I am a 46 year old man from Norway.

Confirmed atheist and freethinker.  Freelance writer. Editor of the website "kinkspace".

I was drawn to this site through an outrageously funny video series at youtube called "Why do people laugh at creationists?".

At the moment I'm having a bit of a cold, so I stay indoors and wallow in self pity whilst drinking tea.

Life could be better... but it could definitely also be worse! How bad can it be when you're laughing?

When people quote Descartes' famous "I think, therefore I am" (Cogito Ergo Sum), they are usually meaning to say something about how the art of thinking is a fundamental human quality that, for better or worse, has made us what we are today, as a species. However, they almost always - conveniently - leave out the first sentence of the quote, thereby taking it out of context.

The full quote states: Dubito Ergo Cogito. Cogito Ergo Sum. (I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therfore I am.)

I doubt, therefore I think.

If I had no doubt, I wouldn't have to think, would I? I'm not saying that I doubt the bloody obvious, such as a sophist may do with clever questions about the essential nature of existence and how we cannot know anything for certain, but I do doubt my own ability to understand the nature of reality. This leads me to ask questions about fascinating subjects, such as cosmology and quantum mechanics. But I do not try to "believe" either this or that way about it. I am quite happy to just observe how scientists are struggling with what may argably be the high end of all human thinking. I like it. Asking questions keeps me on my toes. Studying things I don't understand makes me less complacent in the way I relate to the world I'm living in.

Is that religion demands that you should be obedient.

You should obey "the word of God" as it is presented to you by this or that "holy scripture" - and, of course, your "elders".

And not only that, you should also - by force if necessary - impose these "laws" upon other people. You should stick your nosey nose into other people's private affairs and judge them. Because God wants you to do so. Because he LOVES all people. So much so that he gave us SATAN, so we have something to blame except for our own weaknesses and folly when shit explodes in our faces yet another time. But you don't have to be afraid of the wicked ways of Satan. You can become a Holy Warrior! A Knight of Christ! Or why not Allah? But first you have to kiss ass. So, get down on your knees and declare your obedience... then MAYBE you will earn some perks on Judgement Day.

Can you really blame people for being pissed off with this nonsense?

I suppose this phenomenon is more "Fortean" than scientific, but there are a few problems connected with it.

Obviouisly, many crop circles are man made. Then thee are the ones that are so designed, so well crafted and accurate both in details and relative measurments within the structure such as "the Julia set" series) that I would REALLY like to meet the guys who carried them out.

The thing is, I have spent the first half of my professional life on working with creative and performing arts. During the course of this I have been a part of much "land art" and large scale works of art so I know first handedly how difficult it is. Then add the second half of my carreer, which has been spent working with engineering and construction. It is HARD to transport a design from blueprints to actual, physical reality.

In conclusion: If somebody actually designed and made "the triple Julia set" just for the hell of it, I would very very VERY much like to hire these guys to come and work for me, a.s.a.p. Not only are they good at designing complex patterns, but they are veritable geniuses at the noble art of creating image representations of said patterns out in the field, with such precision and on such a scale that you have to feel awe.

www.cropcircleconnector.com/Millennium/kris96a.html

As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on how to define "life".

What we do know, however, is that there is tremendous opportinity for creating superstition around this issue. It can also be quite lucrative to do so, which begs the question of what kind of incentive that motivates all possible permutations of the issue on how to define life.

My personal vote goes to "self replicating patterns". They can exist on a wide variety of complexity levels, with or without humanely detectable awareness. For instance clay. Or rock crystals. Both of which seem to have "purpose"; they assimilate elements from their surroundings into their structure so that they grow.

Obviously, there is a giant leap from rock crystals to complex organisms, but what they have in common is that they are self replicating patterns. In the case of the organism, though, we are talking about a composite of many different but coordinated patterns that each and own has "purpose" although in essence they are not much different from clay or rock crystal.

My main problem with Theists is that they demand submission.

"Thou shalt bow down and worship before this idol."

In the question of belief systems, I dont see any one of those any better or worse than any other. The act of believing what you don't have to believe is, in my opinion, superstition. With that statement, I mean to say that the problem is in the relation. You can relate to both science and rationality in a superstitious manner, meaning that you will uncritically accept axiomatic tenets, without investigating the matter for yourself, then move on to using it as a "weapon" against people with whom you disagree. It is the authority principle that I have a problem with.

Saying "I don't know" is an honest thing. Saying "I don't know but I believe what that guy says, even if I don't really understand any of it" is stupid.

I am Norwegian. My knowledge of the US of A is very limited. I have only seen New York, San Francisco and Charlotte, North Carolina (!). For whatever may be the reason, I felt most at home in NC. The people were all over easier to identfy with. I don't know what that says about me, but that's how it is.

I am of the impression that Americans take religion very seriously. They often seem to have strong opinions about things that none can, strictly speaking, know anything about. Norway, however, is very "atheistic" on the practical level. Religion is mostly considered unimportant - or a matter which is of the same private nature as your sexual preferences. There are of course both religious institutions and religious people, but they have little to no political influence on society.

Now... correct me if I am wrong... but is this not how things should be in a "natural" sort of context? Should we really be debating and discussing issues that are of a private and emotional nature as if they were objective phenomenons? In my point of view, the most insidious aspect of religion is the demanding of submission, that you surrender your freedom of thought and accept "faith" instead of critical thinking. This has never been accepted in the daily life of Norway and it never will be.

Why argue with morons?

It is, in my opinion, impossible to "believe" in theistic religion unless you are mentally challenged. Retarded. Insane. Idiot Savant. If you believe in theistic religion, there is something wrong with you. You are an inferior species. A fossil. A cognitive underachiever. It is impossible to respect someone who believes in any theistic concept of God and cosmogony. It's just weird. Creepy. Like some kind of hidden but still detectable, demented sexual deviation.

I consider my life time to be far too valuable to squander on the likes of these vermin.

Christians are not worthless. Far from it! They do in fact have negative value. Having to spend time around them steals away from your life. Having to listen to their message pollutes your consciousness. Having to turn down their filthy solicitations in utter disgust removes chunks of quality from your life. Why are they here? Why are they breathing? Why can't they just go away? They are creepy. Ugly. Unwelcome.

A friend of mine said he wanted to exterminate the world of Christians. In reply, I suggested that it would perhaps be more economically beneficial if we made them into slaves. He replied that the disgust he would feel every day from having to be around those people simply isn't worth it. I kind of agree with that.

As some of you will know all to well, there was a group of individuals called PNAC - www.newamericancentury.org/ - who sought to claim political power in the US of A some 10 years ago now. They were typically referred to as "the neocons" and they were strongly influenced by the ideas of a professor in poitical science, one Leo Strauss - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss - who were of the mind that society needs strong "symbols" to ensure that "values" are not lost on the great unwashed.

There is something to be said about "social design" - the act of seeking to create a utopian state which defies reality as we know it by virtue of common sense. Take for instance this unbelievable "debate" between evolutionists and creationists. Why are upstanding people even giving credence to something as retarded as creationism and/or intelligent design by engaging in a debate with them? This is the answer: Adolf Hitler. It ought to be clear that Hitler didn't just come out of nowhere to take over the German society by sheer supernatural powers of persuation. The ground was prepared for him when he arrived. He was the much coveted political leader figure that had long been sought by an informal "movement" that was based in irrational pseudo-science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welteislehre

Let's imagine a hierarchy of assuredness. At the extreme end we have things that are clearly impossible. Like for instance how you cannot fit a gallon of water inside a one pint bottle. Everybody understands this. Nor can you eat an entire chocolate cake and then throw it back up intact. Both those things are impossible (but for different physical reasons). The next step is to introduce things that are possible. This is the arena of speculation and belief. You wonder about how things might be explained. What causes existence to be? Where does life come from? There are a lot of "possible" explanations, but only a very few ones that will stay intact at the next level, which is that of being plausible. Lots of things are possible without being plausible. For instance, it is possible that my wife is cheating on me with the mailman but it isn't plausible. I don't believe that. This is by and large because I have faith in my wife. I have chosen to believe her when she says that she loves me and that she doesn't want anybody else in her life like that. I believe her. I even consider this a necessary belief. That is to say, an issue of trust. Do you see my point here? It is possible that my wife is fucking the mailman, but I don't believe that. It's not plausible.

There is no "theory of evolution".

Evolution is a mechanical concept in the physical world, a word we use to describe flux, or change, or natural processes that happen over time, on a whole. It is what we can observe. Like for instance how a galactic cloud can gather - evolve - into a star system by virtue of natural forces working over time. Or how a hunter-gatherer nomad culture can change - evolve - into a farmer-trader city state over time. There is no "good" or "bad" about that. It is a value-neutral, scientific observation, or study, of how one thing changes into another thing over time, both on a small and a large scale.

"Darwinism" is a bastard concept that has no intrinsic meaning. Nature isn't "darwinistic". Darwin suggested the idea of "natural selection" as a way of understanding how similar animals can develop different characteristics under varying environmental circumstances. He did not - I repeat NOT - invent "the teory of evolution". All he did was to suggst a scientifically valid way to explain the diversity of the species; tied it up to the basic concept of evolution.

I am currently being fascinated by M-theory, which is an elaboration of String Theory, which is an elaboration of Supersymmetry, which is what Stephen Hawking came up with when he tried to apply Quantum Mechanics at, or very near to, the event horizon of a Black Hole (a gravitationally collapsed region in spacetime), in an attempt at moving on with Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory.

So far so good.

Let me just assure y'all that this is the kind of stuff that will make you break a sweat when you try to grasp WTF they are talking about. In order to reach M-theory, you need to cover a lot of base first. You need to understand (by "understand" I mean to have a reasonable comprehension of what it is) both the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. You need to accept the counterintuitive nature of these abstractions. You need to understand Black Holes. You need to read yourself up on how "stuff" was created in The Big Bang and how it was since distibuted and altered in physical processes of the Universe. Then you need to throw it all away, empty your mind, and prepare to be left in a state of "say what?" dizzyness.

So far so good.

When the same person tells you that

A) your head is in the clouds

and that

B) your mind is in the gutter;

is the only appropriate answer not the one I gave:

"As above, so below." ?!?

As an offering of a palm (no, not a psalm), I suggest that we start naming evolution "intelligent design".

That is to say, things that evolved as they did over a long period of time, relative to nature's mysterious (but very rigorous) processes.

Yes there is a designer. It is called space, time, circumstance, conditions, etc. or in shorthand; evolution. An impersonal force.

So what is unintelligent design then?

Somebody more technically versed than me will have to draw up the full charter, but I can give an example: Monsanto's "Round Up Ready" soy beans.

That is to say, genetically modified organisms that are being let loose in nature with unforseeable consequences.

I need some help with a problem.

The thing is, there is somebody who keeps on bombarding me with "evidence" (see links at the bottom) for how Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons were intebreeding in early Europe. However, my understanding of the issue is that Cro-Mags and Neanders were too far apart genetically to be able to produce anything but sterile offspring (as is the case with for instance horses and donkeys). I am a bit of a sitting duck here because I am by no means cock sure about my own interpretation of how modern humans evolved, whereas my esteemed opponent is almost fanatically playing on every doubt in me. But that's my bulwark of defence as well, because I instinctively reject information that seems to be too enthusiastically presented.

I hope that there is someone here with some insight into the matter who can explain, or point me in the right direction.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html

http://www.duerinck.com/migrate.html

The Noughties are almost over. The Teens are coming.

2010 is only hours away.

Someone once said to me that the so-called new year's resolution is a perfect example of how ancient votive religions still are structurally existing within human behaviour patterns. You make a promise before something of cultural importance (in this case the calendar event of the passing year count) in order to bestow your "event" with extraordinary magical powers and yourself with a sense of duty to uphold it. 

The offering bit I suppose is the act of getting royally pissed on champagne before trying to kill yourself with fireworks.

Well, all I can say is that the double zero part of this fabulous new millenium wasn't all that great.

I mean... I grew up during the height of the cold war years and reached sexual maturity at the time when AIDS hit the market.

It would be nice to have a decade with relative freedom from the fearmongers.

But then again... who am I kidding? Humans get off on being scared.

However that may be... and whoever you are, wherever; and whatever you believe...

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Trollville sounds like a secular internet hell.

What do I have to do to get here? OK, I have a song...

A little while ago, I made the statement Jesus was an atheist. What does this mean? He spoke of a different God and a different Heaven, but most of all he spoke of a different love, than that of the Old Testament. So they killed him. And they stripped him of his humanity, erased his true history, until finally perverting his teachings into that hideous monstrosity which is Christianity as we know it. Or, as I prefer to call it, anti-christianity, since nobody in their right mind will see even the slightest similarity between today's obsessive cult of worship and the quiet life-as-it-is ethics of the master himself.

I am, under certain conditions, willing to accept the company of non-smokers. However, I won't do business with them, nor invite them into my home. In a case study of the concept of tolerance, yours truly will probably not do so well on the test score. Or maybe I would? You see, I really and truly have no opinions about what other people should be, or do, as I don't consider it appropriate to try and "design" somebody else's past, present or future. I take people at face value. This doesn't mean that I like them all - far from it. In fact, as far as I can see, most people are just vermin. Judged by how they behave. Yes it is indeed true that we all have talents and spectacular abilities to be and behave like magical animals. But it just isn't like that in reality. It takes a monumental effort of willpower to take charge of your own life and choose to be "better" than the default, vermin class of animals that are humans.

It has been said that unless humans beings find a way to live together, we will all die together.

There are places on this earth that are locked into fierce conflict that seems impossible to solve. For example "the Palestine problem" and various ethnic conflicts that has been going on for decades in Africa. It is a relative privilege to be situated in a peaceful part of the world, but he quarrelsome nature of the human being will surface somehow anway.

What is the fucking point in rehashing conflicts that will not get solved?

I for one am not particularly interested in "turning" people of belief... and there isn't a snowflake's chance in a supernova that they will "turn" me. So why debate along such lines? I get sucked into it every now and then in sheer irritation over what I perceive as retarded arguments, although they probably make perfect sense to the person who's harbouring such points of view.

The John Lennon in me wants to say give peace a chance. The more analytically oriented rationalist part wants to know how.