Thursday, November 10, 2011

Quemment

I would just like to throw out there that I (and surely others) are so. completely. with you when you branch out in the podcast space or dabble in a non-hilarious topic. I loved, loved, loved Penn's episode and his interesting insights (and chimp). I enjoyed Tom Green talking about little idiosyncrasies that I completely relate to. I like it when a hostful gets serious for a stretch and we get a little insight into you guys.

I'm talking about when you branch out and connect the various forms of entertainment outside of "comedy podcast" (TAL, Ben Folds, StarTalk, for example). It reminds me of how intertwined some of these groups are and how nerdiness seeps into seemingly everything. Birbigs was one. Neil deGrasse Tyson was another. You have no idea how excited and giddy and happy I get when Tyson gets you into that mental state of understanding about the nature of the cosmos and our interaction with it. And you two definitely held your own in knowing some of the science!

This podcast is single-handedly getting me to go out, see comedians, and consider what they're currently doing in other areas. It's got me actually checking when/if they come to Atlanta (not that often...). I consider it a long-form, friendly "presentation" of a person, rather than a book or TV promo, and it works so much better than 3 minutes on Letterman.

Bravo to you all for making me laugh so, so much and also for the times when you do something a little different.

Friday, November 4, 2011

Message to the Prayer Caucus


Hello. My name is Ross Llewallyn, and I'm writing this message today in opposition to this recent reaffirmation of "In God We Trust" as a national motto. While I would have been frustrated at this vote under any circumstances, I was especially motivated to write when I noticed that my representative, Tom Price, was a member of this caucus that proposed it. He also went onto Fox News to defend the vote.

I'm not interested in arguing about whether this was a waste of congress' time or not. That's not the issue for me. My gripe is something much more fundamental...

I am an atheist, meaning that I reject the existence of any god or gods, including any of yours and the one in all the phrases I’ll be talking about. When I hear things like "In God We Trust" and other phrases supported as official government institutions on money, in government buildings, and in our pledge and motto, my heart drops a little. I am an American citizen, and I am proud to be one for many reasons, especially for the many freedoms I enjoy. But each of these Constitutional infractions excludes me from being that citizen.

When I hear of this apparent distinction between "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion", I cringe inside and outside. The phrases represent the same concept, with the second qualifying one specific aspect that is often forgotten by your caucus. What precedent does it set when you interpret the Constitution to mean only the former? That I, the nonbeliever, am allowed to have religion pressed upon me by our government?

The Establishment Clause is so clear here that I don't understand how the Supreme Court or your caucus got it so wrong. Using "God" on so many of these national institutions is obviously a violation of the Constitution that I just don’t fathom why. “Ceremonial deism” is a phrase as empty as its purpose in government, as well. At the very least, the term “God” promotes a limited subset of religions: monotheists. Do pagans and other that believe in multiple gods also not get represented? This is a slippery slope that should not even be approached.

The biggest misunderstanding concerning this topic is the notion that religion is "under attack" by making government neutral on matters of religion. In fact, it is quite the opposite. By not allowing government to take a stance on religion, persecution or favoritism of one over another is prevented. Jefferson’s letter from which “separation of church and state” is quoted is to a Christian denomination, in fact.

Children can pray in school all they want. It’s the school that can’t mandate it. People can shout to their Lord all day, as long as they don’t hurt anyone. Politicians can hold religious beliefs, of course. It’s promoting those in an official governmental capacity that breaks the spirit of the law and our nation’s foundation.

All I’m asking is for some consideration for the nonbeliever, the atheist, in this caucus’ actions. This is not “One Nation Under God”, because I’m here. In God We Do Not Trust, at least not all of us. I count. As do millions of others.

I’m not saying to ignore the majority of religious people in the country. I’m not saying to ignore the role religion has played in our history and our current day. I’m saying to respect those who do not follow one and instead embrace what truly unites us as a nation: freedom, liberty, and democracy.

Besides, “E pluribus unum” is way, way cooler.

Thank you for your time. I've even going to include my phone number, because I would sincerely appreciate a response in some form.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

On Retardandos

Made a post on Reddit that not many people will see, but I was happy to create. It's a bit hard to copy/paste here, so I'll link it.


I could take time to fine tune it, and I've got a pull to do that, but I'll leave it as-is. It's not supposed to be about my preferences, but rather a wide, appreciable variety. I'll save the personal spectrum for my Facebook profile.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

On Revolving Doors

One door opens, another closes.

Neither of them I will likely ever use.

Part of me doesn't even care what's on the other side. I just want to turn the knob for once.

It's not really that big of a deal, I hope, but it stills kinda bums me out temporarily.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

On the Cube (And a dozen other topics)

I think I've got a handle on a more visual description in my ongoing attempts to understand myself (and surely others).

Have any of you guys played Psychonauts? I grabbed it on Steam a good while back and played it through. It's incredibly imaginative and fun. One of the core gameplay elements is the ability to enter someone else's mind, usually to help them in some way. There are levels about paranoia, fear, ambition, and sadness, and they're all great. One level in particular I am finding relates to the idea I'm trying to get across. (Ignore the giant boss.)

This level is a giant cube that, when you activate certain buttons, releases a representation of a traumatic or formative event on that particular side. (Remember that this is a person's mind you're traipsing on.) It's hard to show in just a few images, but it's really only a loosely-fitting example. What I'm getting at with this is that I feel the way I carry myself resembles this level.

When I finish a show or book or movie, I think I process much more slowly than other people. I have a hard time getting up, leaving the theater in an instant, and giving an immediate summary of my sentiments, unless it's overwhelming positive or negative. And even then, I'm still pondering. Obviously, this applies more to something like The Matrix over Kung Fu Panda. I fucking loved Scott Pilgrim, and said so right afterward. But to this day I'm still thinking about how it represents the gamer generation I'm in.

What I'm doing when I'm reclusive and pensive is sorting out just what the work is doing to change my opinions and perceptions or enlighten me to something. Sometimes the most innocuous statement by anyone can have me extrapolating to deep philosophical questions like a well-crafted book would do.

What I visualize is happening is something like a Rubik's cube, shifting and sliding around, and sometimes expanding to accommodate more tiles. Reconfiguring and shifting to the new position that will represent me. What are these tiles, though? I think they're little bits of experiences that I've had that I take with me.

This is why I feel a compulsive need to, well, say or do something about great experiences I have. To put them up in written word for no one to read. (I certainly haven't reread all that Xanga stuff from years ago.) I don't think I'm alone in this regard. When you watch a great TV series, you want to talk about it, to share the experience with someone else who understands. Often, I choose to share it with the anonymous Internet.

I wouldn't look too much into this cube thing, even though I've set it up so much. What's really going on here is that I'm identifying the many things that make up who I am that come from specific places. I know I like to chock as many references or inside jokes about the specific set of media I have consumed all over my online persona. Check out this list of random things that used to be up top on my Facebook profile:

BLACK TIE
Gibson EB-0, 1961 model
The Golden Winged Ship
"Nursery rhymes to a generation"
01189998819991197253
POTATO BACON BOMBS

Phrases like "black tie" from the ZZ Top song "Sharp Dressed Man" or a famous Patton Oswalt punchline or the Engineer as my avatar in many places or the creation of an SOS Brigade headquarters in the Minecraft world I frequent are all examples of me carrying around my experiences, what I value.

Really, though, I want to sort out Haruhi Suzimaya. It's an anime series that is on my brain at the moment. I finished the shows and movie maybe two weeks ago now (buying the first light novel after much deliberation, as well), but I'm still catching myself drifting off, considering the implications of the story. It's all is based on a girl who is dissatisfied with reality. She's unhappy with the normal world, i.e. the one we all exist in. That notion makes me uncomfortable, I think. I've long taken the stance that ignorance is not bliss. That reality is always better than delusional fantasy. More and more, however, I'm seeing little instances where that position is hard to hold. Mathers in House made me think about this plenty. I tell little lies to make the world turn smoother, like anyone. But what I fear most are the implications on immersion into a story or fictional setting.

Is there a fine line between enjoying a story and wishing it were real? This just seems so childish, but it won't leave me. I begin to visualize one of the questions posed in my first philosophy class, wherein a simulation is offered of a perfectly normal life that you could live and experience in real time by wearing some sort of helmet. You're supposed to reject it, saying that the real world is better. But what if the simulation were better?

This is not a new question, of course. It's a question of fanciful delusion. But then you start asking what makes up the human experience. Chemical reactions creating pleasure and pain? Does it matter if the stimulus is a physical person or someone on a screen? I don't want to say I'm fortunate to not have to deal with this, since technology hasn't risen to this point yet. I want to have a decent answer, or at least not completely relinquish responsibility to answering it eventually.

Ugh, this post is becoming a jumble of topics. Really, this is all revolving around the Haruhi series, which stemmed or reignited a lot of these thoughts. I don't think I want a world full of the crazy stuff in that anime. Even if I did, that's not what's really troubling me. It's on so much more of a simpler level.

This is a very simple image, but it represents a lot of what I find missing in both my present and recent past. The present I can work on, but I feel like I'd have to get lucky. Or start searching. It's not like it'll get easier when I move away from the place where everyone is my age. At least the ratio might be better.

The past I have to sometimes convince myself is not so devoid or bereft of interpersonal relationships. But it really is. So what I have to do instead is realize that what I didn't have then is not something so irreplaceable that it should be lamented. I mean, I value maturity and intelligence, which only increase over time. But did I miss something crucial by not passing notes in class or participating in any of the other, more innocent aspects of infatuation?

While they might have been nice at the time, I don't think it's something I should worry about. Everyone's experience is different, and I had plenty of great ones in other areas. There's a whole 'nother topic on the benefits of school when it comes to friends and meeting people, though. It's an aspect that I worry I won't be able to replicate when I'm out on my own. I'll definitely post about that sometime.

It's becoming more clear why I watch shows that take place in high school situations. It might be filling a gap I perceive I have. At most in part, though: Haruhi really is fantastic, some of these personal quandaries aside.

On Inability

Every day is another one filled with other things, preventing me from getting out what I need to.

I'll just throw this out there to remind myself and perhaps give a little intrigue...


Such a catchy little thing.

Monday, July 4, 2011

On Looping


This song is absolutely beautiful. I could listen to it over and over. And I do. And I have. And I am, right now. I listen to it so many times in a row that I lose count. The plays meld and mix with the time, only briefly differentiating themselves at the ending pause.

I'm thinking a lot about The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzimaya. I finished watching the "Endless 8" episodes, which were a profound waste of time. They could have taken it to such greater heights, but they did not, and ultimately left it as a prime example of filler.

But the looping motif only serves as a distraction from the real issue that won't leave my brain. It's the longing for such an ideal world, full of excitement and enjoyment and strange occurrences.

I think I'm more similar to Haruhi that I realize, except that I don't always have the same outgoing nature, much less her more... eccentric abilities.

I'm constantly battling with myself over admitting that I would prefer such an imaginary place. I would prefer to know someone like her. I refuse to use the word "escape" when referring to any fictional place I would immerse myself in. I don't want to be dissatisfied with the real.

Maybe I just haven't met the right person or found the right way of living. I just hope that my last year of college life isn't the last where I am among friends, where I am inclined to do fun things. I'm not afraid of 8-5, but I am afraid of the desolate weekend.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

On Storms

I'm late to the game on this one, but this poem and video are absofuckinglutely amazing and funny in describing the human skeptical condition.



Favorited and cherished forever.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

On Dropping Oranges

Another lovely reply in an ongoing religious debate. I think it's got some good stuff in it.

The more we know, the more we know we don't know.

There are areas of science, especially in advanced theoretical physics, where we are reaching the edges of what human minds can comprehend. The universe wasn't made to cater to us, after all. We're just working with what natural selection has provided over millions of generations.

It's entirely possible that the very foundation by which all laws of nature are founded, basic logical components, are mutable. 1+1=3 or True=False might not be outside the realm of possibility! You're right.

But when you're willing to disregard the absolute most basic aspects of existence, you're opening the floodgates to all sorts of ideas. Solipsism, for example, says that nothing can be known but that you exist. This is the most extreme case of trying to wean off assumptions. There are two issues I have with tackling these problems:

1. It's pointless. It solves nothing to assume nothing. You are left questioning every conclusion as invalid. If you think we could have everything wrong, where do you start anew? Where do you have the justification to cling to anything?

2. It's unwarranted. No evidence has surfaced to suggest that a reconsideration of basic logic should be under way. The LHC is causing people to rethink physics (again), but True=True without dispute.

This is not to say that they're interesting thoughts; they're just dead-ends. So, the intellectually productive chooses to assume these cases, while possible, are wasted energy. The intellectually honest doesn't bring up this kind of argument, because it only serves to derail into the severely basic and mundane.

But what does this have to do with a god existing? Well, you're trying to create a space for your god to exist in that is outside the realm of both science and logic. You're calling into question everything that we know for the sake of a supernatural being (that must really suck at making rules for the universe if he can't abide by them himself).

You have no evidence to support this claim, no more than a "what if" postulation that might let something supernatural creep in. I could just as easily say that I have a pet neon dragon at my house. She's allowed to violate all knowns laws of nature, which is why she can weigh nothing, occupy the space of a house, and be invisible. She can also make False into True for kicks.

Hey, this is kinda fun!

Anyway, on to free will. How a person thinks about anything affects his or her actions. What I'm really saying in all this free will conversation is not that you should be "acting" or "faking" anything. You're going to weigh the pros and cons of every decision like you always have.

My point is that just because there exists only one outcome doesn't mean that it will just land in your lap. The universe isn't going to choose between New York and California for your move; you're going to go through a complicated analysis of what's better for you, just like the universe expects. If you sit on your ass and don't choose, you don't consider your options and take action... then, well, that was your choice, obviously. It's not "acting" like we can change it; it's operating within the constraints of the universe like we've always done.

Free will is testable. With a proper definition, it can be considered, verified, or refuted. Say it's the ability to choose from among a set of possibilities. Since the Big Bang, we have understood all particles to be moving along a path that could be predicted (based on our basic laws of the universe that have yet to be disproven). This means all the way to today that the chemical reactions and the firing neurons in your brain were inevitably going to read this sentence and understand it. There are also ideas of universes splitting off with each decision made, of course, but they are without evidence. No truly "random" aspect of the universe has been discovered, to my knowledge, that can allow for such decision space. If you want to say it has to do with a god, you'll have to prove the god first.

You try to make a distinction between arguments of evidence and arguments of persuasion. All arguments of persuasion are based on some sort of likelihood or preponderance of evidence one way or another.

If you want to talk about secular moral systems or the (lack of) limits of science or the value of life without a supernatural deity, I'd be happy to, but only if we can close another one of these arguments.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

On Lollipops

Today after lunch a coworker gave me one of these:



A Tootsie Roll Pop, of course; ranked highly among candy considered "classic." No, I do not know how many licks it would take to reach the center. Various studies range substantially among the hundreds. As I unwrapped it, a hallmark of childhood revealed itself. Back then (and surely still now), it was generally accepted that when you see that Indian with a star, you make a wish.

It was at this juncture, with bugs to fix in my remaining 5 busy hours of work at my job on a Tuesday, with my much stricter interpretation of the world around me, and with my decreased tolerance for superstition and nonsense, that I sat staring at this wrapper. I sat staring at my past self, wondering what part of this, and me, I would be taking with me into the future.

In a fond kind of way, I can mutter something to myself and toss it. And that may be just what I do. For now, though, it sits next to me, staring with a single tear falling from its crumpled corner.

Hah, just kidding. I'm not at all bothered by attraction to skepticism in recent years. But this little thing did make me thing far more than a piece of trash should.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

On the Best of Times, the Worst of Minds

I've spent 2 weeks at my summer job so far, and it's been fine. I'm hunting down bugs in recently-transported software, and I'm having some success remembering how things work. Everyone's as welcoming as they were the year before, and my worries about the transition to having a bedtime and commuting are fading with time.

Yesterday (I originally wrote this Friday night) was especially good. The night before and into the morning, I met a new friend. We have a lot in common, and I'd like to see where the conversation goes. However, my reaction to discovering this person has revealed something bad about me. It's not something altogether unsurprising, but perhaps another time on that one.

After the usual Mexican lunch, my boss called me in to talk salary. I had a feeling I would be getting an increase and had a number in mind, and his initial starting point was above that. He negotiated it higher better than I did. When it comes to this job, or my abilities in general, I feel in such a weird position to be estimating my worth. I wouldn't call it low self-esteem, but sometimes I think about things in dollars. "That bug fix cost him $200." Is that strange to consider? I want to say I undervalue my abilities, but I often wonder how I have the rate I do.

I'm also not a fan of skirting around issues (unless I'm feeling amorous and poetic), including the hard numbers that I'm talking about. But now, it'll feel like I'm bragging, which is the absolute opposite intent.

Later that day I solved an issue (great) and drove home in the pouring rain (scary at times). I thought it extremely unusual when going under bridges during the deluge. For brief seconds you could look with clear vision at your surroundings, find your bearings, before returning to the storm. Something in me becomes very attracted to unexpected refuge on journeys.

So with the title, you'd be expecting some bad news. Well, it's almost entirely internal, and therefore only as bad as I let it be. But sometimes I truly become fixated on certain things, whether it be recurring thoughts over weeks or wistful moments of trance and longing.

Putting it down in words is already making me cringe and hesitate, but here's an example.

Today I was sitting at my desk, staring at code or watching it compile. During this otherwise empty moment, I found myself slowly, repeatedly interlocking my fingers together. It was truly only half-subconscious. I thought of a shockingly visceral term for it: emotional masturbation.

At this point, the act seems so foreign, so beyond my personal realm of possibility. I picture it, and it's not me. It's a completely different person. I've been like this so long that it would hit me like a brick wall. I wouldn't know how to respond. It frustrates me that I've never been so close to a person to experience such a simple act, much less anything to follow.

I listened to some Foo Fighters on the way home today. This line always makes me think.

"Sometimes I feel I'm getting stuck, between the handshake and the fuck." - Foo Fighters, "My Poor Brain"

I originally had a misquote right there, until I looked it up. Turns out I've been mishearing it for years, switching its entire meaning. Something poetic and inspirational could come from this development, but... probably not.

Again, I originally wrote this on Friday night. Right now, I'm not feeling this, but it certainly does bring me down sometimes. Still, it's not like I'm moping around all the time; it just gets stuck in my mind.

Friday, May 13, 2011

On Being Out

"Out" in the sense of atheism, I should clarify. Sometimes I wonder if my lack of trepidation surrounding themes of homosexuality in humor cause people to question my sexuality. I don't get too bugged about it, but it certainly doesn't help that I don't have a girlfriend to point at and go, "Look, see!"

Hah, but I digress. This one goes out to a dear friend whom I have delayed and delayed in responding to a message on an issue that really got me thinking. I'll be hitting all the points on this message you will not see, but my response will be understood by that person, at least, and hopefully others will not find it too tedious!

I'm an atheist, and I don't exactly hide it. I confront people who stop me to invite me to religious events, and respond when these topics are brought up, and I consume skeptical media. I listen to at least 4 podcasts concerning skepticism and atheism and subscribe to plenty of YouTube channels devoted to science and atheism.

But when this person brought up the fact that she was hiding her lack of belief, that got me thinking. I've heard the topic brought up before about "closeted atheists." I thought it sad, but I never gave it as much thought as it deserved until someone I really knew confessed to me. And, now that I think about it, I'm not fully "out" myself. I walk the walk on campus and away from my family, but I've never said a word about it to my parents. My dad was watching a black preacher last night on TV before bed, too.

We used to go to church regularly at a place in Atlanta, half an hour away. That was until a little ways into high school for me. Throughout the years, I would regularly try to sleep in to avoid getting woken for the weekly praise. We didn't even go to the service, just the Sunday school. I didn't mind it so much when I was there, I guess, but it was an annoying long trek to take each week. Of course, last summer and this summer (starting Monday) have taught/will remind me of the fun 8-5 commute!

Maybe it was the fact that I didn't know these people well enough. They all lived closer to the city and went to nearby schools. I lived far away and had no connection to their goings-on. I enjoyed the trips and camps I attended, and vividly remember the intimate and close connections and feelings of community I had during those times. One of the, I guess "youth", preachers played us a song he wrote that sticks in my head to this very day. Those were formative, fun, and memorable times. In a similar vein, I found my old, personal Bible last semester. I'm going to hang on to that. Maybe I'll sit down to read the whole damn thing for once.

I guess this is a massive tangent, but I've never really put down my rise and fall of religious upbringing. I should get back to being "closeted" about these things.

Before I started to be more aggressive about my lack of belief in nonsense, I felt a pull and a frustration that is hard to measure. The analogue of nonbelievers to the devout as sober people to drunkards isn't without merit. It's so, so hard to feel like the only rationalist in the room and be surrounded by people who believe ridiculous things.

You know what one of the first things that pulled me away from religion was? There were plenty of little niggling reasons, but one of the most important ones to me were fantasy environments in which the people worshiped some fictional deity. Take Final Fantasy X for example. The spiritual nature of that game is completely reasonable and rational. You know why? Because when you use the move "Pray", something happens. Immediately. When you call to the heavens for a magical guardian beast, it comes down and kicks ass. When I pray for good health for my family, I get... no immediate response. Maybe nothing bad happens for a day. But my granddad still died of fucking lung cancer.

There's a lot more to be fleshed out on the topic of video games and my fall from grace, but that's not the point of this post. I'm not staying totally focused, but hopefully this is detailing the sentiments of a fellow nonbeliever to show that there's some commiseration. I hope it's painting a picture of a person who's experienced a lot of relatable issues and annoyances.

I do get disappointed when I encounter or discover someone religious. It irks me to no end that I can't smack some sense into each and every friend who believes nonsense. I am confident that I have the capability to do this, too. That's what's really bad. I've heard every argument for the existence of a god that's come out of the past few centuries (or millennia), and I know why every goddamn one is wrong. I've watched so many debates on the subject, and I know my position is right. This ain't a bald assertion, either! I'll argue with anyone who will be reasonable with the discussion.

I took this enthusiasm to heart once, and it didn't work out too well the first time. I almost lost a friend or two while looking for fights. In a certain way, you want to be bold and say, "Screw them, if they can't take it, they don't deserve to be my friend." ...But if you say that, you'll be losing a lot of friends. It's fucking stupid, it's fucking unfair. I know.

The message I received (which is supposed to be guiding this post) continues by asking how people become religious. I've listening to lectures on the topic, talking about the brain and all that. It's interesting, but hard to remember and relay here. Maybe some people are more susceptible to religion's grasp. I mean, people can be more or less gullible than the average, right? That's all it is, alongside a touch of being able to trick yourself into thinking that the breeze and sunshine you feel on a warm spring morning is God's loving embrace. Don't get me wrong; that's poetic as fuck. But it don't make it true.

"Would you be religious now if you were raised in a more fundamental household?" Maybe. It depends on the degree of childhood indoctrination. Richard Dawkins considers this to be a crime that is not given the attention it deserves, and I agree to a point. It's sad that kids are brought up before knowing to ask critical questions of things that all these stories are true. It's sad that this kind of thing stifles the thinking and potential of people. It's enraging when you see it in action, when you see kids being purposefully deluded into believing harmful lies.

Now I ain't talking about Santa, here. That's another issue that doesn't nearly have the same degree of harm. I'm talking about telling kids that they have something wrong with them, and that they deserve to be tortured forever in eternal hellfire. I'm talking about instilling bigotry into kids before they even understand it.

This isn't the case for all religious upbringings, of course. Not every church believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Not every church clashes so readily and harshly against scientific evidence. My Methodist upbringing was softer, full of life lessons and less about original sin and bigotry. In my mind, I can't even differentiate between the religious camps I attended and the other team-building exercises I participated in on other summers. Sometimes, it's important for me to remember that some people just take religion as a light "granted". They don't think too hard about whether or not Jesus really existed and if there really is a place called Hell. They take the life lessons, maybe pray in a more ritualistic, traditional sense, and go about their day. They're still a problem, because they call themselves by the same name as the most ass-backwards of their religion or sect, but they're more tolerable. And I think that's where my parents are, mostly.

Sometimes it's asked: "What's the point of an atheist group, club, or community? Do you just sit around and talk about your lack of belief all day?" There's a lot more to atheism than just a lack of a belief in a god. Well, actually, there isn't. Atheism is just that. Atheists are a lot more. They might be skeptics. They might have political opinions colored by their lack of belief. They might need people to simply know they they're not the only sober one around. Listen to one of the many podcasts I listen to, and you'll see how much there is to talk about. Enough to write hundreds of books, thousands of podcasts, and more lectures and discussions than can ever be measured.

I suppose I'm fortunate to not have to regularly attend any religious service because of family. Frankly, I don't know if I could take it. I got pissed off at the benediction before my brother's Eagle Scout ceremony. It must be enraging to sit there and take it all... If I had to, I'd mentally take notes. I'd, in my mind (or on paper!), point out where the sermon made logical fallacies or got something wrong.

Of course, having to take someone talking to you about religion or their beliefs colored by religion has got to be tougher. It's direct. The message talks about a conversation with a loved one wherein the person talks about how secular morality can't exist. Now, I could probably take that topic on. I'd point out that religiosity and crime rates are inversely correlated, and how Scandinavia is one of the least religious places on Earth and is a great place to live.

But not everyone can do that. Not everyone is confident enough to stop a person and point out a mistake like that. It's fucking hard, too, and I know it. And to them, the discussion isn't just a political one, one about a favorite sports team. It's a worldview-altering exchange. They'll probably be pretty fucking defensive, because what you'd be challenging is at their very core. That's a tough thing to tackle, and it feels like you're physically punching a family member in the face. Of course, I haven't done it myself. I pray (ha!) that I will be confident enough to challenge a family member when the time comes.

This is so rambling, but it's trying to address several points from a message I received a while ago while getting some other personal junk out there. I hope it's a bit coherent and worth reading. Feel free to reply, email, talk to me on Facebook, if you think I've got it all wrong. Just don't think that I haven't heard what you've said before. That doesn't mean I won't give it my attention, but just know that it's probably old hat.

And if that's a bit insulting, it's because your religion probably deserves a little ridicule for persisting for centuries with such scant evidence.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Letter to the Editor

This is a letter to the editor concerning Jarrett Skov’s opinion piece (Page 9) on the Westboro Baptist Church that I just submitted. I wonder if it'll make the print.

---

Letters to the editor are obviously not the place to have a theological discussion, but Jarrett Skov’s recent editorial concerning the Westboro Baptist Church suffers from the same flaw that causes the nation to be disgusted at the WBC. It is a flaw that permeates society in areas other than religion, on issues most divisive and in the political arena. That flaw is “cherry picking”, and it certainly doesn’t generate any fruits for your labor.

Cherry picking involves taking only facts, arguments, or any other points that support your argument and discarding the rest. To my understanding, you can’t quite do that with holy texts. It’s all or nothing; it’s inspired by the word of a deity or it’s not. The WBC may ignore Jesus’ forgiveness of the New Testament (cherry picking the bad), but Skov ignores the tyrannical hothead of a god in the Old (cherry picking the good).

He ignores the fact that his god created humans with the sin we should feel guilty for. Even beyond ridiculous edicts about wearing wools and linens (Deuteronomy 22:11) or eating shrimp (Leviticus 11:12), he ignores the drowning, killing, and slaying of millions by his god or his followers. Even Jesus only saves us from the sin created by God in the first place. And while homosexuality and adultery could be interpreted as the same degree of sin, the Bible is clear about the punishment: death. Skov argues that this is “hating the sin”, but it’s still people that are suffering the consequences (i.e. eternal hellfire for finite crimes).

Why not step away from the millennia-old mythology and embrace instead a secular moral system? This allows you to judge the Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, or any holy book of your choice on its own merits. These books are an antiquated reflection of the time they were written (and perhaps edited, retranslated, copied, edited again). A balanced (non-cherry-picked) look at the Bible shows a lot of brutality mixed in with the love and kindness.

To be a Christian, you must accept it all, however. There are wonderful lessons amongst the madness; that’s absolutely true. But let’s drop the stuff about slavery, sexism, and original sin and keep the Golden Rule, brotherhood, and forgiveness. Some of those commandments are good building blocks, too. I firmly believe that mankind today is far better than the Bible collecting dust on their shelves.

---

Update: it printed (Page 8).

Sunday, April 3, 2011

On Clapping With One Hand

I get a little bummed when I notice that none of my friends take time to read my work. Even "100 reads" doesn't mean what it says. It means 90 people clicked, saw an uninteresting wall of text, and left. The other 10 are me, refreshing the page, listening to the player, or originally posting it.

There's no fanbase. There's no one waiting to hear my take on a band's music in an extremely structured format. My words are not valued. ...But I work so hard to make each one something I'm proud of; I stay up late and wake up early on Fridays and Saturdays to make sure something good reaches the editor not quite late enough to make her mad. I wonder sometimes just how many people actually read, not even like, just read, the damn things.

I post it to Reddit, Digg, my Facebook wall, Twitter. It's tweeted and Facebooked a few more times. I post about my series on /r/RockBand and the Rock Band forums. I try to get my articles and the series out there more than anyone else.

I'm sure it's the subject matter. It's a narrow topic that's hard to get people interested in. I should write one of the more broad articles I have in my head. But M2G2 has become this beast in my mind, one that must be upheld until some unforeseen marker. It's a streak for the sake of being a streak.

Why do I do this? I guess I want a portfolio. It's something I can cling to say, "I do something extra." It's also not like I don't get something out of this. I've enjoyed writing about and experiencing both bands I love and bands that are new. Now I know about many new bands I didn't before and have a much richer vocabulary when it comes to genres and musical history. I like knowing a little bit about a lot of things, so this is something I enjoy.

But it comes at a cost every Friday night. It causes me stress sometimes when I really want to pick a band that works. Pick songs that work. Write about it in an interesting way. With the only benefit being for myself, my tolerance wanes.

I don't mind that Soap gets 100 times more viewership than all of my heartfelt work combined. I know the Internet is a fickle mistress, but I would hope my friends would ease the tide. I specifically take time to listen to my friends DJ on the radio or in recordings of live shows. I compliment a friend's photography and always subscribe and do my small part to give kudos to YouTube videos or Reddit posts. Whatever and where ever I have friends showing off their work, I try to make sure they know at least one person appreciates it.

And sometimes I wonder if I'm alone in that regard.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

On Brain Dumps

From a discussion on free will and the existence of a god. I really stepped it up here with the longest post yet...

You can't call your god knowing everything about you and everyone else a "guess", even if you call it a completely certain one. It's not just that he "knows you so well". He made the entire universe, knowing everything to come, right? He's making you do what you're doing right now, and there is no question about it. You ARE coerced into your choices in life, if you believe a god exists who created the universe. You are influenced by everything that you experience and the combinations of every person and event, natural or human. Your god made me reach the state I'm in now, where I will reject him until sufficient evidence is provided for his existence. For this, of course, I deserve eternal hellfire. Forever. Is he just stupid, or evil?

I don't think, if you really take a step back and look, that you could possibly think that free will and omnipotence are compatible. Let's approximate your claim with rats, cheese, and a maze, shall we? Let's say you've got hundreds of rats and run a test where the animals must navigate a maze to find the lovely food. Let's say you've done thousands of trials to know to that rats of certain characteristics will consistently find or not find the cheese. Obviously, a god doesn't need to run trials, but I want to make this comparable to the universe at large.

Now let's say you put in a rat that you know will fail. You watch it search, search, search, and it doesn't find the cheese. It fails. Here's the question: who are you frustrated at? Are you mad at the rat? Are you mad at the maze? Of course not. You should be mad at YOURSELF for wasting your time testing a rat that you knew would fail.

There are two things I would like to draw from this. The first is the idea that your god controls all variables. In this experiment, the scientist controlled most, but the rat could have had a good day or a lucky turn. Your god is not afforded that luxury by his definition: he absolutely knows the outcome. All unknowns are off the table. The mouse/person can't have a good or bad day and beat the odds, because the scientist/your god knows everything. Your god knows how the good and bad days and people and events are going to add up to put you where you'll be in 20 years.

The second thing I'll like to bring up is that, in the case of your god, he should feel ashamed at his actions. This naturally comes up from the described situation. He should be ridiculed for putting the blame on the rat, for condemning the rat to eternal hellfire for failing to find the cheese. The rat should not be responsible for not living up to godly expectations.

And now I'm mixing metaphors and have beaten this to death. Moving on...

Now you say that we don't understand your god because he might exist on some plane where this all make sense, that potentially defies our logic. If you are actually going to fall back on that argument, I can't talk with you. By saying this, you can justify anything and everything, and there's no room for discussion.

Consider if I proposed a new theory on magnetism that conflicted with out basic understanding of magnets and how they worked. Consider if I used the argument, "Well, it actually makes sense on a level that we don't understand." ...And that was my justification. You would rightfully laugh at me. If I was really serious about it, you'd ask for evidence.

And now we're back to extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. Only now you've dug the hole deeper by justifying an immensely complex god with an equally complex additional plane of existence. I shouldn't even have to mention Occam's razor.

Either you have an argument for how this isn't paradoxical or you say "God is beyond our comprehension." You can't do both. You can't try to explain it and at the same time throw your hands in the air and say it can't be explained. Still, I've explained how both are unreasonable here.

"It’s true that seeing people exercise free choice doesn’t prove free will, but I think it makes free will a more satisfactory explanation than having developed in a way to make it seem that we have choice."

The first half of that sentence is all that needs to be said. The second is unsubstantiated, and I confronted this idea in my last post. Just because you think or have intuition that you have choice doesn't make it so. Intuition tells me the sun goes around the Earth by just looking at the sky. It's a more satisfactory explanation that living in a universe that just makes it SEEM that the sun goes around us, so it must be right.

As for your last two questions...

1. "Random" is a name we give to something that has so much variance that we can't predict its outcome, at least in this context. That doesn't mean it's immune to the single path all particles take if the Big Bang made everything on a set trajectory (like I talked about in earlier posts).

2. This is actually called "non-overlapped magisteria", or NOMA. I'll quote Dawkins here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria#Criticisms

"[I]t is completely unrealistic to claim, as [Stephen Jay] Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."

The question is simple: what other path to truth is there but science? Science is just using your eyes, ears, and brain, after all. Either your god is detectable in this way or he is not. If he is not, then he is indistinguishable from his non-existence.

Also, on the brain topic...


Tuesday, March 15, 2011

On Confrontation

The Technique, our college newspaper, had an ad (the page after the comics) in it this week for a lecture on the following:

"O Lord, How Manifold Are Your Works!": God and Biophilia
By Dr. William P. Brown

I read this and start to consider going. I'd like to hear him out, but more importantly, confront him. Usually there's a Q/A session afterward a lecture, right? I've been seeing so many of my favorite skeptics listen to these talks and ask dissenting questions that maybe I could give it a try.

Well, today is the day I remember what being profusely nervous is like. It's strange, because hours before, when I'm considering what the topic will be and what question to ask, I'm already getting on edge. It's mostly because I can imagine myself in the situation, in front of people, disagreeing with the guest. I do it so vividly that I very easily psyche myself out.

And so instead of trying to remember various questions to ask, I type them up. I find this to be reasonable, since the lecture topic is so broad that he could touch on or not touch on many issues. And surely it wouldn't be unreasonable to read a small bit for an initial statement.

Here's what I wrote down, with the topic of the book he's promoting in mind:

You've talked a bit today about how Biblical scripture coincides with the scientific concensus. I disagree.

Time and time again throughout history, I have seen rejection of scientific discoveries by religious institutions, ranging from Galileo's time to contemporary attempts to insert creation myths into biology classes. Only after evidence is completely, embarassingly overwhelming do the religious leaders concede.

The true test of whether the Bible has any scientific value is in its predictive capability, now or in the past. When has the Bible ever been used to make any scientific discovery, rather than used as post-hoc confirmation? Additionally, does the Bible hold any information concerning currently unknown (and testable) scientific facts?

---

The Bible is a large book of multiple choice. There exist passages that more readily posit the world to be flat than accurately detail the Big Bang.

Islamic scholars make the same claims as yourself. The Quran apparently explains the Big Bang, expanding universe, the solar system, the round Earth, and atoms! How do you respond to this?

The second bits are considerations for follow-ups.

I try to write these down on a little notepad, but I think it will take too much time. Plus, I'm a little shaky, which is annoying. As I'm running low on time, I grab my flash drive to print it off before I get there, go eat, and scamper across campus.

As a humorous aside, when considering that it would cost my 4 cents to print this page in a place on the way, I remember that I have but 3 cents on my Buzzcard. What an unlucky circumstance! Of course, we have plenty of free prints in certain places, so I hit one up and get my lines.

I walk to the place, and I don't see many people there. I'm familiar with the building somewhat, but I have no idea where the talk will take place. A walk around, subtly peering in. Looks like the guest and a few people are inside, but no one in the front rows (which are pews). With this in consideration... I leave.

A lot of things are going through my head while I'm outside of there, and they culminated in my chickening out, yes. My primary thought was that I didn't want to be one of very, very few audience members, and then disagree with him on major issues. My ideal situation would have been one in which many people were attending, going in, and I could be one of the crowd. Instead, I wasn't even quite sure if I should knock or walk on in... Well, now I'm just making stupid excuses.

I guess I wanted to be anonymous. I didn't want a private conversation where the argument could shift and I could be schooled on Biblical knowledge, scholarly consensus, and the like.

So yeah, I chickened out, but I felt like the episode deserved some recognition since it's been the focus of my thoughts and actions for the past few days.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

On Looking Away

In a bout of good taste and romantic idiocy, I bought Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs last month. I really like it, and throughout recent weeks I've been trying desperately to relate to it. Here's an example of what I mean: Start this song, which is the first on the album. The first split second you hear a single word, stop it.


That is the amount of that album I should be allowed to listen to. That is the amount I should even be able to fantasize being able to understand. No Bell Bottom Blues, no jealousy, no sense of loss. I'm Not Anyone's. When I do let these false sentiments stew, they boil up beyond any reasonable expectations; they lose focus. They do more than Keep On Growing, they grow without sunlight or water (maybe some dirt) into something unrecognizable and false.

I take steps back regularly to assess the great divide between how I'm feeling and what any reasonable person would be thinking. I just don't know what the difference between petty fantastical infatuation and genuine affection is. Worse: maybe I do, but I'm scared to say so.

I know I'm just an introspective snubby fellow who didn't pick up on cues then and shouldn't extrapolate now, but it's really, really frustrating when the few people I actually feel drawn to are just so unreceptive. At this point, I feel like asking is a waste of time, but it feels defeatist to just back away now.

Okay, you can finish the song, if you liked it. Or read this, since I put a lot of effort into it.

Monday, March 7, 2011

On Soft Hands

I really enjoyed this ACC Women's Tournament. I liked the trip up, when I got to see Megamind, which was surprisingly funny. I liked the first game, in which an arena of elementary school kids yelled and cheered for whichever side was winning. I liked buying a game I've been meaning to play. I liked the first night, when I saw The King's Speech.

I liked the second game, in which we upset Maryland (who might have lost sleep the night before). I liked taking with me those several dozen GT banners and tossing them out to super-excited kids behind us, doubling our team's crowd size. I liked Free Fryday. I liked going to the "Friendliest" part of Greensboro and spending way too much time messing around with puppets. I liked swapping interesting YouTube videos and was strangely okay with the tamest group of drunks I've ever seen.

I liked being the only band to play at Fanfest and getting T-shirts for it. I liked spending a few hours with not one person noticing a large stuffed snake in my pants. I liked keeping a close game with Duke and severely influencing their ability to play with puppet distractions.

I liked cheering hard and being appreciated for it. I liked heading home watching Scott Pilgrim. I liked when people liked that movie.

And seriously, that's it. A lot of cool and interesting things happened on this trip that I'd like to not quickly forget, so they go here. Lots of other pressing matters still linger over my head at the moment, but this is something best posted quickly afterwards.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

On Justified Inebriation

Hello, my name is Ross Llewallyn. I'm currently a student at Georgia Tech, but my home is in East Cobb, where I grew up and went to school. This is my first letter to a representative, so you might guess that the issue I'm writing about is an important one to me. It's important, however, for reasons beyond imbibing alcohol purchased on Sundays.

Yes, I want the prohibition of selling alcohol on Sundays to be brought to local authority and eventually repealed from our community.

But let me be clear: I do not drink alcohol. I have no desire to do so, much less purchase it on any day of the week. Yet I care about this issue because it represents what I consider to be a violation of the separation of church and state. Residual "blue laws", with their origins in Christian principles, should be replaced with universal, secular ones.

I hope that my message and potentially different grounding on this issue demonstrates the multifaceted reasoning as to why this must go local and be repealed.

Thank you,
Ross Llewallyn

Monday, February 14, 2011

On Jet

Jet's first song on their album Shine On is titled "L'esprit de l'escalier". Only today do I decide to look up just what that means. It's a very interesting phrase that revolves around thinking of a great punchline far too late. This is done in the music in the sense that this track is a short sample of the last song on the album. Maybe it's backwards, I don't know.

But leave it to the French to coin a phrase that means this oddly specific scenario. Somehow I find it resonating with me, though a specific example of me experiencing this I just can't find. I think it's on a much more grandiose level. Superficially, when trying to impress, I fancy myself as being quit-witted, verbose, if vapid. For real decisions or discussions I'm a very slow, methodical person.

So perhaps this phrase applies to me not in the quick "punchline" sense, but in the slowest sense. It's almost as if I've turned the phrase over upon itself. Heck, maybe everyone can relate to this phrase, and it's not special to me at all. That's likely.

There's more to this, I know. I'm sure I'll be thinking about it.

Friday, February 11, 2011

On Head & Shoulders

I've got a pretty strong running streak of uninteresting Valentine's Days. Really, I don't get too bothered by the holiday. It's not as if this day is a special marker to breach to ensure happiness. It doesn't hurt any more than any other day, which may be more than I'd like to admit.

The effect it has on others does get to me, however. I used to have potential commiserators, but they're being swooped up right quick.

As usual, I chickened out from asking the tough question on an otherwise upbeat evening. Some part of me wants to cling to this stable position I've got. The other part is this no-consequences, tell-all side that likes to take a backseat in truly stressful situations.

She's going to France for the summer. Is that why? If she was back home, would it be that different? Probably. Being far away from home has a... "liberating" sensation. It's good to leave ties behind and not create ones before you go.

I've experienced that before...

But she's someone I can talk to, someone with which I feel like I'm always on the same level. I get that with some people, but then there are other, smaller things. There are also things I don't know, but for once, I feel like finding out.

People don't often click for me, and she did. This isn't a move a make often. I can count on my hand the number of times. What I'm saying is that I'm serious. This is more than something of annoyance, some nagging responsibility across the pond.

I wonder what she'd think if she read this. It's so silly of me to pine here, alone, hoping for chance to turn in my favor. But if I ask, that somehow makes me weak, desperate. Bit late for that, I guess.

I play such stupid games with myself.

Friday, February 4, 2011

On Dickens and Dominos

It was the best of times and the worst of times, and now I'm somewhere in the middle, back where I was before. There's always that sliver of hope, which I like to leave myself room for, but my enthusiasm is guarded.

I don't know if I've ever not taken "No" for an answer before. I don't know where the lines are between being romantic and being annoying. Between being persistent and being a stalker. Being in love and being obsessed.

Now, of course, let me not get ahead of myself. I haven't done a damn thing. I've spent one day with her and exchanged a dozen text messages. Fretting to this degree must surely be insane. That's another part of it. I could write a substantial amount about how I'm feeling right now, about why I want desperately for someone's mind to change. But we're on entirely different worlds.

I'm struggling to keep it out of my mind. I'm procrastinating on work right now to write this. I force myself not to contact again, because, on the other side... it's nothing. It was a good day. It's a missed meet with a potential friend. It's some guy who really wants to reschedule. To me, it's a series of restless nights; to her, it's a series of 140 characters.

I'm waiting now. Waiting and waiting. The longer it goes, the more vast the differences in perception become. And I just want to ask a few questions, really. Well, to start.

I've got a playlist on my iPod called "Me". It's a bit under 3 hours long. I'm pretty proud of how it captures various aspects of my life and weaves it together with some sense of cohesion. Well, now, there's a new addition to that list: "Layla".

It goes right in-between "Dreams I'll Never See" and "Won't Get Fooled Again". For now.

--- 2 seconds later ---

Response was enthusiastic. At least I'm not a perceived psychopath. I forgot to mention that being friends might be okay, too. We'll see.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

On Cardiac Organs as Cufflinks

This is going to be cryptic and a bitch to read for anyone else who doesn't know what's going on. And that's everyone but me.

These past two days have been the most emotionally turbulent that I can possibly remember. What's worse is that I'm jumping to so, so many conclusions. "Cautiously optimistic" just gets thrown out the window. What's the worst is that I know it's me alone doing it to myself.

I'm sitting in class getting goosebumps and chills, flushes and rushes over and over again. I am distracted for large portions of lectures contemplating hypothetical scenarios. I am seething with rage at every second I am held over at this meeting, at every inane question I am needlessly tied down to hear, because I have something to do. I have something to do that is so magnanimous in my mind, but so trivial in reality.

Even the rain won't stop me. I mentally turn it into a positive. I hope for a predicament. I hope my umbrella comes in handy. I hope to make poetic and impressive observations of this downpour and its effects on the human psyche and condition.

I postpone needed work and rush out the door. A glance is all it took to take me from the highest point to the lowest at a rate inversely comparable to commercial car acceleration statistics. "Anticlimactic" doesn't even come close. I read so deeply, so closely that I make assumptions no sane person would.

I've never done this before. This next message will make or break me. She doesn't know the power she wields, and I don't know why I gave it to her.

--- 2 hours later ---

Fuck

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

On Stereotypes

I had a Stuff White People Like calendar last year, and I saved some of my favorites (most of them are from the second half of the year). Here I'll put them down as I toss them in the trash. Is it obvious that I'm trying to clean up around here?

Platonic Friendships
High School English Teachers
Self-Deprecating Humor
Trying Too Hard
Nintendo Wii
Avoiding Confrontation
The Office
Not Vaccinating Children
Pulp Fiction
Demetri Martin
Vespa Scooters
Target
Depression
Adult Swim
Trivia

On College Rivalry

I've been sitting on this one for a long time, and I want to throw the letter away, so here goes!

I've gotten mail a few times advertising trips to the South Pacific for upcoming UGA students or current ones. I am not a UGA student. I don't care. ...But there is a funny quote in the note that I've always liked:

"I have learned more here than in the rest of my time at UGA."

And that's it.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Blagging about this Webzone

I just wanted to make that title. It's funny, just like this nearly 2-hour review of the last Star Wars prequel.


...And now after watching it, I am very happy. It was worth every second, and for way, way more than just seeing someone bash Revenge of the Sith. What I love about Plinkett's criticism is when he compares it something good. It helps you appreciate what's so wonderful about films you enjoy. It helps you point out, quantify, or just feel those small parts of moviemaking that often go unnoticed.

Of course, "unnoticed" doesn't mean the effect isn't felt. You still understand Darth Vader because of the characterization around him. You connect with Luke because of how the story is laid out. But after these extremely long and detailed looks at the prequels, you see when it's done and, especially, when it's not. You see how it's done and how it's not. What went wrong, and what went right.

And that's why I'll be watching whatever he puts out in the future. Absolutely.

Kinda want some pizza rolls...