I hate agnostics

I'm not going to bother getting into the specific philosophical definitions here, because it's not philosophical agnostics I hate. Philosophical agnostics are awesome. It's the colloquial ones I'm not so fond of:

Agnostic (noun)

1. A person who, either intentionally or purely out of apathy, hasn't put an ounce of thought into the question: "Does God exist?"

2. A person who is desperately afraid of arguing with people, presumably because he or she has a bunch of fundamentalist Christian friends and prefers to play nice with them instead of forming his or her own opinions. Paradoxically, he or she will argue at length about how arguing is ultimately "pointless."

3. A sadly misinformed person who thinks "religion" just means "something people talk passionately about," and is infuriatingly quick to dismiss anything and everything he or she disagrees with by waving his or her hand, scoffing, and saying, "You're just like all the other religions."

Addressing them in order, I'm totally okay if you haven't put that much thought into the question. It's much more productive to put your thought into getting a college degree or something, and college degrees have the added bonus of actually existing. Of course, every God humans have worshiped usually comes with a few requirements about how you should live your life, so you should probably give the idea a bit of thought at some point.

To you socialites who prefer to have a lot of friends over a monolithic philosophical orientation, good for you! Just don't try to tell me I'm "wrong" to argue that your friends are worshiping a made-up God. There's no evidence to suggest that any of the currently worshiped Gods actually exist, which is all the more reason to think they're invented. If you're afraid your social standing will be affected by my arguing, find yourself a restroom to hide in until I'm done.

... or you could actually figure out what you think. It doesn't hurt that much, really.

And to all you who fall into the third definition, buy a dictionary and fuck off. Maybe you could throw some money away and sign up for one of those Scientology seminars for a weekend. Roll with the Scientologists (or the Mormons, or Baptists, or anyone, really) for a month or so and see if you still think the "Atheism is a religion" argument is tenable.

Why the Agnostic position doesn't work

If you're one of those who is quite passionate about how we can't know for certain whether or not God exists, and who is adamant about how the best approach is to hold neither opinion, I offer you this question:

If I tell you that there is a group of giant, invisible fairies with bat wings behind me, ready to curse you if you don't give me $20, how do you justify any action at all? If you give me the $20, you're lending undue credence to a claim that's unverifiable. If you don't give me the money, you're also lending undue credence to a claim that's unverifiable.

If, as you say, it's completely irrational to hold any opinion about things which aren't 100% provable, how do you justify any action at all? Why go to work, when you can't be 100% sure your boss even exists? Why pay your taxes, when you can't be 100% sure the IRS exists? Why do anything, when your entire understanding of the world is given to you by our fallible senses?

The much more rational approach is to weigh probabilities. Your boss hands you a check every two weeks, and he/she keeps showing up at your workplace, criticizing or commending you. How big of a leap of faith are you making when you say, "I believe my boss exists?"

Not a very large one at all.

So, then, how large of a leap is it to say, "This God exists," compared to "This God doesn't exist"? When the evidence for a given God is all about miracles and supernatural events, and every single one of them can be explained naturally, the leap to "this God doesn't exist" is much, much smaller than the alternative theistic position.

Additional evidence makes the required leap of faith for some claims larger ("There are Giant Bat-Fairies behind you") while it makes others smaller ("You're just making that shit up").

So, which requires the bigger leap? Does God exist, or does He not?

Times change — people change

Long ago, my ex-CS friend (among a few others) and I were walking down a street near my college, probably to kill time until another friend got out of class, when we walked by a moderately-sized building claiming to be owned by the Jehovah's Witnesses. My friend, having been almost exclusively exposed to Christian Science, and I, having been almost exclusively exposed to Mormonism, humored the idea of visiting tons of different churches — one every Sunday — to learn more about what other religions do and believe. "We only really know about one religion each," we thought. "Wouldn't it be great if, when our friends say they're Catholic or Baptist or whatever, we actually had an inkling of an idea what that meant?"

I had an additional motive back then, though. I had recently discovered the Non Prophets and the Atheist Experience on iTunes, and was enthralled not only by their incredible confidence in their worldview, but by their methods. Rather than digging into some book, or clinging to the words of some authority figure, they sought out arguments against their view and talked about why they didn't find it compelling. And, best of all, they insisted that we, their audience, agree with them because of their reasoning, not because of their conclusion.

So, as my friend and I started visiting other churches, I started this blog primarily to catalog all our adventures to various churches, but also ate up the little pamphlets and things these churches would hand out. I would snatch them up, read through them, consider them, and use this blog to articulate why I disagreed with them. This blog was my chance to forge my opinions without worrying about the social repercussions of arguing in person.

This blog, therefore, had a kind of theme to it. It was a blog dedicated to arguing philosophically and factually about the God question, with the occasional music related post to spice things up. But something happened which I knew, deep down, would happen. Deep down, I knew this moment would come, and I could feel it getting closer and closer, taunting me. Threatening the very character of this blog:

I've heard it all.

Every argument for God ultimately boils down to a few logically fallacious premises. Typically it's this one, with the next most common one being the one that looks like this:

1. Something must have caused X.
2. I call that thing "God."
3. Therefore, God exists.

I'd argue against this ridiculous argument right now, but I've already done it before. And that's the problem — I've pretty much solved the God problem in all its iterations, which means my blog, with its current focus, is blandly redundant at best and utterly useless at worst.

And so, here I am. I'm an Atheist who's totally and completely confident in his worldview, still writing in a blog primarily designed to develop that confidence. This blog has served its purpose.

Often, I think, people get caught up in a commitment or a creation or an organization and become slaves to it. They feel like they're somehow obligated to serve the system they're a part of, and feel like they're trapped by that obligation. It's sad.

It's sad, because I'm kinda doing the same thing. I've got a bunch of readers now (which is something I never thought would happen) and I've caught myself, after writing a post, letting it decay for weeks as a draft because I was worried how my readership would take it, before finally (and lamentably) deleting it. Can I post frivolous things? Can I post vitriolic and insubstantial rants? Can I post the solutions to word problems I got in Calculus that I found interesting and awesome? Does my post fit with the theme of my blog?

So, more for myself than anything else, I'd like to say, "Fuck you, more-than-likely-inaccurate mental caricatures of the readers of my blog! This blog is mine, and I get to do whatever I want with it!"

Ultimately, this blog is for me, like all blogs should be. The blogosphere is a beautiful cacophony of voices, each proclaiming its respective individuality for anyone, anywhere, to stumble upon. Is there anything more wonderfully human? And is there anything more horrible, therefore, than a blog author who posts just to garner more readers?

Behold, then, my blog! It's my place to rant about whatever the hell I want to rant about. It's my place to post whatever the hell I want to post. It's mine, and my readership will be determined by what I post, not the other way around! The theme of my blog — if there even is one — will conform to my posts, not the other way around!

It's possible, I admit, that nothing about my blog, beyond the outlook of the author, will change at all. I still love ripping apart stupid arguments, whether they're about God or the supposed evilness of vaccines or our ability to see the future, I still love making the occasional music post that gets waaay more hits daily than I expect it to, and I still love getting comments by clueless commenters.

But I also enjoy writing amusing and pointless posts, math heavy posts, and partially substantial but mostly caustic posts, too. And, actually, I also really enjoyed writing that flippant and vacuous post.

Welcome, I guess, to Logic Eats Babies 2.0 — a scary, scary place, where you get to delve even deeper into the brain of a science-minded, whimsical and nihilistic Atheist you probably haven't even met in real life.

200th post!

Almost two weeks ago, I mentioned on Facebook that I was on my 198^th post, just two away from a number which is only significant because we have ten fingers, and I asked people what I should do to celebrate. Of course, I asked this on facebook, so the responses were definitely less than stellar.

... in fact, if you consider that "stellar" means "relating to stars," I could say the comments were nebulous and actually be scientifically accurate!

Anyway, because I had no idea what I wanted to do to commemorate my 200^th post, I've been crippled by indecision. I've wanted to reblog things and I've wanted to regular-blog things, but I've been like, "No, I can't; if I make a post, then I can't make another because my next one will be the 200^th."

So I've been stuck at 198 until I did this one, because I felt like, with only one free post before I had to do the 200^th, I had to make it count.

Well, not anymore! I've submitted to the dominant request on Facebook — I'm making an anti-climactic, insubstantial, uncelebratory, totally lame post, just to get it out of the way so I can get back to ranting without feeling obligated by tradition or accepted blogging conventions.

And, to top it off, I've got a picture from Lolcats, just to make this post even more vacuous!

So, to all you potential employers who are now reading this post, my "fuck it; I'm doing what I want to do" limit is about two weeks, and given that I generally don't do well with authority for authority's sake anyway, I'd say two weeks is pretty impressive.

Hey, I can write that in calculus!

Lim_{t -> two weeks} f(t) = fuck it.

... where "t" is time and "f(t)" is my capacity to put up with crap. :D

Alright, I'm done. Happy 200^th post, Logic Eats Babies!

(And yes, I know it's "all right." I just wanted to pique my dad's SIWOTI syndrome)

Cell phones on the road

I don't know about anywhere else, but here in California you get a hefty fine if you're caught talking on your cell phone while driving. But why?

Cell phones are distracting, they say. You don't look at your mirrors as often while you're talking on the phone. While talking on a cell phone, the argument goes, you're a liability and a danger to us all.

But let's step back from all of that for a second and look at what the real motive is.

If talking on the phone while driving is so dangerous, why are we still allowed to use hands-free devices? Is it because cell phones are dangerous because you don't have both hands on the wheel? Why aren't we ticketing people for driving without their hands strictly at 10-and-2?

We banned cell phones because, for some reason, we all turn into assholes when we're on the road, and in that visceral, anti-intellectual state, we're especially prone to horrifically fallacious logic. We get cut off by someone, or we're stuck behind someone who's driving especially slow, or something else equally frivolous, and our first reaction is to check if they're old, or if they're a woman, or if they're young, or if they're on a cell phone.

Admit it. We've all been there. Some asshole is driving waaay too slow and, as we pass them, we roll our eyes and say, "Oh, of course, it's a <whatever stereotype they happen to be>"

The ban on cellphones (and the lack of a ban on bluetooth, one-handed steering, car radios, people in the passenger seat, babies, or anything else distracting) is simply the result of irrational scapegoating. It's logically inconsistent with the rest of the laws we have, and does nothing more than pander to the irate hillbillies and their confirmation bias.

(Cectic, btw.)

Now, I know what you're thinking: "He's just pissed because he got a ticket for using a cell phone, and he's bitching on his blog about it."

No, actually. I've been ticketed for speeding, but not for cell phone use. And if I had just been caught on a cell phone, would it really matter?

Voting Day 2010

And now, finally, I can watch my TV shows online and listen to my voicemail without getting dragged into the vile, childish arguments between political hopefuls.

The Daily Show really summed up my frustration with this election and my growing cynicism with the democratic process:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Midterm Teapartyganza - Indecision 2010 - Negative Campaigning
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

(Transcript, in the event that they take the video down)

(Larry and Aasif, both wearing shirts that read: "Team Negative")

Larry: ... Aasif was supposed to be Team Positive, but clearly my opponent couldn't even handle the simple assignment of picking out the right shirt. (In a mock-political campaign ad voice) Aasif Mandvi — can we trust him?

Jon: (laughing) Oh, I see what you're doing. You're exemplifying negative campaigning! This is a cute... (gestures to Aasif), uhh, you go, Aasif. This is cute.

Aasif: Larry Wilmore fucks chickens. Larry Wilmore is a chicken-fucker. And, from what I understand, the sex is not always consensual.

Jon: Well... I mean, to be fair to Larry, is chicken sex ever really consensual?

Really, the whole clip is great. It's one of the reasons why, even if PZ didn't, I fully supported the Rally to Restore Sanity — The political "discussion" that's going on between politicians seems to be nothing more than empty, unfounded, loud emotional appeals.

(There's a really great write-up about the rally here, for those of you like me who weren't able to go)

I don't have years and years of experience with the political world I live in, so I hardly feel like I can make any authoritative statement on the way things should be. But can we please get more politicians out there like Obama who, instead of only badmouthing their opponents, stand up and say, "Here's why you should vote for me."?

Or, more simply, wouldn't it be great if we all could've walked into the polling place to vote for someone, instead of for not-Whitman or not-Brown?

"They're just words"

A while ago, I was standing in front of my dad's house with my siblings, giving the usual goodbyes, making sure we were on the same page about when we'd visit again, etc., when my dad offered the lamentably common concern, "Drive safely, don't get a ticket."

Back at my mom's place, my drive down to Los Angeles started with that phrase. In fact, my parents insist on saying this every time I step into a vehicle. I mean, yes, I've gotten tickets. Yes, I'm more likely to get one than my sister, who is an obnoxious, pedantic prude when it comes to driving, but that doesn't make my parents' concern any less annoying.

So, because I knew my dad would have the self-esteem and self-confidence to handle it, I offered him a hearty "fuck you," followed with a lengthy rant about how I'm not a menace to civilization when I'm behind the wheel, can you please stop assuming I'm guaranteed to get a ticket every time I drive?

My morgbot brother, who was standing just a few feet from me, was stunned. I remember him stammering and muttering something like, "well... that's not what I'd have said," or something, and he's been overly argumentative with me ever since that moment.

Of course, this is the same brother who met the author of, and got a free copy of, The No Cussing Club, and who no doubt viewed it as an Even Newer Testament of Christ.

In the Mormon religion, cussing is a HUGE taboo, and every Mormon revels in the smug and unfounded pride that he/she doesn't use those "bad words." But what are these words, what makes them bad, and, most importantly, why would the Mormon church not want its members using them?

Many of the words the Mormons take issue with are blunt, crass, and contemptuous. They're disrespectful, aggressive, vehement. They're empowering. They show confidence and express a potent, rebellious disdain.

If I call your computer a piece of shit, my low opinion of the quality of your computer is very, very clear. If I tell you to fuck off for trying to micromanage me, there's a very clear message there, too: "I know what I'm doing, you don't, and I'm not going to submit to you."

Put simply, they aren't "just words"; they're rebellious, self-asserting, powerful words. They're words that express a rugged individuality. They're words that allow you to push back all the religions and ideologies that try their hardest to tell you who you are, how you should act, and what you should think.

... and you can't have that in the Mormon church. God forbid someone would stand up and proclaim "I am who I am!" while simultaneously proclaiming: "And you can fuck off and die if you want me to be someone else."

So, to all you Mormons out there who read the scriptures and The No Cussing Club every night before you go to sleep, let me give you a brief lecture on NewSpeak 101:

Words have meaning. When we think, all but the most visceral of our thoughts are made of words. A large vocabulary allows us to articulate exactly what we mean, but it also allows us to think complex thoughts. We have words like "hamburger," which serves as pleasant shorthand for "meat that is topped with various sauces and/or cheeses, placed between two slices of bread," but we also have words like "patriotism," "derivative," and "fortuitous," which each carry not just unique meanings, but unique concepts.

If we try to remove certain words from our language, we lose our ability to think the thoughts those words convey.

And so, to all you Mormons out there who think disrespectful words are taboo, who think sexual words are taboo and hold a smug, holier-than-thou attitude about it, and, in fact, to anyone else out there who tries to remove words from our vocabulary, I've got an unpleasant, disrespectful, rebellious response for you:

Fuck you. Fuck you with rusted nails and other sharp, potentially disease-carrying objects. Because we, as a culture, need words like these.