheist will feel when he hears the worlds “under god”; he would feel alien. Some argue that this represents the nation and not the school, yet saying it in school each and every day implies that the school also believes there is a god.
The government puts the pledge into our school because they want the students to be patriotic and adopt the ideals of our nation. Adopting and learning these ideas is essentially education through hard repetition of saying these ideals every day, and if god is one of them you are essentially learning to believe in god! Some argue that I have the choice to sit out, which is a valid argument but easily proven wrong. While I do have the choice to sit out for the pledge, it is embarrassing, looked down upon, and some teachers may urge you to recite the pledge. Even if I did sit out, the school would be promoting a religious activity that contradicts with separation of church and state. Every child is hearing the words under god in the whole building, and repeating them because most students do not have enough will power to try to take a stand. If the pledge of allegiance is supposedly recited as an example of patriotism, then does not reciting it make you not patriotic? If I choose to sit down through the pledge of allegiance then I could be considered non-patriotic. Therefore, not only does the pledge of allegiance contradict secularity, but also insults the American Constitution.
If we are a nation under god then of course only people who are religious should be running for a political office since the nation is under a god, after all the pledge of allegiance represents a perfect American. Now, imagine reversing all of the words in the Pledge of allegiance. So it would go something like this:
“ I pledge allegiance, to the flag of the United States of America, and to the dictatorship for which it stands, a separated nation, under no god, with suppression and tyranny for all.
I certainly do not equate my religious belief of atheism with tyranny and suppression. America does not seem a place welcome to atheists according to what I hear at school every day, but America seems like a religious nation where I can not be a good American if I do not uphold the value of believing in god. The ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Indivisibility are obviously more important than their counterparts, therefore the idea of god is supposedly more valuable then it’s counterpart, not being under god. Also, children attach onto principles they learn at a young age, and the school is essentially attaching the belief of religion to these students.
Another popular argument is that the founding father’s made this pledge, and they deserve to have their words recited every day as a reminder of their greatness. I agree with this, however, the words “under god” were not originally included in the pledge of allegiance; they were added in officially in 1954. Why 1954? Well, in the middle of the twentieth century their was a great deal of thinking about religion, and atheism was on the rise, so religious Republicans decided to pass a law that the words “under god” be a part of the pledge of allegiance. Thankfully, many schools are beginning to abandon the words “under god” as they betray secularity. It is time to take another step in lessening the struggle of being an atheist in the United States, and creating a more friendly environment for atheists who already live in a world where belief is the dominating doctrine. Thankfully, although many good things may seem to be vanishing in our current economic state, the secularity in public education is only increasing.
Many schools have permanently decided to abandon “ under god”. These schools tend to be situated in areas, which are more liberal and democratic. As you probably know, New York in general is one of the most liberal states. Instead of completely terminating the words “ under god”, why not replace the words with an ideal that the United States has always represented. I have thought of a couple, but in my view it would be best to let the student body pick what words we should substitute in. The two that seems most prominent and best fitted in this situation are:
1.“ One nation, under democracy”, and
2. “ One nation, governed by equality”
Thank you for taking your time to read my proposal, and I hope that our school can be one that is a model for others, a school which is determined to provide a environment which is friendly to all students no matter of the race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, intelligence, disabilities, or religious belief of a certain student.

After reading all of the "new atheist" books, I am surprised that their simply are not any argument concerning the incomprehensibility of god. In fact, I have never seen any sort of argument from incomprehensibility, or problem of incomprehensibility of a god. Science is the study of reality, while religion is the study of what supposedly "transcends" reality. Since god is outside of reality, he "transcends reality", and exists outside of time and space. Being the creator of the universe, god must have always existed in order to not be subject to infinite regress. Those are the traits of a non-religious god, but with a religious god the deity also has traits which often resemble humans. The first objection that I will make to god is understanding the actual being who created the universe without even understanding his creation. Scientists do not know exactly how subatomic particles function, and we are yet to know the true nature of the universe. Before studying the creator, we should first study the creation. Secondly, different religions have conflicting gods. These gods contradict each other, so either one of these religions is true or non of them are true. Accepting that one is true, how will be possibly determine which one is true? People rarely convert to a separate religion then they were indoctrinated in as a child. Thirdly, since a god exists outside of space and time how do we connect with this deity? If a god actually does exist outside of space and time, then how can we possibly interact with something that does not even exist in reality. People may supposedly have "experiences", but each of these experiences tend to correlate to their own religion. Priests report that they talk to a god, yet how likely is it that a Christian priest speaks to Allah or the Jewish god? The only way we can learn about god is by interaction, but how does an entity outside of the universe interact with people very much in the universe? So god must broadcast a radio wave from outside the universe to inside somebody's brain, but it is evident this god is not actually doing this since their are many religions that percieve god in different ways. Fourthly, gods have always had human characteristics and traits that are incompatible. The christian god punishes people for eternity for simply being brought up in a rival belief system, while also supposedly being all-loving. The believer could say that their god does not do this, yet that is not believing in the innerancy of their holy text, which should be innerant as a god supposedly inspired this text. And if the person denies that the god inspired the text, then what credence does this text hold in the first place? And finally, god must be more complex then his creation. This is the boeing 747 argument, but even if god does exist how are we supposed to comprehend this wild complexity? One of the most commons subjections to the beoing 747 argument is that god is "simple" since he is merely spirit. Furthermore, believers point out that we control our brains which are extremely complex. Yet we did not create our brain, nature did. Yet god created the universe himself. Even though god could exist and be extremely complex, how do we understand a god which is so complex? How do we know what a being feels and experiences which has no experiences? Each religion has their own story and presupposes that they are the only true path. Although belief in a god does not bother me, believing that you know god, his traits, and how this deity wants you to act is surely based on complete speculation. In a world where people base many of their core moral and ethical beliefs on god, they should rethink how much they truly "know" this god.

Conquering the Inevitable: The Plan for the Continuance of Human Civilization Against All Odds

One of the most profound human desires is to discover why we exist, and learn how we can contribute as individuals to human civilization. There are many different views on this philosophical question. Some views use evidence when proposing the answer to this question, other views use myth and unjustified evidence when answering this question. There are many different unjustified views, which are effectively different religions, and many different justified views, which are intertwined with secular beliefs.Modern scientists have found that the percentage chance of human existence is extremely low, even more then a decimal followed by more then fifty zeros. However, the amount of planets in the universe is a number bordering on the edge of infinity, so by counting accumulation in, life is almost definite to occur somewhere. The amount of planets far outweighs the percent of life occurring on a random planet, so there must be many planets with life. Not only will life occur abundantly, but also evolution by natural selection will eventually produce intelligent beings such as us. According to the above, there should be numerous times in which we come into contact with extraterrestrial beings. After all, scientists are beginning to find more and more planets with earth-like characteristics capable of supporting life. So why have we not had contact with extraterrestrial beings? Well, my theory is that there must have been a great filter, which eliminates the chance of a civilization surviving.The great filter can be any event, which would occur in any civilization of intelligence around or higher than ours that would cause the termination of the entire species. We can only hope that we have gotten past this filter, or the continuance of humanity is at great risk. But as scientists find more and more life, we can assume that this filter is probably not behind us. If we found an extraterrestrial civilization, which has reached a stage of technology millions of years ahead of ours, then that is theoretically good news. After all, if they survived the filter, then the filter is probably in our past. However, we did not encounter a civilization like this, so I can only assume this filter is ahead of us. One of the most plausible theories I have come up with is the theory that all other extraterrestrial civilizations were destroyed by the first extraterrestrial civilization. However, technically we would have already been terminated, since a civilization of this power would surely have produced instruments, which can detect life. Ruling out that theory, the only possible great filter I can see ahead of us is self-termination. To understand this theory, we must first look at the history of science and technology. Technology has always been making new tools which can both harm and help us over the years, and has done so at a steady pace. However, if you take a closer look at technology you see that new inventions are becoming more and more abundant. Consider that the car, the computer, the cell phone and the nuclear bomb were all created in the last century. Having 4 such important inventions occurring in the same century seems preposterous when compared with technological advancement in other, earlier centuries. In fact, the rate at which technology is being produced is increasing rapidly. To better understand the increase in technology, an analogy might be helpful. Look at the way Bacteria reproduce. Starting out with 1 bacterium, the amount of bacteria double every generation. Here is the list of bacteria per generation: 1st: 1, 2nd: 2, 3rd: 4, 4th:8,5th:16, 6th:32, 7th:64. So the rate at which bacterium, or new inventions in our case, is being reproduced faster as time goes on. Keep in mind that technology also advances, so more dangerous and more helpful technology is both rapidly being increased. But who would want the extermination of the entire race, after all that does include themselves as well as the rest of humanity; so even the most self-absorbed people would not be compelled to commit such a crime. Only people who think that the extermination of humankind would somehow benefit themselves would terminate humankind. But how would it benefit themselves if they are dying in the process? If you have not yet unearthed what kind of person would do this, you must have a rather peculiar habit of avoiding the media. Many surveys reveal that many Muslims living in the Middle East have the opinion that suicide bombing provides rewards for the bomber. So in many fanatics’ minds, the extermination of humankind would be the ultimate success. Since technology which can ultimately result in self-termination is becoming more and more abundant, the chances of this technology getting into the wrong hands is only becoming greater. The challenge of stopping existential risks is a unique one, since we have not had experiences with them nor is it possible to while still surviving. The first existential risk and the only one at the moment is a nuclear holocaust occurring. While nuclear power obviously has many benefits, the danger of nuclear weapons far outweighs the benefits. Many countries are in possession of technology, which can potentially cause the extermination of humankind, and the war between any two of them would be catastrophic. While the specific name of the technologies do not matter, technology will surely be developed that is hundreds of times more dangerous then nuclear weapons. So what should our worldview be? Should we begin a stage of technological abandonment, returning to a more natural world? No, this is not necessary and it would not be in the best interest of humanity to go backwards instead of forwards. Should we abandon all hope, adopting a nihilistic worldview? No, there are ways to stop this problem. There are two ways in which humankind may terminate them selves with technology: 1. Two countries having a war with each other that each has these existential weapons. And 2. A person using weapons that can cause the extermination of humankind based on religious views that promote suicidal action. To stop the 1st problem religious, ancestral, and national racism must be dissolved. No one should favor another person based on their religion, nationality, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, or any other factors similar to the ones mentioned above. This could become possible by the founding of a world government, which allows each country to have their own national laws, but this world government has the capability to outlaw laws, which are unjust. The world government will prevent war and racism and to some extent the second problem. However, a policy must be adopted which says something like the following: A technology with only harmful purposes cannot be produced, and a technology with harmful and helpful purposes must have a defense mechanism which can prevent the harm that could potentially be caused by this technology. These two solutions would provide a check on technology, and allow human civilization to conquer the great filter lying ahead of us; and allow human colonization to venture into the deepest depths of the cosmos…