If you enjoy what you read here you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Dem Drones

Intro
Heads are disconnected by dem lie drones,
Heads are disconnected by dem lie drones,
Killing in the Valley of lie drones,
Coz they do the work of their lore.
Verse
Believer's connected to the Progressive
Progressive's connected to the Moderate
Moderate's connected to the Conformist
Conformist's connected to the Conservative
Conservative's connected to the Traditionalist
Traditionalist's connected to the Orthodox
Orthodox's connected to the Zealot
Zealot's connected to the Radical
Radical's connected to the Extremist
Extremist's connected to the Martyr
Martyr's connected to the suicide bomb.
And they all do the work of their lore.
Chorus
Dem drones, dem drones gonna rise again.
Dem drones, dem drones gonna rise again.
Dem drones, dem drones gonna rise again.
And they'll burn the world for their lore.
Finale
Dem drones, dem drones, dem lie drones.
Dem drones, dem drones, dem lie drones.
Dem drones, dem drones, dem lie drones.
Now fear the wars of their lore.


So to the question...
Given the arrowhead of condonation detailed in the verse, can it be legitimately denied that even the most innocent faith inevitably supports the zealot crusader's excuse for violent martyrdom at the pointy end?
You can probably guess what I think.

This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Born Rational

The oxford dictionaries definition of Atheist is "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods", which is the condition of ALL babies prior to magical indoctrination.
Now you may think...
"A baby lacks belief in everything, so it's absence of a belief in a god or gods is meaningless and, of itself, is not an indication that no god exists. Born atheist isn't an argument for atheism!"
...and I'd agree, it isn't an argument for the absence of a god. 'Born atheist' is just a fact; merely a recognition of the status quo. We're all implicit atheists before the society into which we are born brands us, imprinting dogma and tradition. Our lack of any indoctrination, spiritual or otherwise, is a fact across almost every area of the baby's existence, however, for those proffering...
"Babies are also free of all rational thinking."
...the evidence before us, in every child ever born to every species, is that is not so and, once again, the human eye, already much discussed in the theological debate, offers example.
When we are born we see the world as it is presented by the lens of our eye, which projects it inverted onto the retina.
Over a period of time the baby rationalises that clear and fulsome but poorly presented data from the eye against the data it is receiving from other bodily sensations, including the extremely reliable and ever present gravity data stream.
With no human intervention possible, there can be no complex communication with a being which has no means of complex communication, one may only assume the baby's rationalisation of the disparate data streams indicates we're all born as innately rational beings. And, as supporting evidence for that assumption, if we examine from the converse perspective, a being without the ability to rationalise the data streams(an irrational being) would fail to survive or survive less well.
Further, no matter how we feel about this world's natural disasters, tragedies etc, it's a rational, internally cohesive, generally predictable system. It is unsurprising that therein the beings functioning most rationally thrive best, which conforms beautifully with 'the survival of the fittest'; the most suitable to fit the rational environment survives through harnessing rationality. Or, to put it more lyrically...
In any rational environment the most rational being rationalises most rationally.
Seems to me, as I've shown above, whereas supernatural fables may only be learnt after the child has developed the complex communication skills required for indoctrination, acting rationally is innate, a necessity for the survival of any life-form; any baby of any species must act rationally to properly process the rational data of the world and progress from infancy to childhood.
When then you consider, to our current knowledge, humanity is the pinnacle of rational thought in the cosmos, is it rational to claim an offspring thereof, is born contrary to the evidence visible in any human baby's development and, frankly, all other known life, in a state of irrationality?
Finally, is one who implies or directly claims "Babies are born without rationality" doing so to dishonestly promote the notion that rational thought has parity with religious concepts, by implying they are both taught/learnt? Or that it has parity because they are both innate?
And, as promotion of either would be a dishonest representation of the situation, can one who lies so openly, merely to sooth their ego by crowbarring a wish for eternal life into the topic, be trusted to be honest on any topic?


This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

The Domino Effect

What follows is a philosophical muse only. No numbers were crunched, no chemistry read etc. It's just a thought I thought might make a loose illustration of how DNA became what is arguably the most important sequence in the history of the universe(s) and, to do that, I'm going to use dominoes, or rather you are, if you want to. I recommend it, it'll probably be a lot easier if you print out the instructions and actually do it.
It might even be a bit of edutainment for older kids to see or do.
1. Take a set of dominoes and empty them into an opaque material bag (a hat would do); it's just so domino selection is random.

2. Take out 1 domino and place it down; the start of the first sequence.

3. Continue to take out one domino at a time.

4. If next domino is not a match with the one already placed down, start a new sequence with it. If the domino does match, at either end of the sequence, the matching domino numbers are attracted together. The higher the number the great the pull; if the numbers match, the piece must join at that point.

5. Keep taking dominoes out and placing them down, continuing the current sequence or starting a new one, until no dominoes remain.

6. When all the dominoes are placed, look at the sequences. Any sequence containing only one domino will be attracted to the nearest matching sequence end.

7. Any sequence with two or more dominoes we'll call a "success", based on the fact that something, a successful coupling, has happened and, by extension, the sequence with the highest number of dominoes is "most successful".

8. If any two sequences match, those sequences are attracted to each other and their union spawns a new sequence, which is not a perfect replica of its parents; one end of the sequence will always gain or lose one domino. If last domino in the new sequence is connected to the next by a number which is less than half the domino set's maximum number the last domino is lost from the sequence, breaks of and becomes part of the pool, if more than half it gains. If 'gained' it gains it, where a parent has a matching end domino, from one of the parents. The new sequence then becomes part of the pool of sequences and is attracted to any other matching sequences(or loose dominoes if it was spawned of parents with unmatched 'gain' potential). Repeat this process until all attraction couplings are complete.

10. When all couplings are exhausted, Domino sequences with matching ends above half the value of the maximum domino will join together to form 'double-length' domino sequence. There is insufficient attraction and bonding strength to support longer sequences or to support the joining of sequences with and end value of less than half of maximum domino value.

11. When all 'coupling", 'spawning' and 'joining' has been accomplished get another set of dominoes or, if like me you've only got one set, keep a record of the sequences (graph paper works well for this) and repeat the whole process.

If you have the time or inclination, and can continue for 4.5 million years. At some point you'll very likely get a super-complicated sentient domino sequence that thinks it's magically acquired a supernaturally eternal personality.

So, for those who have not already surmised, to transpose the illustration into real world terms...
Replace the domino bag with a planet sized ocean rich with chemicals from exploded suns. Replace dominoes with amino acids; that is, Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine and the coupling chains become DNA strands.
Repeat for 4.5 million years and you get an ape trying to explain meaning of life stuff in dominoes.

This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Share

If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May


Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Too Many Questions - Headlines

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

My new blog:
Left of Sinister
It's kind of political.

Blogroll

Lijit Ad Wijit