#1 flowing thoughts - contemplating breaking up.

I enjoy sometimes talking to myself, but typing to the internet is nice too. Anyways, this is what's bugging me today: My girlfriend's guy friend.

Why is it that women are not able to understand the concept of not having close relationships with other men while they are in a relationship? If the guy wasn't a complete d-bag, then it would be a little more tolerable. But when the guy is talking crap about me, and she doesn't even defend me, it gets annoying. He's also a complete perv with her—in the way he talks and "jokes" with her.

I'm thinking about breaking up with this girl. I just don't have the "fire" anymore. The issue with her is that I thought she was a good, conservative girl. But finding out that she has this sort of friend, and that little amount of loyalty for me, my image of her has certainly changed. I fell in love with a delusion, sadly. But now I'm stuck with the emotional attachment to that delusion. The real person is not the person I thought she was.

My strategy I'm employing now is to de-attach myself to this girl by thinking thoughts like "I don't care about her"..."she isn't important to me", etc. I want to reach the point where I don't care about her at all, then I will leave. I figure, she hurt me by putting on a facade and turning out to be a totally different person, so dragging her along while I separate myself emotionally is the best route.

I realize that she wasn't the problem, but my emotional attachment to her was. If I wasn't emotionally attached, then she wouldn't be able to stress me out (her and her friends). The lesson I learned is that the best thing to do in a relationship is to realize its purpose and don't get emotionally attached (the purpose being for the pragmatic utility).

I'm going to work hard in the future to avoid getting attached to people. This is me shooting from the hip, using Buddhist bullets. Buddhism teaches that emotional attachments cause pain and delusion. The delusion relationships cause is that they magnify importance of individuals, warp thinking, and ultimately lead to unwholesomeness. Never fall in love. 

Will Atheism Survive?

Recently there has been an rise in atheism. The main reason, in my opinion, is a combination of alternatives, Christianity being behind-the-times, and the liberal media. While I don't believe atheism is a bad thing, it is something that isn't right for everyone. I used to be an atheist, but still maintained many of the moral views I learned as a Christian. Now I consider myself to be a deist—I don't believe God interferes directly, but that a source of conscious intelligent underlies the universe's creation.

Going back to the main point—will atheism survive. I believe the answer is no. This is because of the fact that Christianity can and will evolve to better suit the modern lifestyle. In other words, a Christianity that can deal with new technologies and scientific understandings. Atheism exists because many people don't see Christianity as having all the answers so-to-speak. Christianity will evolve, and atheism will get squashed (irony). 

Why Bullies Bully

Bullying is a learned behavior. The concept that underlies bullying is "if you don't like someone, attacking them physically or psychological is the way to correct it". Bullying is a hateful act, and it requires a hateful child (at heart) to engage in it. I strongly believe that if a child (or adult) loves themselves and feels loved by others, then they do not feel the urge to attack others. Not only is bullying an attempt to assert dominance over others, but it's also a vent for suppressed frustration.

I believe the biggest cause for bullying behavior is the parents themselves. When a parent attacks their children verbally or physically, they are teaching their children that if they don't like a certain behavior in others, they are to act aggressively towards them. This is why I think it's a terrible thing to yell at or around children and obviously to attack them physically. Prisons are filled with people that had well-intentioned parents who didn't know parenting-skills any better than rocket building skills.

If your child bullies, then you not only need to have a calm, intelligent (as possible) conversation with the child (centered around empathy for others), but you also need to have a look in the mirror at what you did wrong; examples of failed parenting falls into areas like your children's television consumption, your reaction to their troublesome behavior, what you teach them regarding other people (realize that they learn by overhearing conversations). It's also important for a parent to be an open source for children to discuss problems with. It's important to never downplay their problems or denigrate them—this will teach them to not be open to you.

I Was Bullied

Much of my school experience involved bullying on a regular basis (as the victim). To be honest, because of bullies, my view of humanity and myself became cynical in general. Even my own father bullied me (but that's another topic). Even in elementary school I was bullied for being short and having a "different" last name.

Due to the bullying, I became shy and more and more introverted. I remember a time—during elementary school—when I would get into fights (more defending than anything). I never lost a fight, but it certainly didn't feel good to have physical attacks coming at me.

The worst physical act of intimidation was when this kid who was 1-2 years older than me and a lot bigger pulled out a knife and said he would slit my throat". My reaction was to go to the bus driver (where it occurred) and tell him about it.

I have many stories and theories about why bullies bully. I want to do a decent amount of blogging on the subject. If you want to read my content, click on the 'bullying' label at the bottom of this post. 

My Perception of Obama and the Racist Election

I voted for Obama. That said, my views have changed dramatically since then. During the 2008 election period, I was a fundemental atheist--not only was very rigid in my belief that there was no God, but I also wanted everyone around me. In other words, my main concern was anti-religion, so I favored the most secular candidate--Obama.

While my political interest was narrow (anti-religion), some people's motivation for voting for Obama or again were even more narrow--based on race. In my opinion, the people that voted for Obama because he was black African American are as guilty of racism as the people who didn't vote for him because he was black. Let me explain. Those that voted for McCain because of race perceived McCain as being "higher" than Obama. Is it any better if someone votes for Obama because his race makes him a more favorable candidate (regardless of their reason--first black president, etc.)? Racism is not a one way street. The sad thing is that in America, hatred towards white people is not as sensitive as hatred towards blacks African Americans.

[Side Note] - I actually dislike writing a blog that labels people as being a particular race--creating such ideas forces people to perceive race and in-group/out-group mentalities. 

When you vote, never vote based on the candidates race. Either way, you are being racist in the process.

Getting back to Obama. He failed when it came to fulfilling campaign promises. The reality is that he did very little and the country is still in sad shape on many fronts. As a college student, the unemployment rate and student loan issues scare me to death. Now that I'm no longer an atheist, my focus is on other  fronts politically--making me a independent-conservative leaning person. Obama has went a little too far on his attack on religion. I believe religion is important for most people. I know this is a major shift away from atheism, but what I found was that most people are not well behaved if they didn't have a controlling belief system. For example, even as an atheist I was against abortion (which is the opposite of what most atheists believe). In short, I didn't like how atheism belittle human experience and existence.

Obama supporting the pro-choice people is an immoral stance. It's clear that, from a conservative perspective, Obama is not morally knowledgeable in areas like respecting personal property, value of human life, going to war without congressional approval, and the list goes on. Also, given Obama's resume, he is not an authority on economic issues. It's far from controversial to claim that the economy is the biggest problem we face as a country, and I'm just not seeing Obama do the right things in that area.

The average voter knows very little about the issues. In fact, even at the time I voted for Obama, I wasn't that well informed. I believe a good idea would be to make voters take an exam to access knowledgeably about the issues; and if they fail the exam, their vote doesn't count. A Democracy will not work with an uninformed public, forced exams would make people study-up before voting. 

Going to blog all the time...

I was thinking, why don't I blog more often? Is it because I lack of ideas?...No, I have plenty of ideas. I think the problem with me is that I'm not so sure readers will be interested in reading my ideas. Right now I'm drunk...you know, listening to tunes and pissing vinegar, same old boring nothingness. Anyways, I'm going to make this blog be a non-stop rant about randomness. Here we go....

I hate rats....

I saw this rat running around in my room. I tried to kill it, but I kept missing with the walking stick I had. I ended up getting my dog to try to sniff it out (she's gotten rats before), but nothing. I seriously hate rats, terrible creatures...

#1 Mindfulness Discussion

On the blog, I'm going to be doing some mindfulness discussions. I'm going to keep them short and sweet. I'm also going to number them. This will be the first (as the title indicates). 

For me, mindfulness is a way of life--in fact, the practice of mindfulness has made me afraid of not being alive. Before I go any further, what do I mean by being alive? Being alive is to be aware of your life. Death, I believe, is a total lack of awareness. To put it in a different way, the soul cannot be aware of itself; so without anything to be aware of, nothingness pervades experience. But at the same time, we can't know how unaware we are in the present moment. Only by becoming aware in the present moment can we understand our past lack of awareness. 

Porn: Turning People Into Perverts

Being a pervert is a bad thing, and porn (and masturbation to porn) certainly can transform a person into a pervert.

What is a pervert?


My definition of pervert—which I believe adequately describes it—is someone that is unable to control themselves sexually (in actions and thoughts); in other words, being a pervert means to have poor impulse control in the realm of sexuality. Being a pervert is a behavioral disorder because it does interfere with the mind and body's ability to function. I believe being a pervert should be considered in the same realm as depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder; all of these disorders are caused by the brain functioning in a disorderly manner causing less-than optimal functioning (to put it mildly).

How does porn turn a person into a pervert?


Porn can be a highly pleasurable activity to those who consume it. Sounds good right? No. Because it is pleasurable, this means that the brain associates the content (random humans [and not their loved one] and sexual acts) with sexual pleasure. This means that, as a person feels stressed out or depressed, they will seek pleasurable rush caused by perceiving their surroundings in a sexual way. The brain, because it becomes addicted to sexual perceptions, will wire itself in a way that it sees the world through the lens of sexual lust. Thus, the pervert is created; a person defined by what pleasures him—sexual ideas and images directed towards anyone and everyone. Like a Christian will see God in everything (which is a good thing), porn addicts see sex in everything.

Why is Roger such an expert on porn addiction?


I'm a sociology major and have a strong interest (due to its relation) in human psychology. I'm also a heavy computer user, so I'm exposed to the views of the internet masses. I believe that I have a strong understanding of how a porn-addict's mind works; and, because I have an outside perspective on this cultural phenomenon, I believe I can see the issue more dynamically than those who are consumed by the perversion. A crazy person often doesn't know that they are crazy in the same way that a porn addict doesn't see their habit as a self-destructive addiction.

Fishing for Liberal Debate (in the Yahoo comment section)

I wrote the following to stir the pot. The news story was about gay marriage on some military base. Anyways, while I don't hate gay people (or have much of an opinion about them), I don't like the definition (perception) of marriage changing in my society. Now that liberals have gotten their foot in the door, over time, people will lose touch with the real purpose behind marriage—the union of man and woman for the purpose of creating offspring in a nurturing environment. With all liberals have fought for over the last 50-60 years, we have seen the family get decimated (approximately 50% divorce rate). Don't get me wrong, I don't hate liberals (or anyone), but I believe they are seriously misguided on many issues. Anyways, enough of my rambling, here is the post:

ME: "Liberal Strategy for getting their way: Push it in society's face until the people get used to it; it's brainwashing. Realize, morality is a perception; it's merely based on opinion (thus cannot be factual). Liberalism is a secular religion with its own god ([changing tradition]al social structures, customs, values, etc.), and they have faith that what they are fighting for is "progressive".If liberals got there way on every issue, they would still want something else to change. Essentially they look for what societal behavior is traditionally taboo and then fight for it, normalize, then move on. This is why liberals gravitate towards things like lewdness, vulgarity, self-destruction, and laziness (work ethic is traditionally valued). In other words, they fight for those who are considered social misfits. Liberals disobey authority like a brat kid disobeys their parent—just for the sake of doing it. This post will not get positive feedback. Sadly, what is true and good is a pain-inducing barrier for some (liberals) to overcome."

Anonymous liberal 1: "Jeremy, do you own a slave? Why not? At one time (in nearly every society) it was perfectly acceptable". 

 My response to Anonymous liberal: "Which had nothing to do with liberals (emancipation of the slaves). Anyone that takes a strict reading of the constitution would realize the issue regarding the rights of blacks. It had nothing to do with the moral degeneration that is occurring today. Apples and oranges (in case you haven't noticed, homosexual marriage is not slavery). If a gay person wants to get married, they should find an opposite sex partner or settle with a civil union. Here's a scenerio that will put my argument into context...
Imagine that the vast majority of society enjoys using Mayo on their sandwiches. However, about 3% of the population likes to use peanut butter. Those that love peanut butter create a bunch of activist groups to fight for the right to call peanut butter "Mayo". The peanut butter activists are successful and now peanut butter is referred to as "Mayo". The issue now is that Mayo refers to ANY sandwich spread and thus the word has lost its original meaning. Simple, right?"

Anonymous liberal 2: "No the conservatives strategy is obviously to deny they are gay until they get caught... happens all the time. True conservatives should applaud gay marriage as a conservative belief... "

My response: "Your warped brain needs to believe that. Reality: There is nothing conservative about gay marriage."

Anonymous liberal 1: "Again, your world view is incredibly limited. You're hard to speak with because I am an educated elitist. 
Everything you said is simple, but that doesn't make it right. You can't put your POV into any sort of context besides ignorance and intolerance." 

My response to Anonymous liberal 1: "Educated elitist? You seem more like a pseudo-intellectual, ego-maniac to me. You don't know my educational background. I know liberals let their imaginations get a hold of them. Sure, it probably feels good to daydream about how "elite" and "open-minded" you are; I'm sure you dream about your liberal superpowers regularly. Now, getting back to reality; while I'm not going to brag about the degrees I have, I will let you know that I have a decent background in Sociology and Psychology (one more-so than the other...I'll let you guess which). So when it comes to this subject matter (social issues and human psychology), it's very unlikely that you are significantly more knowledgeable than me. 

As for you: Be aware of the "perceptions" that you take for granted that are mere products of the imagination (liberals tend to be delusional). Realize that you are not a mind-reader, you'll be happier (and less deluded) in life. Did I forget to mention that your delusions of grandeur can get better if you step back down to earth? :) Yep, I believe so...

By the way, tolerance is not acceptance. I don't need to accept your worldview, but I admit that I am forced to tolerate the fact that people like you (liberals) roam the surface of this planet."

Anonymous liberal 3: "Jesus was a Liberal."

My response to Anonymous liberal 3: That's nonsense. Jesus didn't talk favorably about tax collectors, was against premarital sex (and even lusting "in the heart"), divorce, murder (he would not have supported abortion), supported the Old Testament (which had very strict laws), and warned of hell for sinners. If Jesus could come to earth today, I'm sure he would see liberal behavior as an abomination. 

I'll update if people leave comments about my comment. I'm fishing for a debate, let's hope I get some bites :)  Feel free to debate and/or just plain discuss the liberal vs. conservative cultural conflict in the comment section here.

*Update* Caught me some good, dopey liberals. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. 

Fred Willard's Lewd Conduct in Adult Theater

Image by Cbl62 (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 or GFDL], via Wikimedia Commons (source does not endorse this blog)

If you don't know who this pervert is, he is a comedian; some of the roles he has filled were in the productions "Everyone Loves Raymond", "Best in Show", and "For Your Consideration". If you like any of those productions, I suggest you stop reading here; otherwise you will always have some disturbing imagery associated with those programs. Remember how Pee-wee Herman was ruined by his unwholesome behavior? I used to love that show as a kid, now it's just creepy. Anyways, let's get on with it...

The Los Angeles Police do a sweep of the Santa Monica area on a regular basis, and that includes a certain particular adult theater (a place where pathetic individuals with no dignity and/or self-control go; just my opinion). The authorities discovered that he was doing "lewd conduct". Now this is a family blog, so I wont go into detail; I would say use your imagination, but you really don't want to.

What is wrong with celebrities? I really don't understand it. I mean sure, you will get a few weirdos in a town, but some people make a living off reporting the terrible things these famous people do. Besides, isn't there enough nonsense for perverts on the internet to sustain them? Is it because he's into voyeurism? Is that it? 

Bleeding Nose Leads To Boxer's Arrest

A boxer from Toledo was arrested following some unorthodox evidence gathering. Martin Tucker (the boxer) had a fight in his home city— occurring in April—in which he got a bloody nose. To clean him up, his corner used a Q-tip. Tucker was suspected by investigators as having been involved in a bank robbery in July of 2009; the bank robbery involved two men stealing $5,379. A special agent named Robert Schmitz—a closeted Jedi master—snatched up the previously mentioned Q-tip after the fight and had the DNA analyzed to see if it was a match to the robbery in 2009; it turned out to be a match. Long story short, he was charged with robbing the bank and was charged for having a firearm involved as well. 


Was all that worth $5,379? They say that boxing can cause brain damage, well it certainly didn't help this guy. If you are ever tempted to rob a bank, stop for a few moments and contemplate just how stupid such an idea is. 


Random Note: Why does it seem most boxers are Christians? Well, if Tucker is a Christian he should be concerned about ticking off God; I'm sure He doesn't like people violating one of His 10 Commandments ("Thou shall not steal"..I think that's how it goes).  


Source: Detroit News (click me for link to original story)

George Zimmerman claims 'God's plan' underlying the shooting of Trayvon Martin

George Zimmerman recently claimed that he believed it was "God's plan" that the Trayvon Martin shooting took place. Before I get into my belief in God's role in this situation, let me give my take on the case as a whole.

Unless you don't pay attention to the news, you are painfully aware of the Trayvon Martin shooting; the media has been going OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder [anxiety disorder]) regarding its discussion/informing of the case. The short of it is that George Zimmerman—a neighborhood watch volunteer—shot Trayvon Martin in what he claims was self-defense. The media has been pushing the perception that Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon was racially motivated and unwarranted. If you want to know more regarding the case, seek out your local Google website. 

At first I didn't buy the whole "he's racist" thing. But my opinion slowly turned around when family and co-workers came out of the woodwork to claim he was. In fact, a former co-worker (I believe a Muslim) claims that he harassed him because of his religion. 

To make matters worse, and while it isn't directly related, one of Zimmerman's cousins claimed that he molested her several times over a 10 year period (6-16 years of age, him being two years older).  

Random note: In the comment section of the molestation article I read (can't remember the exact article, I believe it was on Yahoo), this guy was defending Zimmerman's action saying that everyone "played doctor" at that age; stupidity on the internet is certainly not in recession. 

Keeping all this in mind, I'm going to step back and wait to see the results of the trial. On second thought, if I had a guy following me at night, I may get confrontational as well (probably wouldn't get physical). 

Is God responsible? Is this His will?

In my opinion, no; I don't believe this is a result of God's influence, but rather the opposite. The Bible is quite clear about God's perception of killing (one of the Ten Commandments) and hatred (Jesus said that to hate is to commit murder in the heart). If George Zimmerman is racist, he is certainly not following Jesus' teachings; Jesus said to not prejudge a person based on their outer appearance. In fact, Jesus taught non-violence; remember how he said that if someone slaps you in the face, slap the other side, etc.? 

British Olympic Cheerleader Controversy

The Olympics in Britain apparently have a cheerleading squad. The controversy stems from a public voting on the group of cheerleaders they wanted. The public chose The Crystals—made famous by their routine of the infamous song "Call Me Maybe"—a highly sexualized group. The committee in Britain, who had the final say, instead went with the London Wild Cat cheerleaders (a less provocative group).

I left a comment on the orginal story (found on Yahoo Sports). Here it is:

Roger: "Good for the British committee; they at least have dignity. If this was in the U.S. they probably would have had strippers and abortion tents. I know I'm being factious, but public events and the media need to stop catering to the perverts—the Olympics is not about trying to make people horny—there's plenty of internet space for such degenerates already."

I mostly got positive feedback so far. If some moron tries to debate me I'll update this post accordingly. Nastiness is too representative on the internet; the moral need to speak up. In regards to my abortion comment, I believe abortion is immoral in more ways than one. I'm not saying that those who get abortions are all perverts, but certainly many lack the values that I hold (e.g. family, human life, sexual morals).

Click here for the source (Yahoo Sports)

Foie Gras Ban in California

Apparently 'foie gras' ("fatty liver" in french) is banned in California. Okay, so people can't have fat livers?...is that what I'm referring too? Not exactly, for human's at least. Apparently some people force-feed ducks, corn—by shoving a tube down their throat—causing them to eat way more than they ordinarily would. On one hand, I disagree with the ban; I mean, don't we kind of do the same thing to ourselves? (we're all a bunch of overeating lard-asses). That said, on the other hand, this seems incredibly harsh on the animals—on humans it would be considered a form of torture—albeit I suppose killing the animals is harsh too. I love eating meat, but my hope is that the meat is harvested (so much better of a term than 'slaughter') as painlessly as possible.

Anyways, recently a judge named Stephen V. Wilson struck down a group's push to remove the ban. The full story is here (click me). Tell em' Roger sent ya. 

Complexity and Creation: an argument that made me re-think atheism)

I believe in an intelligent creator of the universe. Do you? Without bogging you down with trivia, many scientists believe in a creator. In-fact, 40% of scientists believe in an intelligent creator; Francis Collins, the source of the mentioned statistic, is a scientist (Human Genome Project director) and also a believer. My point is that not all scientists are atheists. 


The Universe is much more complex than anything humans have created; in fact, it's even more complex than we can comprehend. Shouldn't that give us pause? To think such a thing could "just happen" seems ridiculous. The reason many are atheists today is because of two things:


1) Many famous atheists have presented articulate arguments against intelligent creation by attacking old religious scripture. 


2) There is a major disconnect between contemporary moral values and traditional ones; this creates the need for people to escape Christian values by formulating arguments against them. 


In this blog post, I'm going to address the first reason people become atheists. Sure, religious text (referring to Old/New Testament) can be argued against; especially if they are looked at with a narrow lens (literally and/or taking the text out of context). Let's say a portion of the Bible is capable of being argued against, does this disprove God (intelligent force[s])? No. It's like claiming that just because leprechauns aren't real, this disproves rainbows. More importantly, atheists miss the point of the Bible: the moral and spiritual lessons that are contained within. The bible is not intended to be a scientific book because it was created with a different methodology.



Evolution debunked as real science. 

Evolution is pseudo-science that has caused people to miss the forest full of trees—an intelligent force underlying the creation of the universe. As you read the following, keep an open mind; don't just view it with a hateful, biased attitude.

Atheists claim evolution disproves scripture (specifically Genesis; spontaneous biological creation via an intelligent force). Has macro-evolution even been shown to have occurred? No. The best they can show is micro-evolution; but micro-evolution has not been shown to be able to accommodate for all the structural complexity and speciation. Even those that use "micro-evolution" to breed different varieties of foods and animals know that there are limits to their meddling. At best, all micro-evolution has been shown to do is alter the representation of existing features (within a population), not create new ones. Micro-evolution's reach includes things like bone length, width, and density; hair color and texture; internal organ size and strength, etc.; skin color, texture, and thickness. There is a lot of room for variation among existing structures, but this capacity was known about way before Darwin. Darwin went wrong when he claimed that variation within a species was capable of creating entirely new species and internal structures. He claimed (with zero evidence) that with enough time, the most simplest form of life (known to us as 'bacteria') could transform into a multi-celled organisms as complex as human beings. There is simply no solid evidence that such an event occurred (bacteria > all modern life). It is all hopeful speculation on the part of scientists, but certainly outside of the scientific method; yet it's being taught as science. When scientists leave the realm of science and get into speculation, they are really outside of their domain (which limits them by the scientific method). Scientists simply have no evidence (only speculation) evolution is responsible for the complexity of life on earth, and let's not even get started about how life even got here to begin with (their speculation is even more scattered).

Sure, variation exists among populations, but when someone breeds a dog to have slightly longer fur, is any new complexity added? I'm talking about real complexity: some new evolutionary change that makes the animal's internal structure(s) more complex than its peers' (otherwise the species' population would always remain unchanging). Most biologists claim that "evolution took a long time", but what does more time get us? If it can't be shown to occur (increasing complexity) in the short term (even within a 1,000+ years) in even a minute amount, what is more time going to give us? I'm not talking about anything unreasonable; just the slightest little change that creates new, viable internal structures within existing species. Let me repeat, complexity has never been observed to increase, only speculated to increase. Yet with zero evidence (only speculation), we are suppose to believe that our earliest ancestors were bacteria—it just took "a long time". I'm sorry, but I'm not going to have faith in scientists' speculation of what happened; they are bound by the scientific method and anything that goes beyond that transforms them into laypersons. They have faith in an unproven concept (macro-evolution) because it seems more "scientific" than the religious explanation; they would rather go with that speculation than with one which seems even more unreachable—God.


A scenario to put scientific speculation into context


In an experiment, amino-acids (important building block of life) were created in a lab using basic materials speculated to exist on primitive Earth. Here's an example of what that would be like: Humans die off and all traces of our existence disappear. Aliens descend on this plant to study its life. They managed to discover this strange contraption, perfectly preserved in ice, with wheels and an apparent design....

Image by StaraBlazkova (Own work) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons 

It seems that there must have been a designer...but wait! Oil was discovered in it! Alien science has proven that oil originated by ancient plant life. Hmm, that must mean that with the natural production of oil, over a long period of time, machinery must have evolved around its use. I mean, the oil must have came first; without oil, the machine could never have functioned. Mystery solved, evolution is true! And complexity "just happened" *poof*. 


An intelligent creator is too hard to prove, probably impossible. Scientists don't like that. They prefer ends that they believe could be proven to occur (which is fair enough, speculation is an important part of the method, but requires evidence to support it before it can be considered true scientific knowledge). That said, I hope our search for the truth doesn't cause us to miss the forest full of trees like it did for the aliens.

The reality is that increasing complexity has never been shown to occur without the interference of intelligence, guiding the process. Scientists need to humble themselves with an awareness of their ignorance. They have blurred the lines between speculation and scientific knowledge.    

I love hamburgers (random life)

Barbecued hamburgers with sliced-bread. Yum!

Guy calls all Catholics "pedophiles": My response (Yahoo comments)

Bubbles: "Creepy Catholic pedophiles think they are on the moral high ground? Really!"

Me: "It's prejudice (and bigoted) to label all Catholics as 'pedophiles'. A few misfits does not describe the church as a whole."

Bubbles: "@ Jeremy.. Your backward thinking on contraception may be accepted in third world countries where the population is ignorant and superstitious but it just doesn't work in this country."

Me: "I never provided an opinion on contraceptives. In case you didn't notice, my comment was about YOU claiming that all Catholics were pedophiles (which was implied given the context). 


Here's my take on the issue: If someone wants to use contraceptives, then that's there business; that said, its inclusion in healthcare coverage should not be government mandated. The federal government was not given that power in the constitution (you may wanna give it a read); which was very specific about the role of government and its powers. The constitution was meant to prevent the government from growing and controlling as much as it desired. 


You may think conservatives have backwards thinking, but I can assure you that they perceive people like you in the same way. You can think whatever you want; opinions are not factual--so those that hold them are merely perceiving reality (including people's behavior) differently--so there is no "right" or "wrong". Morality falls into the realm of opinion (based on different valuations). Long story short: Your morality is neither right or wrong, just an opinion. 


I assume you are your own moral authority; that would explain a lot."


--------------
I'll provide updates if he comments further.

I do this (discuss my internet "comments") to correct people's thinking. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of all the unchecked lewdness, bigotry, and ignorance on the internet. Stupid people need guidance. 

How to know when to leave a relationship...

Many people wonder if they should leave a relationship. While I'm no expert on bad relationships—I think it's important readers understand this—I have seen many in my circle get involved in them (friends, family, and Facebook frangers [friended strangers]). The first thing to do—at least in my opinion—is to get out a piece of paper and pen. It may sound cliche, but it's important to juice (squeeze the information out) the brain as to why you are questioning the relationship. Follow along this process:

1) "What do I feel?"
       -ex. "jealous"

2) Write out all the reasons you feel the way you do.
       -ex. "I caught him flirting with another girl/guy on Facebook"

If at this point you are unable to think of a reason to justify your feelings of insecurity, assess whether or not it is rational to feel the way you do; it's important for "feelings" to be rationally justified. 


3) List out the possibilities that stem out of the reasons.
      -examples: -"I think he's/she's cheating on me"
                        -"Maybe they're just friends"
                        -"My imagination was too overactive"

4) Make sure the list is as exhaustive as possible.
                     
5) Deeply contemplate the list's possibilities; think of which of the possibilities is the most probable based on what you know—being aware to factor in the emotional bias created by fear/anger—be as objective as possible.

The point of all this is to lay out why you feel the way you do and see if it's rational. It's always good to end a relationship based on rationality. If you are absolutely sure that your partner isn't being faithful, is abusive, doesn't love you—using you for sex, money, wants someone "better", etc.—then it's important to leave. 

Blogging reduces stress

One of the reasons I love to blog is the way it reduces stress. It's almost like I get into a flow, and from that flow, I'm able to also express myself--stresses, political views, religious views, perception of people. I used to have a blog about atheism, but now I find myself to be more theistic; I think I'm sort of a Christian, but I'm unsure how exactly to fit God into the whole mix of things. Anyways, I always find that if some idea is stuck in my head--for whatever reason--blogging helps me contextualize it, get a deeper understanding of it, and finally let it go. Your blogging can also be totally anonymous; I once told some relatives about my past blogs, and regretted so much (filtering what you write is annoying, and you can't write about people close to you). You obviously can't get into hate speech; for example, if being a racist stresses you out, that might be a challenge to blog the stress away (don't be racist, it's not nice and totally racist). So start blogging today! You can even do it from a cellphone :)