Saturday, June 27, 2009

According to this article, there's a social force that compels an individual to moral tepidity. Extreme behavior (for good or bad) requires a corresponding dip into scalding or chilly waters to regulate ones moral temperature. Is this a real effect or a result of transposed physics into a subjectively perceived situation? Like determination of implied opposites to chart a course through a maze of acceptable action. An implied opposite is a semantic truism like "SMALL" vs. "big". The basic problem is not having an endgame plan. What happens when Pastor Ted turned out to be gay, or Iraqis turn on their American saviors? Perhaps the worm turns when physics proves hubris to be poor planning. The Japanese don't have a problem w/ that (except their cars are too damn hard to work on).

So I'm Lao-Tse, the inconsistent blogger, "everything has a purpose but me" (approximate quote). I started this blog to declare my opposition to pervasive religious bullshit. Now I'm afraid someone is reading it like I'm supposed to be entertaining & coherent. Get a life. I refuse to be influenced by hit stats (lie). I won't be owned (even though I get lonely). I refuse to write even more contemptuous drivel out of cowering fear of unknown judgments, nor will I correct misconceptions presented in previous posts (except minor ones). Eat Me. I'm lazy alright? (I mean I hope that's all OK w/ everybody ... ?)


percent map of non-religion Going by this map, less industrialized countries show more believers. Since governments develop technology mostly from war industries, but benefit patriotically from blind faith believers, it appears to be a conflict of self interest: The more war they promote, the fewer believers. (yes, except for N Europe & Canada) (both socialist).

Indoctrination fails: 2 out of 3 kids leave the church (World Net Daily)
Same sex behavior seen in nearly all animals (
God's a dick (
Rational thoughts from a religious skeptic. — Mark Twain

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

I'm curious about the rational of remarks about racism towards Israeli Jews & Arabs. on the one hand the there's no race issue because everyone involved is a descendant of Abraham. On the other hand, anyone can become islamic, but no one "becomes" Jewish. You can practice Judaism, but to be a Jew, you have to be a descendant of Aaron (brother of Moses). It's a really good bet that a lot of the arabs in palestine are also descendants of Aaron because the Jewish people tended to adopt the dominant religion (christian, moslems, Hindus, or in the case of the soviets: atheists.) to avoid being targets of discrimination and blend into the host society. So technically it's a family feud where everyone claims to be the rightful inheritor, carries a gun, & is not speaking. Sure looks like a genetic trait. For all the lauded brain potential claimed in that region, nobody seems to be using one. Ireland is different though, because there's no brains involved, never was, & everyone admits it. Crete & Bosnia too.

it's weird that belief wars among the same race can last for centuries. Tribal people of New Guinea have had the same thing going on for thousands of years. In fact race is less of a factor of war than religion. maybe hormones have something to do with that, because other races are viewed as sexually exotic, and there's some kind of pheromone that animals perceive that encourages interbreeding outside of ones known group.

That pheromone might also be the problem underlying religious strife. that is: religious nonsense, & sexual taboos (which usually go together) could be a result of some subliminally practiced method to maintain gene diversity within limited territory. Come to think of it, war could be a way to foster genetic diversity within limited territory, (Mormons, Amish, Heuterites & Menonites are doomed) I mean the most patriotic, &/or aggressive get sent to the front w/ a weapon. Patriotism is another word for faith.

As the internet knocks down barriers to communication, maybe it also knocks down territorial perception. fine so long as the new world is perceived as exotic. maybe not so fine if it's perceived as an extension of "our own" territory.

Funnies: god 0 god 1 god 2 god 3

Militant atheism
Aggressive roots of Altruism

Evolution, religion, schizophrenia and the schizotypal personality video (Robert Sapolsky) online discussion

A list of 639 gods that atheists don't believe in, which includes buddha, (who isn't a god), but doesn't include me (who is/am). My title is "He who affects nothing". I can really do that, unfortunately I don't have any proof.

Thursday, June 04, 2009

in defense of "The Lord":

Think of the lord as a stereotype of the person you can't beat (The Man). 6th grade bullies when you were in 4th. The person who has what you need (social acceptance in a new school) They're usually insecure selfish assholes.

It occurs to me that most of the bible is dealing w/ just those types. Like how some king (lord) wiped out some tribe because they didn't make the right kind of sacrifice. We have to assume it was important to wipe them out though the social rules of the ancient tribes don't transcribe to well through 20 translations. Or possibly, when the various books of the bible were put together, the editors had trouble selecting data using the search engines of the time, and they didn't include a preface to explain what they were trying to collect so they got a lot of vaguely germane topics in 1/2 dozen languages (or something, y'know). Ooh, ooh! it was Constantine's idea, he just flew back from his ranch and said "We need a connection between us & God & power, go get some evidence" review of the Bible (

But under it all appears to be a social code on how unrestrained lords compel & claim gods blessing afterwards because it turned out ok for the winners. I'm not saying compelling is bad, animals do it, it just is, if I was a lord in those situations I'd do that stuff too, & probably just to impress people because I can. (so fear me) The concept they were looking for though was "Survival of the Fittest", but they may have been limited by their conceptual framework.

Along comes the New Testament: Darwin was a socialist. The main difference is you're supposed to stand up to the Man. Expect to get stomped, do it anyway, speak truth to power, don't destroy anyone, social integration makes peace, & keep on keeping on. The worst that can happen is you get tortured to death, but so what (heh..)? Staying objective while someone is ranting & giving you shit takes guts & perspective to not get caught up in the hormones. As a social model, it commands respect.

But what we got instead is another device to subjugate the masses for the benefit of a bunch of old guys w/ seniority working deals, expecting sacrifice, & claiming ignorance.
  • Apparent malice usually proves to be ignorance.
  • Ignorance is no excuse under the law (which also assumes malice when proof of ignorance is lacking).
  • A negative can't be proved. Therefore:
  • Bush, Cheney & Rove should be jailed. Reagan should be dug up & jailed.

    Conservatives gross out more easily than liberals (
    Church of Scientology on trial
    Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology