Addendum:

Still trying to figure out but... basically, I think what I'm doing is to "find out meanings" of the real world. It does exist without meanings, and it might be science that proves that.

But what can you possible say, by looking at something like brain functions, about... let's use the same example here, a relationship between teacher and students? You always need meanings to make sense of events. If you are studying brain functions only, you probably wouldn't need to think about what it means (I bed you still do...) but any kind of science and logics are always associated with human reasonings.

If you don't know about OUR methodologies, we don't just believe word to word of an interview data or the result of questionnaires. For example, there is a methodology called triangulation in sociology. We search for evidences to check the validity of interpretation of the raw data, using as "empirical" evidences as possible.

Plus, science has made people believe that everything is in our brain... and I think a lot of people believe that science of human-being is all sorted out by studying nervous system or biological composition of our body... psychology had so much influence by those scientific views too.

But it's becoming to be doubted to see human-beings in that way, and within the last decades, the importance of environmental stimulus have been studied as triggers of human behaviors. What we do cannot necessarily be explained by measuring stuff inside of us.

For example, people thought that babies learn to walk at a certain point and the process of walking is designed by genes in a universal developmental process of human beings. After a baby start moving its legs, while still lying upwards, there is a certain point when it loses the movement and become still until it starts clawing on the floor. And it's been believed that those phases are genetically determined.

Of course certain movements become able supported by development of muscles and bones, but as the body weight of a baby increases, the movement is restricted and even with the physical abilities, it "seems" like they stop moving their legs for some developmental reasons. But when researchers put some equipments on babies to help reduce the weight (gravity is working as an environmental factor) on legs, they start moving their legs again... and with something to step on (environmental factor) (e.g. treadmill), they learn to walk faster than it's been expected for long.

It's all interactive...

The example above is "scientific", but this is something studied in a field of "psychology" as well... my point is that we do examine more than what's called subjective, in order to figure out factors working behind human behaviors. And I feel like it's all the name of academic principles that's bothering you to think that "other than science"" is fuzzy and and not valuable.

Science is more objective?

I was going to put my original post, but since Andrew started a similar topic, here's something I wrote in reply to Andrew's note...

Andrew wrote:

We might not be able to ever get to perfect objectivity. It sometimes feels like our very own objectivity lies inside a large pool of subjectivity.
Does this mean that everything is fake unless we observe it?
Subjectively, this is true but objectively this is false..I would wager.
Then again, you can never really get true objectivity...we can get close. That's basically what science is.
There's this view that science should take into consideration that it is not the ultimate point of view. It's just a really good one inside a sphere of a better point of view...a more comprehensive point of view and one that is more human. I don't know what you would call this but I have heard several of my smart friends talk about this.

Basically, one aspect of the argument is that science CAN have some inherent flaws because humans use science and it can be a human perspective. Science is based on observation but our observations could be wrong....but my question is:

Wrong to who? In what way would it be wrong...or just not entirely correct?

Just the fact that you can say that and think that gives your argument some kind of credibility? I need more than that. If you're saying that there is a better view than science and that science should use that view in its pursuits then that is interesting but it just feels like...well...OK, this is just me but science for me brings me out of my own experience. It's so objective that I don't even feel like me sometimes...it's just an objective entity...this other view you're talking about sounds like you're talking about something that is much less objective and when it comes to feeling "more human" because of its subjectivity, I feel very...awkward. It's like a fake scientific view ...trying to be something...subverting the real scientific view...coming through the backdoor...It's like...you're trying to propose something better than science but...why can't THAT be science? I guess you feel it's so subjective that there's no way real empirical evidence can ever be really obtained ....but that's just negative thinking, right?

Tomo wrote:

Interesting. I have to emphasize that my point is not to say that there are something better than science, but to say that I agree with your idea of "getting close".

Now that being said, first, I feel like what brings you out of your own experience is the logic/reasoning behind the science. Plus, the difference with stuff what you call "other than science" is whether or not the object of research could be explained enough by a mere set of physical observations. you might be able to STUDY it scientifically, but that doesn't mean the scientific explanations could represent the whole phenomena you really wanna know about. For example, how would you SCIENTIFICALLY explain social interactions that happen in a classroom SO IT HELPS PREDICT a set of events or result of interactions in future?

And, researchers in the field of "other than science" are aware that they COULD do it other ways... they just seek for better ways to DESCRIBE EVENTS, not just a group of physical objects but more complicated events including the concept of TIME (and PROCESS) (not just the condition of starting point and the ending point but the process of gradual change)... and that doesn't mean that they think science is not the better way but they just are not interested in the non-dynamic standstill explanations.

I feel like whether or not something is empirical is not the matter of subjectivity/objectivity.

Like you said that something well defined has boundaries, I feel like science gives rigid boundaries to understanding of real world and sometimes loses "the whole dynamics" of things going on in the world.

God and America

God is a position. It's not a name. I hate how everyone always gets this confused. "God" is not a name. It's a position that some being fills. Christians fuck this up all the time. Under old tradition, Yahweh was too holy of a name to say so people just started saying "god." That's how it evolved basically.

Again, people are confused about America. The pilgrims didn't write the Constitution and they did not make America in anyway. They still considered themselves British at the time. They did indeed leave for religious purposes but this has nothing to do with our Constitution. Go about 150 years later and then you have Deists (not Christians for the most part) making the country and writing the Constitution, etc. You gotta be really careful not to mistake the word "God" with the Christian god. Many time, it very well could have been just the Deist god...not Yahweh.



So don't confuse:

1.) God: the position and the being

2.) the Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers

Addendum to the Previous Critique

Other parts of the Bible do mention about those topics but basically this is just a critique on the Ten Commandments. If you think it's a perfect and exhaustive list, please think again.

A Critique on the Ten Commandments

 Most Christians will agree that The Ten Commandments are the most perfect set of moral rules ever created. This is old news to a lot of people but I think that for a lot of the people that read this it might not be. The Ten Commandments have nothing to say about 

child molestation

rape

genocide

slavery

homophobia

women's, gay, whoever's rights in general


Also, people like to say that the Old Testament is not really the thing you should follow but that's where the Ten Commandments show up. Why are people saying both? Maybe the argument is that the Ten Commandments are so powerful they supercede whatever Covenant they happen to be in but I don't think most people are thinking that far. 

Basically, the thing needs to be updated. These are Bronze Age rules. We need something a little newer than that.

Places I've Never Been To But Want to Visit

By the way, just zoom out on the map below.

Places I've Been So Far

 

And More to Come

Euthyphro's Dilemma

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro:

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)


In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into:

"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

The dilemma has continued to present a problem for theists since Plato presented it and it is still an object of theological and philosophical debate. 


My Thoughts:

1.) Some people might think that this is not a problem because whatever is "hereditary" in the universe is that way because God said so...and so God can still be considered the answer here...however..This is still not a complete or acceptable answer. 


2.) No one usually thinks this far so who gives a fuck anyway, right? 

3.) This is the part that I heard mostly when I was a kid and maybe as I get older the kinds of people that say the following are leaving my friend group but (and this is something that I've always hated and not understood) some people will say that you're wrong or just not trustworthy when you've done research like this because God is so apparent to them. It's so easy and natural. Something MUST be wrong we a person that has to do all this book learnin' (objective research). These kinds of people only trust people with instincts that lead them to their spiritual conclusion because that's how they did it. So the thing that is so frustrating here is that they can't fucking listen. The more you research and the more knowledgeable you become the less of a reliable resource you are to these people. It makes you go insane sometimes. 

4.) The counter-argument to this (and this is similar to the previous one) is that God cannot go against his nature and so this throws a wrench into the works but still...this is only hearsay really. How the fuck do you justify that claim? 

Part 2

same thing. I think that if people are going to view then viewing this idea of God would be best viewed outside of any filter...outside of any religion. If God exists, then he/it/she whatever exists outside of religion just as a flower is not a Christian idea ....it's just a flower. You can look at it from all points of view but mainly it's just a flower. If there is a metaphysical force keeping the universe together that we are in contact with personally or not at all then it just exists...outside of religion. 

End Transmission.

Part 1

The only thing I have to say about "personal event" making/helping people believe in the Christian or any specific God is that I think it's quite suspect that if something supposedly "supernatural" happens in someone's life they automatically thank the God they know most when if it's supernatural it could have been anything. It could have been Buddha. Who knows? The main contradiction here I find is that Muslims and people of other religions will call whatever they see as "supernatural" and ascribe that event to the god they know the most already. One argument against what I'm saying right now could be that "well I prayed for this to a specific god to happen and it did so obviously it's real" however this kind of thing is said by all people of any faith really. If Christians were the only people getting their prayers answered I would be impressed but that is just not the case. Why do Spanish people always talk of seeing saints but Protestants never do? It should be the same religion.


Protestants will just say that those Spanish Catholics with their saints are just crazy but the same is said the other way around and the amount of confusion within one religion is just too much for me. There should be one central source in one religion...especially if it's monotheistic. You could say the source is Jesus but at the same time why are these Spanish Catholics and Catholics in general always talking of seeing saints in visions or Mother Mary? Why are those visions crazy but those of Jesus are not? It's just nuts to me. 

To me, the way I view religion is general is man trying to cope with the knowledge of his own death. That's how it was created kind of. A lot of it today is just remaining from a time when people did not have a scientific worldview. Bronze age mentalities in the nuclear age will just not go well for too long. If there is a God in the sense that the Judeo-Christian-Muslim says there is then I'd say that all religions are just filters ...ways of seeing the

Historicity and Inerrancy: A Conversation With a Friend

Andrew Bushさん 4月25日 13:06
There is a shitload of errors in the Bible. There's just recently a book out about this called "Discrepancies in the Bible" and another called something like the Untold Story of Jesus or something like that. Even within Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John...none of the books agree on who was actually there at the tomb. Some say 1 guy some say two. Some say 1 angel some say 2. It's fucking ridiculous because it's supposed to be eye-witness accounts of the greatest story ever told and simple stuff like that doesn't even hold. There's ALL kinds of stuff like that. The Bible is inconsistent. I'm sorry if I offend someone but it would be good if you would notice it if you haven't already. This comment is not so much for you, Friend, but for your audience.


Friendさん 4月26日 1:01
Andrew,
your post is exactly the flipside of what scares me about fundamentals.

First I would like to say, I think you missed my thesis completely.

This is not really a note about inconsistencies in the Bible.
Its a note about how that doesnt matter.
No one expects any other grouping of eye witness accounts in the world to match up evenly. For that to be the case, both the 5 senses and memory of all 4 writers would have to be flawless...at least.

What this note is about is how imposing the idea of perfection on the bible is an irrelevant in the debate.

The presence of discrepencies or errors does not prove validity or invalidity, as it does not for any other historical account ever given. I would encourage you to read my main arguement again.

Your arguement suffers from the same fallacy that the fundamentalists' does.
errors are irrelavent, what is the realy issue is the degree of reliability of over all historicity.

Friendさん 4月26日 1:12
i would encourage you read more of the objective (as possible) scholarship on the formation of the texts.

If for no other reasons than one, as an outspoken opponent of Christianity it is your ethical and intellectual duty to do so -

as well as out of just a deep appreciation of the religious history of mankind - much as i study other religions - not to be polemical or apologetical per se- but just out of respect and the search of knowledge. - Youmight find this to strengthen you polemics...or to form an apologetic.

As a personal side note, your opinions are always welcome here, no matter how antagonistic.

I love dialogue with disbelief.

but please interact with me, as I want to interact with you...lets use this as more of an intellectual forum as opposed to a soapbox.
ive never cared much for hard edged preaching - christian or anti-christian.


Andrew Bushさん 4月26日 1:17
I re-read it your post. I have to admit that I skimmed it the first time. Sorry about that. I like to just blur things out sometimes. I still don't see what you're saying when you say that "reliability of overall historicity" is important but errors are not. I understand that the gist is there but my main position is that under my definition the Bible is not perfect and definitely not in the case of consistency. If you could clarify for me what exactly you mean by "reliability of overall historicity" and errors and how exactly these two are separate, I think I would be able to understand more. Thanks for the conversation.


Friendさん 4月26日 1:37
what im saying is that if nothing else the gospels (and that is really the specific part im talking about right now)
-if nothing else they are historical documents.
now as historical documents we have to decide wether or not they are reliable.
to do this it is better to try to forget eveything you ever learned from both christians that are ignorant and are trying to push an agenda on you as well as the anti-christian feelings that years of having christianity dumped on you has casued.

- Instead...I propose that we just read them as historical writings and try to figure out whether, flawed or not, do they give a somewhat reliabile picture of events that happened 2000 years ago. Academically there is a really good case to say that the text has been relatively unaltered since it was written down..so the original message is there.
we cant appeal to it being altered or changed...that argument is invalid, becasue due to the number of manuscripts...etc,

Friendさん 4月26日 1:45
we have more of reason to think that the New Test is a better depiction of what early Christianity actually looked like than much of other history...Christians are prolific...and from the perspective of history the more writings you have and the further thaey go back...the more accurate picture you are likely to have.

Now alot of people are going to look at the accounts and say it is likely that some of it is true, but miracles do not happen, so all of it cannot be true.

I would say that this is really more of us projecting our preconceptions on the texts.
To be honest, scientifically we dont know if miracles happen.
Because lets be honest, agnosticism is a better choice that atheism. and when it comes down to it if someone tells you they know theres not a God they are either lying or decieving themselves. We cant know things like that by ourselves...we dont have the capability.
Now of someone says they know there is a God, they are either lying, decieving themselves, or


Andrew Bushさん 4月26日 1:45
I think that there have been some changes here and there throughout history but for the most part they are probably left fairly unchanged from their original states....based on my knowledge. I am willing to of course look at these documents as historical. I look at the Epic of Gilgamesh as an historical document. The problem for is when people try to say that these documents are true. Being "historical"...or, in my definition, something written down a long time and having some impact on society, has nothing to do with what was written being true or not. I recognize these are historical texts but I do not think a lot of it actually happened.

This is the sidenote of what we're talking about but some research I've come across is that one of the things that was altered was the story of Lazarus. Jesus, apparently, did not raise him from the dead in the first version. He de-excommunicated him which made church officials even more angry iwth Jesus and could explain how it could have been

Andrew Bushさん 4月26日 1:47
changed into "raised from the dead" (cast out of excommunicaton). The guy's name, that I forget now, that made this change is also recorded...somewhere....I can get to that later if it comes up again...


Friendさん 4月26日 1:54
they are right, because He or it or whatever, could have actually initiated a relationship with that person. Our faculties of knowledge are small, but if He exists then He is probably capable of talking to us, and he most likely capable of doing miracles.

I kind of got sidetracked, but i think it is relevant.

-What Im trying to say is that if we believe that the supernatural is at least a possible possiblity (think about that terminology), then when we look at the life of Jesus in the gospels, we can begin to ask how accurate they are academically...which is pretty accurate...the least we can say is that the people who wrote these things lived and died for thier accuracy...they thought them to be accurate.

when taken together there is a good case for a high level of the material in the 4 books as being accurate.

The last important note is that having no errors or contradictions is not a legitamate criterion for any historical document...


Andrew Bushさん 4月26日 1:54
It is impossible for any rational man to say without a doubt that there is no God just as there is a God. This is throwing it kind of offtopic anyway. Proving that there is a God is one thing. Proving which one it (It?) is another. For me, if God exists religions are just humans' filtered looking at the same thing. The other side I come from is the fact that fairies and imps could be true too. There's no way to REALLY prove they don't exist. I don't think God is much different...at least the one in question now. If you were to say that God is a metaphysical force that ties the universe together ...like gluons (physics term) then I'd say that's more believable than the biblical version.

All this said, we can still have morals and a good life. Life is not meaningless without God, we just have to redefine our lives...which can be difficult depending on your background. You should check out my other blogs: http://eastcastles.blogspot.com/ and http://universethinktank.blogspot.com/


Friendさん 4月26日 1:56
all historical documents have some level of error in them...especially ancient ones.
this does not mean that they do not represent a certain level (even an extremely high one) of historical accuracy.

If perfection was a criterion of knowledge, we would know nothing.


Andrew Bushさん 4月26日 2:01
Living and dying for religion is debatable. We can't use that as proof for accuracy of the texts. Look at Islam. How many people die for that. How many Christians will say that they're right too based on those actions. Also,

Just because these texts say they died doesn't mean they actually did. The writers could have just put that in there to enhance the effect. That's one way...or this kind of motif is common in literature at that time. The people at the Council of Nicaea could have changed things up from the get-go. Or maybe they really did die...but not for faith but for some political cause. We have to really examine this further before it can be used in an argument, I think.

Friendさん 4月26日 2:12
we have manuscripts that go back much earlier than Nicea.
As are their many writers who go back further.

What I am saying about living and dying is that the same people who were eyewitnesses were martyrs.

It does not prove that the texts are accurate, what it does mean is that the same people who were there...most notably John and possibly Mathew (Luke and Mark were not even direct eyewitnesses and do not claim to be - which leaves more room for minor discepencies)
those same people who saw it wrote it - and would die for it then. - The martydom of John is much different than the martyrdom of say someone today.
Because he there...he was not tricked about what happened.

-like i said (this is why are wide range of scholastic reading is good before making either dogmatic or antagonistic claims...
its important to have a good grasp of the real sources.
-the claim that Nicea changed things is clearly fallacious with this info in mind...we have to much early writing to compare

Andrew Bushさん 4月26日 2:12
I posted this conversation on the East Castles. I don't mention your name. I hope you don't mind.

Friendさん 4月26日 2:15
their writing to.

Maybe they were all crazy...maybe the whole thing is wrong.
what im saying is that to make a really good call either way its gonna take some disciplined study.

- sorry if I write stupid sometimes...im not much of a proof reader..

this is the kind of discussion i like though...and appreciate it.


Andrew Bushさん 4月26日 2:15
Well that Nicea thing was just speculation on my part on the kinds of possibilities. What texts say that John was an eye witness? What validity do these texts have. If it's just John saying John saw it, it's a little suspicious to me.


Friendさん 4月26日 2:23
when i say historicity i mean that it is a reconrd of actual historical events.
-i would be interest in the Lasurus info...i would like to see who wrote it, and look at the originals myself.

but i will say in advance...even if the Lasurus story is unoriginal, it changes little.
-its one of many - the rest is still there - particularly Christ's resurrection which is unanimous to the begining.


Andrew Bushさん 4月26日 2:27
The Lazarus thing was basically an example that I think doesn't go against you but does go against a lot of what "normal" Christians believe. People that believe that every single letter and grammatical item in the Bible is inerrant might be surprised to find out that in actuality it's totally not the case. Now, you say that the overall account of Christ's resurrection is fairly solid. I have no problem with that statement at this time. It changes little for my position though. It just mean that several historical texts have a correlation. It does not mean that the event actually happened.


Friendさん 4月26日 2:35
sure, but that the arguement...that i think there is a good case for at least a large amount of truth being there...and that i some to this through historical probablity...not through inerrancy or scripture.
i think that people who come to the conclusion opposite of mine, should get there for the same reasons if they can.


Andrew Bushさん 4月26日 2:39
I fully recognize that there is some possibility for the existence of an historical Jesus. The historicity of the resurrection is also worth a closer look. However, for me at this time, this possibility of either does not yet warrant belief in it.

Trees

Humans: Virus

Earth: Host


Viruses kill their host and with the host, they die too. There have been tribes on islands that died from losing their natural resources. Cutting too many trees, etc. They didn't know to stop and let them grow again. This kind of thing has actually happened. They just didn't know to when to stop.

Reveal

If you feel that God has revealed himself to you, that's not really faith anymore, is it? If you've actually seen him? If you feel God, is that faith anymore? If God reveals himself to certain people, then He's playing favorites. 

"Well you just have to have faith first and then He'll reveal himself to you."

Then why is there this test anyway? God will just test your faith for a little while...depending on the time the length of time of the test will change? 

Voices

I can do some voices. I recorded them on my iPod and these links only work for ten days.

Universe Professor Voice:
http://2.recordertheapp.com/af729be6ea6dd7fd11db

Country Boy Voice:
http://2.recordertheapp.com/d8f5d754854e042b3ec1

Just Because

Just because it hard to scientifically prove a lot of things out there especially things concerning the beginning of the universe (if there ever was such a thing), it does not necessarily point to God.

And even if it did point to a creator or an intelligent designer, that does not necessarily point to Christianity.

I hate it when people think something points to God and it automatically means the Christian god. This just proves that people are thinking with really closed minds about the subject. It could be ANY designer from ANY religion! Or some designer that's not described by any existing religion!

All it does is point to something that we do no understand fully and one possible way to explain it is that of a designer, a guiding hand. It is just one way to explain it. We could also just say we don't know.

This way of thinking can be applied to the beginning of the universe, creation theories, miracles, etc, etc, etc. Just be a little more objective about it...please...

Andrew Shrugged

"Objectivism in this context is an alternate name for philosophical realism, the view that there is a reality or ontological realm of objects and facts which exists independent of the mind":
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)#Objectivism

"Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief in a reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I have always thought this way just naturally. If there's anyone out there that doesn't think this way naturally, Please let me know. I feel like this might be one of those suttle differences between me and other people that I always detected but could never put my finger on. I feel like guys might be more inclined to think this way and girls more subjective. I am not sure. 男女差別ごめんね。 

Addendum to the Previous Post

It's almost like giving up this search EQUALS believing in God when it really shouldn't and doesn't have to. This is the part where faith comes in and that's a whole other story. If you know this blog, you know my feelings on that.


Giving up should not end up in God. Giving up should be exactly that,...ending back up in the neutral zone...fence sitting. Sure, you believe it should end up in God if you're a Christian but you're no longer on the fence at that point. 

Not Far Enough

When I hear people say, "We are unable to understand God" or "who can know the mind of God?" or "If we can understand it, then it's not God," all kinds of things come to mind.

1. It feels like you gave up too early and that you didn't even get far enough to the things that we DO understand about this thing called God.

2. It's a cop-out.

3. Just because there's eomething we don't understand at this present doesn't mean that we won't eventually.

4. Even if there are some things that humans CAN'T understand, that doesn't mean that God exists. One does not preclude the other, in my eyes.

5. Let's really try to figure out what we CAN understand before we jump to this (ultimate) conclusion that we really can't understand it.

6. If we can't understand something, the next thing I think of is ...guess what...why? If we can't, then at least explain why not.

"Because God is too big for our understanding."

Then I say, "In what way is he, she, it, this thing too big?"

Basically, one of the overarching feelings I feel when I hear this kind of thing is, "you didn't go far enough."

It's almost like giving up this search EQUALS believing in God when it really shouldn't and doesn't have to. This is the part where faith comes in and that's a whole other story. If you know this blog, you know my feelings on that.

A Day in Kichijoji

This is not going to be a super-exciting post. Let me just get that out of the way right...away. I live in Kichijoji. It's near Shinjuku and Shibuya, the west side of Tokyo. It's got some colleges nearby and is basically known as a place for youngsters to hang out. It's got a nice park and all the stores and restaurants I need. Some people call me a "Kichijoji Hikikomori." A "hikikomori" is basically a "shut-in" but worse than otaku. It doesn't necessarily mean nerdy like otaku. The real meaning is something kinda bad because its describing someone who never leaves their home...out of fear, I think.

Anyway, I like the place. I really don't need to go to a lot of other places really. What I do is basically ...

1. Wake up

2. Shower

3. Work

4. Come back home and change, look for new jobs on the internet

5. Go to a coffee shop and study Japanese

6. Come back home again, play XBox, look for new jobs on the internet again

7. Sleep.

8. Repeat.


When Mike, Tomo, and I go out we:

1. Go to a coffee shop to talk about the universe or study Japanese

2. Go out to eat somewhere (taco rice, veggie curry, Village Vanguard hamburgers, ramen place where they play T.I., Mexican buffet, Thai buffet, etc...just found a vegan place in town as well).

3. Go play Street Fighter 4 in the arcade

4. Go to Yodobashi Camera (a big electronics store, not just cameras). We go to the top floor to UniQlo to just look at all the cheap and nice clothes that we won't buy because we're in money-saving mode and then to the next floor just to listen to the music in Tower Records while reading the latest Metropolis magazine. After that we go to the first floor to look at all the Apple stuff we want to buy and maybe someday will.

5. Go back and watch downloaded episodes of Star Trek and play Halo..before or after that, Daily Show and Colbert Report streaming directly from their sites...don't need to torrent anymore...


When I'm with just Tomo, it's almost the same as with Mike except that we might cut out the nerdier stuff but she is starting to like Halo. That's kind of amazing actually. Also, maybe instead of Star Trek, it's Seinfeld or the Chappelle Show. The coffee and restaurant parts are the same. Except with Tomo ..at coffee shops, I talk about really stupid stuff or science and philosophy. Basically Tomo can already speak English so this is a good time for me to get my Japanese speaking practice in.

Now these are basic outlines of what I do most of the time. in between all these steps I'm checking my facebook, studying Japanese more, and looking for jobs on-line. When I ride the train, I like listen to my iPod. I find it a little hard to read on the train. I don't get trainsick. I just find it hard to concentrate enough. Also, lately, I've been playing NinjaTown for DS. That game is ...well, I shouldn't have started playing it. It's a little too addictive...it's really great but I think I'm losing valuable time over it...

Economic Hitman

The interesting part starts from 5:28 ish. Be sure to check out Pt4 by clicking the link at the end of this video.

Arrogant

People that are non-religious are often called arrogant for some reason and I think this is quite a telling response.

1.) If the only reason you're being religious is NOT to be arrogant I'd say that's a bad reason to believe what you believe. 

2.) If you think you need to respect religious traditions and time-honored beliefs, that's OK but then it's arrogant for YOU to say that if someone doesn't believe in those things, that unbeliever is arrogant. Look more closely to the way you cast your stones.

3.) You can't respect something that you just don't believe in. Do NOT take this the wrong way. You might say that not believing in it is disrespecting it but that's another story. What I'm saying here is that you normally don't have to respect fairies anymore (for most people) because you just don't believe they exist. It's much the same for modern religion. It's not a question of arrogance either.

Science is Awesome

Obameter

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Keep track of the man's promises at the link above. 

Yellow Fever

Video Game Sample

http://www.andrewbushfilms.com/AJB_J-E_Translation/Samples/Samples.html

Childhood

A lot of what I say on this blog is probably just a lot of pent-up stuff that has been in me for a while. 

The only problem I have looking back is that maybe I was spoiled a little bit. Even my father says that he wishes he could have given my brothers and me more hardship. Other than that, everything was pretty much perfect. The only faults were that of mine my own.

Just take into account what you read on this blog and know what it feels like to have ideas and ideology thrown at you that you don't agree with. It is a bit much to have someone urge you to believe in a certain way...all the time.

Addendum to the Previous Post

I know if you're trying to convert someone, you're really thinking in your heart that what you're saying is true. I know the intentions are good. I just wanted to say what I had to say about the subject. Thanks.

Morals are not history. Feeling Christ.

As far as I can tell there are two main appeals to religion.

1. Whatever that religion's view is of the afterlife.

2. The morals and philosophical views of that religion.

I'm gonna focus on the second one right now.

In the case of Christianity, I don't think many people say "Oh, this history is true so I believe in Christ!" It's usually the other way around, "I believe in Christ so this history is true!" When you think about it that way, it sounds almost ridiculous but this happens all the time.

"These morals are true to me so everything else in this book is too."

It's easy for people to get caught in the compassion for humanity that Christ shows in the Bible. People seem to be willing to bend their own reason and not look at history clearly because they see these morals that should have nothing to do with history in the first place.

Thomas Jefferson edited out everthing that was supernatural in the story of Jesus and basically just left his morals behind. He and many of the other forefathers liked to go by this for their moral education. They believed in those morals but not the history.

The bottom line is that morals are not history. People did moral things in history but don't bend your own reasoning just because you like the morals of something.

When people say they don't believe in religion, etc, they're always confronted with others who say "well what do you base your morals on?" What about basing them on REASON. Man in a reasoning animal. Thinking that religion and morals are inseparable is just...dead wrong. There is such a long history of secular morals and ethics in Rome. People could look that up if they want to.

A lot of people say that they "feel Christ." Christ is true because they feel them. They think try to convert you because of this feeling. Isn't this a form of arrogance? That is YOUR feeling. I've seen other people REALLY feeling some Islam. REALLY feeling some Buddhism. This is when people start saying "Well, you can't say all religions are true" or "Well, you can't say there are true parts to all religion." I'm not getting to that. I'm saying that people's feelings are exactly that, just their feelings. Don't try to say it's some dogmatic universal truth just because it's YOUR feeling. Saying that your feelings are somehow connected to the Creator and everything that YOU say about this subjects of God and morals is the truth because it comes from the Creator is a bit fishy to me.

Don't you think?

Women and Belief

"Across the EU, belief was higher among women, increased with age, those with strict upbringing, those with the lowest levels of formal education, those leaning towards right-wing politics, and those reflecting more upon philosophical and ethical issues."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_European_Union 


Across America, even today I've heard of something called a "baby boomer" relationship or church-going relationship...I can't remember what it's called. This is referring to the wife/mother basically being the driving force in the relationship to make sure that everyone goes to church on Sunday. This can also be reflected in Marge on the Simpson's. My questions is "Why is that?" Of course, it's a why question. Japan is not religious at all but I have heard many women on TV and in person searching for something spiritual and I have heard of guys doing a little bit not as much.

I'm really not trying to be sexist here. I just want to point out a difference I've noticed. It also seems at times that women don't understand science in the way that I think a lot of guys can/do. I'm speaking in really general terms here. Basically, I'd like to know if there's some relationship with estrogen or whatever it is in women that allows for them to be more "spiritual" or more "religious" ...more about it than men in general. 

Either: 


1. Women are seeing/feeling something (that really is there)that men aren't. 


2. Women in general have lower scores in science and therefore, by default, think of things more spiritually. (Men usually have lower scores in Literature, etc....it's the way it goes). 


3. It's a combination of the two above. 


4. It's a combination of the two and something else I haven't touched upon. 


5. I don't know what I'm talking about.

My Experience With the Church, Revised

INTRODUCTION

I always went to the church. My family was staying at a Residence Inn in Birmingham (I think) when I was about five years old for some reason for a couple of days. Taylor was probably just a baby but Jordan and I were exploring the hotel room and probably just causing trouble. We come across the Gideon's Bible. You can always find them at hotels in America. We couldn't even read yet. We asked our father what the title of the book was and he told us that it was the Bible. I very distinctly remember that Jordan started laughing first. He thought it was such an odd name. He started changing the letters, saying "Pible," etc. I laughed mainly because I thought Jordan laughing at it was funny enough. I didn't realize this until many years later but I think shortly after that, my family started going to church regularly. My parents had noticed from this incident of me and my brother making fun of how the word "Bible" sounds, that we needed to start going. My first church was a Methodist church in Tallassee, Alabama. When I was first introduced to the church I kind of liked it for the first week or so because it was kind of new. They then started talking God being able to see everything and do everything. I think I started to fear going to church. Just the atmosphere and the way people acted there was so different and weird to me that I just couldn't take it. I remember crying on my mother's shoulder asking if God was going to kill me. I remember she said, "God doesn't just go around killing people." After that, I was pretty much fine for years. 

PUBERTY

Around the time I was twelve or so and puberty started to kick in, I was really doubting God and  the church then too. I read a few things about evolution and I thought it was interesting but I don't suppose I could have ever commited myself to that at that time. I didn't understand enough. I suppose you could call it a true questioning period, the first of many. I never really cared one way or the other. It's hard to think seriously about science or religion at that age anyway. 

GRACE

We moved to Griffin, GA when I was about 14. My brothers and I had been doing private school for one year to help transition the move. I was going absolutely crazy due to my surroundings at school in Alabama and due to plain old hormones. We started going to this private Christian school called "Grace Academy" in town. It seemed to be mainly Pentecostal but I think officially it was just Christian. I would say "Non-demoninational" but that sadly turned into a denomination of its own as well. Before we moved, the only strain of Christianity I had ever seen was that of Methodism. Pentecostals were different. It was much more energetic and I remember liking that part more. One of the main things was Salvation. Pentecostals believed that if you pray it and mean, you will be saved by Jesus. Maybe my brothers and I had our minds fixed too much on Mortal Kombat to ever really hear anything about it at First Methodist in Eclectic but I never really knew that Christians thought this way until I moved to Griffin. Of course, Methodists believed in Heaven, Hell, and Jesus, etc but this way,...this emphasis was different. At any rate, you could consider my time at Grace and my first year of college my "most Christian days." At the time, it felt like I was just giving it a shot. I gave it a shot.

NOW
I am not against people getting together and helping each other. I am not against any group of people that tries to get people off drug addictions or helps them to get jobs. I am not against any group that gives others hope.

I am against pseudo-science being taught in the schools. I am against wars raging on today that are still going on because of some stupid event that probably never happened 700 years ago (Islam) or 2000 years ago (Christianity). I am against homophobia. I am for women's rights. I am against pseudo-history. I am against people against certain works of art or literature because of that work being sacrireligious.

I am sort of with Bill Maher on this one. We don't know what's going to happen after we die. I would not DEFINITELY call myself an atheist. What people are referring to when they talk about something that allows for existence probably has some sort of correctness to it. I still have to think about it more.

Revised Site

My first version was a little too plain. I updated the translation samples as well. Take a look!

http://www.andrewbushfilms.com/AJB_J-E_Translation/Home.html