We are but Fractals (1)

was just sitting here, thinking of things i think a lot.

a while back, i had posited "Define your god." Although i had conversed with many about their "g/God(s)," there were no takers to print, which was cool because it gave me more time to refine mine ...and create this run-on sentence.

it would be completely unwarranted for me to claim, really, any sure amount of intelligence, yet i am about to spew. What proceeds is by no means attributed to fact, or at least not currently, and i make no claim to be absolutely certain, or even certain enough that what i type next is presented factually. i make no attempt to dissuade or persuade save what's sensible. if i make any sense at all. i would welcome any critique of the presentation of this essay ...constructively, of course.
___________________

as many know, i'm an agnostic/atheist when it comes to the g/God(s) question, and as many have found, i enjoy being asked. Probably because of the dichotomy i see in my story. *hopefully i'm using that word right* The story, especially in its whole is quite tangential ...tangentuous, if you will.

NOTE: there is purpose in my grammar and punctuation, but that's a whole 'nother story.

when the question comes and the opportunity for discussion is presented, i love answering 'what made you [me] a non-believer?' ..."an answer to prayer." I attribute my disbelief in any of the g/God(s) to an answer to prayer. kinda odd, i know.

before my second year in the air force, i got this roommate. i had been quite comfortable after a good while without a roommate, and really wasn't keen on it ...but i didn't have a say anyway. *please picture a smile on my face as i tell this bit of background to the prayer* Well, during that time solo i was balancing new money (not well, i may add), a pretty cool job and training, a certain amount of freedom, and a seedling of faith in Jesus Christ (please note the capitalization).

given the inevitability of the occupation, i made sort-of a plea, with God (again, capitalization). "I want to know if You are real. Please, Lord, give me a roommate that can help me understand You ...and not a dick about it." When it came time to meet the guy, as i strolled into his room, there lying at the foot of his bed ... i smiled. new guy is fresh outta tech school ...and he's a christian ...with a Student Bible. lo, that wasn't the answered prayer in reference, but it was convincing enough then to what became my rebirth. not right then, it took a bit. my new roommate and i hit it off pretty well. to this day, and for many more i can safely assume, i consider him one of my best friends, and respect him greatly for being the man that he is. He's a Christian, along with his family ...and a respectable, honest man. it wasn't long before our circle of friends was pretty much the same, and attending the same bible studies and 'pizza parties.' we were both hungry for the Word and the Will of God. of course we had our slips, and i'm blessed beyond measure that some of my slips didn't cost me certain life-long friendships, or even my career.

Jump forward; Join a local church (non-denom, semi-charismatic), a good church with good people, and get baptized. i also came to believe in the Holy Spirit and believed i was baptized in such. my "church" experience was actually quite good. i grew a lot ...and fucked up a lot. after about a year of (at least in my opinion) accelerating growth in my faith, and involvement with youth and prison ministries, my constant prayer was to be able to "have an answer for my faith" through the truth. i would all but beg just to understand truth. and then, it happened ...a renewed vigor for bringing the Word of God deeper into my soul, as i saw things line up that tested well with the Word. but it was also then that the Word started to seem inadequate ...and conflicting. that didn't sway my solid faith at the time, though. there were so many things, all that i had read before, studied before that were coming more real; feeling as if i could put myself in the shoes of each character that was being "revealed" to me. My favorite book became 'Esther' of all things. the zeal had me believe that those seemingly inadequate and conflicting things would soon be understood, and the Word of God refreshing its credit as inspired and infallible.

the growth continued with sputters of life here and there. this 'essay' isn't supposed to be a biography, so i'll save you the 'sputters.' Yet, despite the sputters, i felt a relative steady climb in my faith ...definitely more than a mustard seed.

___________________

after a bunch of trials and tribulations, bandwagons and circles, actions and consequences, it wasn't life that was deteriorating my soul. when i would get on my knees ...when i opened the book, the answer for the faith was inadequate ...more and more, infallibility was becoming a worthless claim. inspired remained on the table for a long time, but infallibility fell. even one inconsistency throws the whole of the faith into quakes. My prayer still remained, "i want to know truth."

long story, shortened (a bit), i felt "lead" to back up and take in a wider view.   there was a time (in the really good growth days) i had felt lead to try to understand the other faiths, like i was being 'prepped' to meet and be available to witness to those of other faiths. understanding where they are coming from makes great strides in communication.  and, there were such encounters.  well, that 'leading' prepped me ...to begin seeing a MUCH bigger picture.  Something a lot closer to the truth i had been praying for.

for the sake of certains who may read this, i do understand and am willing to accept what consequences befall me doubting your g/God(s).  if eternal separation from [he/she/it/them] in perpetual torment is my destiny, then at that time i would have no choice but to accept it.  but i am willing to place my existence (and afterlife) on the table that no g/God(s) presented for belief is worthy of that faith.

but, i do have a pet theory ...

____________________

i'm supposing, by now you're wondering, "is he ever getting to the point?" or that i'm just rambling, or this is getting a little too long, but there is reason for backstory.  i'm sorry.  i did warn the 'whole' story is "tangentuous."  i'm cuttin' out a lot (obligatory 'lol').  and i'm breaking the whole thing up.

____________________

grew up kinda typical upper-central states, small towns surrounded by agriculture ...christian by claim.  we pretty much had a belief in the christian god, read the bible here and there (i actually enjoyed it and read it quite a bit), went to church, did the good neighbor thing, behaved (generally), etc. etc.  Had influence from a good general range of denominations.  we prayed, many times as a family, but we weren't "begging" for anything from God ...just bless the food, help so-and-so, sorry for being a dumbass.  but, we meant it.  we believed in Him and we're supposed to pray to talk to Him, and he gave us the Lord's Prayer.

i digress ...my mom, who grew up on a farm, loves the stars and she loves sharing that with us kids.  it was a common 'mom-and-kids' thing to go out in the country (which was really easy when we lived in Granville) and stare at the stars ...watching for shooting stars ...and, of course, u.f.o. stories.  My Mom planted a seed in me early on ..."keep watching."  she was a big, big fan of Carl Sagan, also.

it was my mom's inspiring awe for astronomy (other sciences included) that sparked my love for science, and it was that 'leading' for a panoramic view of the truth that now leaves me nearing forty.

^to be continued^

Mentally Ill?

I recently read an article on the site Atheism Exposed , entitled "Are Atheists Mentally Ill?"  I would recommend reading that particular article before reading my response that i emailed to the author, but that's up to you.  If anyone finds discrepancy in my response, please feel free to comment on such.

_________________________________


Just got done reading your article "Are Atheists Mentally Ill" on your site, Militant Atheism Exposed.   I plan on reading more of your articles as time allows, but i felt a need to address this one.


I am afraid you are misguided in your attempt to 'prove' your premise.  You were definitely correct in your opening of that article that both camps [i would say all camps] suffer populations of mentally ill/crazies/nuts/psychos to varying degrees, but i feel you failed in your overall claim that "atheists rely heavily on the psychological defense mechanisms of denial, rationalization, repression, suppression and displacement" to reject the existence of God.  It seemed to me that instead of general psychological attributes to show possible mental illness, you did more to say they are mentally ill because they don't believe in God.  Understandably, you are approaching this from a Christian perspective, but in making claims about another group of people (especially if you're going to claim they are 'ill') it is not only prudent but essential to define the group correctly, else-wise your entire claim is null.

"The mind of many atheists protects itself from these realities by rejecting God’s existence."

First, you base your article on the idea that your (Christian) perspective is reality and atheists are rejecting that reality with "mind games," assuming that it is an already founded fact and not providing any examples to back your claim except to say "It is the view of this author that the existence of a Creator is the most provable of all realities and that the proofs are 'many' and 'sufficient.'"  You also didn't sufficiently explain the atheist rejection:  they do not believe in ANY god (not just yours) because there is NO evidence to support the existence of any deity.  Throughout history, man has given a god the credit for the unexplainable.  History is replete with stories of various gods from multitudes of cultures and societies, many of which are extremely similar to others and most claiming sovereignty and superiority.  There is absolutely nothing different coming from the judeo-christian belief, so there is no reason to accept one over another if accepting any at all.

defense mechanisms to block out the pain.

Denial:  can't really argue with you on this one.   there are multiple reasons anyone can give for denying something, whether it is sufficient is the question.  yes, many (hopefully not most) deny simply on the premises you propose (i wouldn't go so far as saying mentally ill though).  But for myself, and many others like me, it goes back to no evidence supporting the existence of.  IMO, this is pretty much where atheists/agnostics differ.  Atheists, for the most part, flat out discount the existence, whereas agnostics believe there is no evidence in either direction thus no claim til one or the other has that evidence.  i personally lean more to being agnostic, but i will say with almost certitude that NONE of the surviving, viable faiths of today are correct. 
Rationalizations:  Your argument here, to me, just does not make sense.  Something either is or is not logical.  If someone is fooled by 'logic-sounding' speak, then they just do not know enough to be making a judgement -- period.  The logical reasoning i have heard (by many of the authors you note throughout your site) are not "why God does not exist, or why they cannot accept the existence of God," but rather how giving credit to a deity for something that clearly is not correct is illogical and the definition(s) of given god are negated by the actions of the god and by other characteristics attributed to them ...thus given god doesn't exist and is not worthy of worship.  Atheists (the smarter ones, at least) will use demonstrable, sound rationalizations from across the spectrum of disciplines, whereas religion/faith can ONLY use circular reasoning inside of itself.  The reasoning "because the bible says so" is ludicrous, given how observable evidence, logic and scientific ventures have shown it to be inaccurate.
Repression:  your definition here is correct, but not applicable in this argument because, again, you are assuming you are correct and assuming there is a pain to be blocked.  Projecting your assumption to a subject does not make your argument valid.  Rather, the rest of the paragraph throws it out by claiming 'design' and 'artist' for the existence of what is.  "All of existence yells out 'design.'"  I beg to differ:  All of existence yells out "careful where you step."  This planet is abundant with natural existences that are not 'human-friendly.'  From microbiological organisms to natural disasters, all of existence is up-for-grabs at any moment.  The 'beauty' that you speak of is subjective -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder -- beauty is only skin deep.  I would recommend understanding what pareidolia is.
"The atheist mind will not stop and observe and see the connection."  Myself, and many others i associate with (and i know we're not alone) love laying out in the yard, or walking through the swamp or trees, or watching birds and bees, or planting and nurturing -- we do stop, and observe the 'beauty' of it all.  But again, beauty is subjective.  We do see the connection, just not the connection that you're proclaiming.  The connections we see (demonstrable evidence) have nothing to do with an invisible deity's magic wand, but with each other ...affecting each other ...relying on each other.  Even, i would say, the unpleasant ones like army ants and wasps.  There is nothing to repress in nature: it's where we learn everything from.  Nature has ALL the answers, and none of them point to a deity ...yet, at least.
Suppression:  again, your definition is correct but your application is not.  There is no rejection on the part of atheists for the "concept of design ...daily being reinforced by all the sciences" because there is no such reinforcement by the sciences, only a projection of one's ideology or, dare i say ignorance (not meant to be derogatory - please refer to the definition of ignorance).  The "fair and sufficient analyses" are out there and are being done, and i would say again, none point to a deity.  Natural cause and effect.
Displacement:  can't really argue with you here, except to say that atheism does not recognize a god, thus 'anger' or 'hurt' cannot be directed toward a god.  Only one who believes in the existence of a god can direct emotion to that god.  For atheists, we don't blame god(s), we blame the arrogantly ignorant actions of those who do or do not believe in a god for certain atrocities. 

"Over-relying on [defense mechanisms] to cope with life and specific pains in life can lead to disjointed thinking and emotional immaturity."  You are correct, but using this to claim that atheism is a mental illness is completely misguided and misleading.

I look forward to your response, if any.

Truth, Knowledge and Humanity

Blog your God.

I talked myself into finally getting another blog in.
It has been a while, not because I haven't wanted to blog (everyday I want to blog), but because I have been finding and learning so much, ever evolving sight, convincing me more and more that the truth IS out there ...and IN there. 'In' being your own. Knowing what I know now, I know that I know not enough.
Actually, I'd like to make this a challenge, also: Blog YOUR God.

I MUST put a little 'disclaimer' here:
  In no form, do I intend to degrade any person for their faith-based system of belief. With that, I must also warn that I believe that the majority of faith-based systems are mis-understood, and in most cases idiotic. I have many friends, covering a good chunk of belief systems out there, and where we differ we respectfully disagree. On last note (of disclaimer), I am always open for discussion and willing to admit fault where needed. With knowledge comes understanding ...comes wisdom.

Another admission; no, I am not a scholar, nor have I done ALL the research. The search for knowledge in one's lifetime is never-ending.

Remember later; The firing of neurons/Synapses

In my studies (which are in no way complete), it has become more and more noticeable the similarities in the stories of man, passed generation to generation ...era to era ...millenia to millenia. Put all the stories (no, not literally all, there are exceptions to the rule) from all the societies, from all ages in what we can decipher from recorded history, backed by social adherence and archaeological finds, and (if you don't fall asleep first) it is quite easy to see the same basic story/plot. Like how much of what is modern entertainment media (theater, print, screen) just rehashed stories, with different characters in different places. Or, the 'remakes' of populars, maybe throwing in a new slant. And, how each and every story has some basis in fact, whether it be locale(s), names, events. Storytellers take what they know (which in most cases is based in what they've heard) and retell, most often with exaggeration. As the story goes on, it most often gets little omissions, personal twists, moral implications, and so on. That is how storytelling is, and, as we have seen repeatedly, always has been.

Ever wonder why ethnicities are usually depictable/recognizable? Ever notice the 'mistaken identity' phenomenon? Ever notice how some people, even separated from relation and ethnicity, have some very similar traits/characteristics? "Bird nose," hairline, voice control, eye shape, metabolic tone ...Ever wonder why?

As nature occurs, elements act and react with surrounding elements as elements do. Not all elements "live in the same neighborhood." The neighborhood of this hydrogen living in France might not have the same 'ethnic' population as a hydrogen living in Hawaii. Yet, elements do as elements do ...some elements get along and some don't. But, like elements do like things with other respective elements. It's a big, chaotic circus. Some come away winners; some just have fun; some leave disappointed; and some don't leave at all.

Now, take the previous three paragraphs and ponder: The development of structure (and it is all structure) is very similar to a story that goes through the ages. Along the way of development, stories change. The sustainable ("believable") characteristics of the story get passed on. Some stories last a long time. Some don't. Some similar characteristics/traits get passed along, even through many dilutions. ALL still retain an origin ...a portion of truth, fact.

Even a short comparative lesson in theology and philanthropy/sociology can just about convince anyone that what they hold dear to as 'common belief' is AT BEST a misunderstood story ...retaining still it's portion of truth, fact. Not to 'pick' on Christians, but to hold their scriptures as THE Word of God over ALL works, with all it's little 'inerrant' discrepancies, is as logical as holding to worship of the god Horus, or Osiris, or Thor ...or my microwave. Let us delve there a bit, sorta.

The definition of myth: The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story; however, the academic use of the term generally does not pass judgment on its truth or falsity. In the study of folklore, a myth is a symbolic narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. Many scholars in other fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways. In a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.
The definition of faith: is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.
The definition of religion: is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
The definition of story: is a common term for a description of a sequence of events, notably:a traditional form of storytelling, told to a child to prepare them for sleep; a narrative used in organization studies; a fictional narrative of briefer length than a novella.

From 'creation' to 'enlightenment' or 'apocalypse,' there's the 'damsel,' the 'distress,' the 'king,' the 'hero,' the 'city,' and the 'country.' The heroes have their fame, the kings their kingdoms, the damsels their knights ...prayers and adoration ...exaltation and coronations. What is notable in all the themes are mainly two things (all the other common themes can be grouped): A beginning and a prophesied 'end' or 'change.'

Back in 1993, I had a (what I considered) life-changing event.  Not anything massive like loss of loved-one or near death experience, but an 'answer to prayer.'  The moment exhilarated my soul and sparked a fire.  I was 'saved,' and believed it.  That flame lasted until another 'answer to prayer' revealed depth.  The latter prayer was to teach me truth.  I dove and dove and dove into everything i felt lead to that would help me understand more my divine relationship.  I was drawn heavily into creation and eschatology.  It was in that 'dive' that i realized many don't know their own faith.  "Spread the good word," and "be a witness" rang the bell ...so, i sought the Spirit in sharing my knowledge with others, in hopes to 'save their souls' or 'admonish the spirit.'  There, i learned 'inerrancy' ...and hypocrisy.  "Those who have ears to hear, let them hear" that even if Christianity was correct, the Holy Scriptures are AT BEST inspired by Elohim, not THE Word of God.  Same exact principle for all other faiths.

Just noticed that this is gonna be pretty long.

Again, i must note, that i do not want to seem to be 'picking' on the Christians.  Quite the contrary, actually.  I speak of the Christians in this piece because i came from the Christians, and i studied my arse off.  The scripture speaks of knowing "His Word"  and having it in your heart, and being able to give answer for the faith.  The world had questions and was lost;  The Word of God had the answers.  Right?

Now, let's jump to some physics.  If you read Stephen Hawking "The History of Everything" and "The History of the Universe" ...i'm probably 85% in-line with that thinking.  LOL, in no way am i inferring that i'm in the same caliber.  There's a couple things i would not fully agree with, or see a different alignment, but for the most part, maybe 90%, that is how it is.

Now, let's take this all in;  Storytelling/stories, elements, myths, religion, history, physics ...let's throw it all in to:
  Synapses in the brain
  Electrical pulses
  Neurons firing

  Cause ...effect

I DO believe in a 'higher' or 'supreme power.' I DO believe that religion has played and will continue to play a vital role in the development of culture and power.  Unfortunately, because we are animals who need rewards, there will be greed, thus the misuse and abuse of power through religion mainly.  I believe that religion provides, where truth and honesty abound, structure and guidance along one's way.  It provides perspective and meaning to life.  Lo, i say, no religion today, save a miniscule may, has the way.

"God" is a GREAT storyteller who wanted to tell a story.  As the words came to his thoughts, like fairies all a buzz, they made real what never was.

A synaptic connection in the mind of God ...BIG BANG!

The entire universe, in all its wondrous array and complexity, is the intellectual property of God. Interactions built stories upon stories; legends and epics.

So, what does that mean for life?  Now, that is a conversation.

**definitions were snagged from wikipedia.com.  i strongly endorse personal research against any claim made by any entity.  resources abound, use them all.**