Suck it, past-version of me! I only let ~320 days pass in between updates! I am not going to bother with the math because no one has a gun to my head.
Today brings you the very exciting world of an Atheist during the Holidays. The modern term obviously comes from the old English word hāligdæg (hālig "holy" + dæg "day") for all those who study useless trivia [for the rest of us, Wikipedia provides]. Holidays in the USA can refer to nearly any federal holiday, but 'The Holidays' almost universally refers to the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas. People put up bizarre displays, become annoyingly cheerful, and start cultural wars over Nativity Scenes.
Everything that follows is my own opinion, but I would be surprised if it wasn't shared by a majority of the silent Atheist community.
I am not offended by someone wishing me a 'Merry Christmas'. Nor do I care if they wish me a generic 'Happy Holidays'. In both cases it's fairly easy to guess the underlying sentiment (please leave my store/abode without stabbing me) and to take it with a smile. I *am* offended when *either* side attempts to force other people to use their own wording of the sentiment, or when someone gets offended at their casual remark being greeted by the other.
I get that Christians are super excited about their history this time of year. I also get that a growing number of people lack any declared faith and just want to enjoy this month without getting preached at every time they turn around. Look, until I am forced to sit through a nativity play at gunpoint,I am willing to give a truly neutral statement to both camps: The same for you. It's impossible to find offense with, and leaves everyone feeling moderately happy.
Similarly, I could care less about a Xmas tree with religious connotations or a nativity scene being erected in public places. If I actually cared enough, I could reserve similar spaces to produce my 12 hour long screed about the All Powerful Atheismo. My only objection becomes if there is public money placed into these actions.
Why do I draw the line there? Well, it's time for a culture flip. Let's suppose you found out tonight that your local Islamic community had staked out space in the 'town square' for a dramatization of the Prophet's early life. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that most of you would go 'meh' or even 'good for them' (I'll regret giving you that benefit of the doubt, won't I?). Now suppose you found out that your town council had given $10k to make the production happen.
I'd be fairly pissed off at that. Those are *my* tax dollars proselytizing uselessly. I didn't work that hard, and pay a total of $41 per year in local taxes, for my money to support a religion I didn't believe in.
Now re-read the last two paragraphs and insert your own religion for Islam. That is why I am opposed to public funding for religious Holiday events. If you are a follower of Islam, replace Islam with All Powerful Atheismo.
Finally, my own take on the two culturally prevalent holidays this time of year (sorry, I can't compare everything that falls in this window in one post).
Thanksgiving: My preferred name is Thankstaking. First, it's a cheap laugh at a simple inversion. Second, the name is fundamentally misleading. People talk about how thankful they are for the things they have received over the last year, and proceed to stuff themselves with food. Thanksgiving would seem from it's name to being thankful for the opportunity to give to others. I have a ton of respect for the minority who truly live this holiday as it is named - the people who gift food to the poor, their time to a kitchen, etc.
Christmas: Thanks to Futurama, this will always be X-Mas in my mind. Trailing slightly behind is my annual gift request email title 'Happy Atheist Gift Day' which involves some unwritten rules: receive more in useful $ value than you spent, with the twist that you average over multiple years (so giving crappy gifts one year will hurt your long term standings).
Bourbon count: 5
1.7.17
Re-Up! You're outa your mind!
Well! 12 month gap. I'd apologize, but I'm fairly certain no one reads this.
We recently discussed the un-caused cause and the tenets of atheism. (Hey, the universe is billions of years old, compared to that one year is a statistical blip). Today we're going to talk about cats!
Well, that is a little bit of a lie. We're going to talk about the scientific method, its flaws, and why it still wins in the end. On the way, I'm going to mention my cats anecdotally. Atheists put a lot of trust into science, and it's worth digging into the dirt a bit on it's flaws, and why we still trust it over a book you try to hand to us.
The scientific method can be summed up in what my first NCO taught me as a young 2LT - Trust, but verify. Smart people sit in a room and do boring thinky stuff until they come up with a theory to explain something. Then they devise an experiment to test their idea. If it results in what they expected, they publish both in boring papers that very few people read and (very rarely) win a million dollars thanks to the guy who invented dynamite.
The problem(s) with the scientific method is that:
1. Sometimes scientists lie. We've seen in with Tobacco, Oil, Asbestos, etc. Fortunately, Trust but Verify applies to colleges. Thus, we learn that Tobacco isn't actually good for your health. Sure, it takes a few decades, but eventually reality wins out. Unfortunately, a few billion people die as a result...eggs and omelets.
2. Frequently scientists are wrong, as are people writing about science. Paul Erhlich famously claimed in his book 'The Population Bomb' that by the 1970s millions of Americans would be starving to death. If you are reading this, you know it didn't happen. This is because the scientific method relies on the current data we have - Erhlich wrote before modern food science was really understood. Monsanto's gene altered crops changed the game. We like to look back and laugh, but the beauty of the scientific method is that while Erhlich was focusing on the wrong factors, other scientists were testing their own theories and producing the world we live in today. We can afford a million wrong scientists for the few that produce game-changing ideas.
3. Change is at best incremental. We all think of science as a series of Eureka moments, but sadly (or not, based on your sexual preferences) the streets are not clogged with naked Europeans discovering what Dark Matter is. This means I won't be alive when teleportation or warp speed is discovered. However, in my lifetime I've gone from internet being a by-the-minute dial-up affair to it being a utility - if i lose my internet i respond roughly to how i view losing my water. And that's pretty awesome.
4. The scientific method is only as good as the researchers themselves. Meaning, they only discover the things they set out to. Gone are the days that whacky experiments are done just for the LOLZ. Back in the 60s we had people drugging other people without their consent to discover if LSD could warp reality, if dolphins could become terrorists, if monkeys could survive being fired out of space cannons, etc. Today, whether you are in government or the private sector everything is tied to funding, which means science mostly is discovering boring things like if chocolate can cure diabetes or if Elon Musk can conquer the world without anyone noticing. He can't, by the way, as Jeff Bezos has already prepared a counter assault. Still, we'll keep on learning new things regardless.
This brings me to my final bit and the promised cats. This morning I was reading about the mirror test, and which animals had passed. I was shocked to not see cats included, because my cat Aerie uses the mirror on a daily basis. She will look into the mirror to see me in the bedroom and will call out if she notices me looking at her. This is a clear passing of the mirror test, and yet nowhere do I see cats as either passing or failing the test.
But it's okay. Someday science will catch up. Hopefully without billions dying, but who are we kidding? We're talking about cats!
Bourbon Count: 0!
We recently discussed the un-caused cause and the tenets of atheism. (Hey, the universe is billions of years old, compared to that one year is a statistical blip). Today we're going to talk about cats!
Well, that is a little bit of a lie. We're going to talk about the scientific method, its flaws, and why it still wins in the end. On the way, I'm going to mention my cats anecdotally. Atheists put a lot of trust into science, and it's worth digging into the dirt a bit on it's flaws, and why we still trust it over a book you try to hand to us.
The scientific method can be summed up in what my first NCO taught me as a young 2LT - Trust, but verify. Smart people sit in a room and do boring thinky stuff until they come up with a theory to explain something. Then they devise an experiment to test their idea. If it results in what they expected, they publish both in boring papers that very few people read and (very rarely) win a million dollars thanks to the guy who invented dynamite.
The problem(s) with the scientific method is that:
1. Sometimes scientists lie. We've seen in with Tobacco, Oil, Asbestos, etc. Fortunately, Trust but Verify applies to colleges. Thus, we learn that Tobacco isn't actually good for your health. Sure, it takes a few decades, but eventually reality wins out. Unfortunately, a few billion people die as a result...eggs and omelets.
2. Frequently scientists are wrong, as are people writing about science. Paul Erhlich famously claimed in his book 'The Population Bomb' that by the 1970s millions of Americans would be starving to death. If you are reading this, you know it didn't happen. This is because the scientific method relies on the current data we have - Erhlich wrote before modern food science was really understood. Monsanto's gene altered crops changed the game. We like to look back and laugh, but the beauty of the scientific method is that while Erhlich was focusing on the wrong factors, other scientists were testing their own theories and producing the world we live in today. We can afford a million wrong scientists for the few that produce game-changing ideas.
3. Change is at best incremental. We all think of science as a series of Eureka moments, but sadly (or not, based on your sexual preferences) the streets are not clogged with naked Europeans discovering what Dark Matter is. This means I won't be alive when teleportation or warp speed is discovered. However, in my lifetime I've gone from internet being a by-the-minute dial-up affair to it being a utility - if i lose my internet i respond roughly to how i view losing my water. And that's pretty awesome.
4. The scientific method is only as good as the researchers themselves. Meaning, they only discover the things they set out to. Gone are the days that whacky experiments are done just for the LOLZ. Back in the 60s we had people drugging other people without their consent to discover if LSD could warp reality, if dolphins could become terrorists, if monkeys could survive being fired out of space cannons, etc. Today, whether you are in government or the private sector everything is tied to funding, which means science mostly is discovering boring things like if chocolate can cure diabetes or if Elon Musk can conquer the world without anyone noticing. He can't, by the way, as Jeff Bezos has already prepared a counter assault. Still, we'll keep on learning new things regardless.
This brings me to my final bit and the promised cats. This morning I was reading about the mirror test, and which animals had passed. I was shocked to not see cats included, because my cat Aerie uses the mirror on a daily basis. She will look into the mirror to see me in the bedroom and will call out if she notices me looking at her. This is a clear passing of the mirror test, and yet nowhere do I see cats as either passing or failing the test.
But it's okay. Someday science will catch up. Hopefully without billions dying, but who are we kidding? We're talking about cats!
Bourbon Count: 0!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
