Why fatalism is irrelevant

I used to think that determinism was the same as fatalism. There is a difference.

Determinism is nothing more than the law of cause and effect. A determinist will know that their actions will cause other things to happen and will act according to what they believe will happen if they do something or refuse to do it.

Fatalism is very different because it means that what happens is irrelevant to what we do. For example, a fatalist might believe that they are fated to die at a certain time and that their actions or the actions of others make no difference in causing their death. If someone is fated to die on their 21st birthday. Then they CANNOT die before then nor can they make effort to live longer by healthy eating, exercise, or anything else.

To believe in fate is to deny cause and effect. Knowing this explains to me that it is not compatible with determinism. Whatever caused the fate would itself need a cause and therefore we are faced with the infinite past which we cannot fully know.

If fatalism were true, then you would be reading this post about fatalism even if I didn’t write it! Fatalism denies the very idea of relevance because it says there is no connection, relation, or link between events that happen in the universe. I don’t think anyone can honestly believe that.

Why the National Atheist Party is irrelevant

I heard about the National Atheist Party in a podcast and was completely turned off by the whole idea. I want to explain why I am against a political party based on atheism.

The very idea that you can base an organization off of a lack of a belief is completely insane. An atheist does not believe in a God or gods, but that is all. To think that they will all agree on politics is completely insane.

Imagine a party based on not playing basketball, not having hair, not wearing pants, not eating meat, not doing sex, not watching tv, or not driving a car. Think about it and I think you will see the problem.

Atheism is a lack of a thing. There is a reason that I call myself a pro-life atheist. That is because a person must define themselves by what they are instead of what they are not.

There is a radical difference between a pro-life atheist and a pro-life christian, jew, or muslim. I don’t want to get into all the differences in this post but let me say that all matters of morality are seen slightly different when you don’t believe there is a god controlling everything in the world.

I define myself as a pro-life atheist only for the reason that I want people to know that I won’t use threats of hell or use violence against them when talking about abortion. If people would get rid of all the violence and threats often connected with the teachings of religion, it would be different.

But back to the point, any group that defines itself based on a lack of something is doomed to fail. If a member of the National Non-Basketball Association suddenly decided to try basketball, they could be called an apostate and would be told that they will be sent to a hell where they will have to watch football.

Because I want people to remain open to new ideas and to find what is relevant, true, and good, I naturally don’t like exclusive organizations. I am not against people having groups based on a similar interest but when it becomes a political party, it has become a religion like others which spread their lies.

I do not mean to pick on just one political party because I think politics in general is bad. I am naturally going to disagree with any individual or group about something. The point is to let people know why I agree or disagree. Contrary to popular belief, my decisions are not random.

My decision to not be officially part of a religion or political party is heavily based on my Pro-Life philosophy. To be part of ANY group which has the motivation to hurt, kill, or control others is a bad idea to me. I am of the opinion that religion and politics poison everything.

Since atheism is NOT a religion, atheists need to stop acting exactly like those in the religions they often leave. They become hypocrites. I do not wish to be thought of as one of them.

Make no mistake, there is no atheist great commission or power that dictates what a nonbeliever will do. That is the whole point. I use it as a sign that I am a peaceful person. Perhaps as I learn more, a better term will come to mind.

There is no law that I have to be an atheist for the rest of my life and so I remain open to change my worldview if what I am sure of right now is false.

But me being Pro-Life is one think that is nearly impossible to change without killing me or severely brain damaging me.

Atheism, by definition is not something people can gather around as if it is an actual thing. Imagine a National Non-SantaClausist party. That is how silly the idea is to me.

Why most fear is irrelevant

People have a hard time defining fear. What I do know is that when I fear something, I try to avoid it. If I fear spiders, it is based on my knowledge that they will most likely bite me and cause great pain. This has happened to me before. Many people would call this a rational fear because I know that spiders are a real threat based on experience.

At the same time, there are also irrational fears. This is usually a fear based on ignorance. Examples would be fear of women, fear of white humans, or fear of gay humans. I do not call this fear but prejudice. What I have learned is that I am afraid of all humans because they do things that are totally out of my control. My past ideas that I can predict future harm from a special group of human are now irrelevant. Such fears lead to hatred and violence.

My fears are not limited to spiders and humans. I fear all kinds of things such as cars, television, and sex. I openly admit my fears because I am honest. While I may avoid things intentionally because of my fears, I do not let my fear stop me from doing what I choose to do. My fear of cars is irrelevant when I am in a situation where riding in a car is the only way that I can get somewhere. I also must avoid cars when I am walking somewhere to avoid being instantly killed.

Most of the time my fears are irrelevant because I place higher priority on relevance, truth, and goodness than I do on predicting the future. I believe that perfect relevance casts out fear.

Why surveys are irrelevant

The statistics given based on a survey or poll often give inaccurate results because they are based on the false assumption that all the people are completely honest and that they even participated in the survey to begin with.

For example, if a survey asks about the relevance of surveys, chances are that 100 percent of the people who took the survey will say that surveys are relevant. It is biased because those who don’t care about surveys will not be answering questions about whether or not surveys matter.

For me personally, since I do not think that popular opinion should influence what I think of something, I don’t even pay much attention to results of surveys. This does not mean that I would refuse to participate in a survey if it was about something I consider relevant. I know that other people do take popular opinion seriously. This is what democracy is. I disagree with the philosophy of majority rule, but I need to remember that other people think.

The best way to let the world know what I think of something is to write about it myself. I see this as more educational than a simple answer of “yes”, “no”, “don’t know”, or “don’t care”.

I cannot assume that survey results match the opinions of the people that I know personally. I care more about what my co-workers think than I do what a king, pope, president, or celebrity thinks.

Why reverence is irrelevant

Reverence can mean either respect or fear. To me, respect is incompatible with fear. For example, I can say that respect, honor, admire, or appreciate my mother. I do not have these feeling for my father. The only emotion I ever felt was fear. I was afraid of what cruel thing he would say or do to my mother.

Respect connects me with something or someone that has proven to be very relevant. I could say that I am reverent to objects such as food, geometric shapes, computers, or books. I am also reverent to the people that I have seen are honest and try to connect with people. The relevant people mentioned on my blog such as my mother, Jesus, and Christopher Hitchens are people that I have reverence for because I have respect for the relevance of their actions.

Fear disconnects me from things that I am afraid of. I am afraid of things that I know are likely to hurt me or hurt other people. In this way, fear is the exact opposite of respect. A person tries to run away from what they know has either the power or motivation to hurt them.

Since respect unites and fear divides, I can not use them to mean the same thing. This is why I say that reverence is irrelevant. I avoid saying that something is reverent or irreverent because the meaning can be easily misunderstood. Respect and fear are both emotional responses to my experience of things. I do not decide to respect or disrespect anything or anyone. I just try to be aware of my emotions.

Why stupidity is irrelevant

People use the word “stupid” to describe an action or a person that they do not like. I think that it is a stupid word to use unless it is first defined.

Dictionaries will often define stupid as a lack of intelligence. It is impossible to judge the intelligence of a person or their actions until you at least define the context you are referring to.

It is quite possible to be intelligent and stupid at the same time. In some subjects, such as arithmetic, geometry, and video games, I could be called intelligent because I can quickly understand the connections of all objects that I can see with my eyes.

At the same time, I can easily be called stupid when it comes to understanding the emotions of other people. I cannot read body language nor facual expressions. Some things can not be explained with numbers or words. For this reason, I need people to explain things more clearly than they often do.

When I ask people questions, they think that I am stupid. What difference does it make if I am stupid? My stupidity does not prevent me from doing what I want to do. Stupidity is a completely subjective opinion that is irrelevant to me because I do not allow people to label me.

Why some proof is irrelevant

There are many different types of proof. Usually when someone asks for proof of something, they mean that they don’t believe you because either they think you are dishonest, irrational, or both.

I cannot prove to anyone whether proof is relevant or irrelevant, but I see it as irrelevant most of the time. I have nothing to prove by doing this but I can give you some proof of how I came to this idea.

Geometry nerds sometimes try to prove that two triangles are congruent (identical or same) in every way. I love triangles but I don’t bother with this because I am not racist for or against polygons.

There will always be those people who try to prove that “cats are liquid”, “pi is irrational”, “the earth is flat”, or that “video games are satanic”. I don’t let these people bother me so much. No amount of proof will stop people from promoting ideas when they have a motive for doing so. The motive, whatever it may be is more relevant than the relevance of the actual subject. I can learn about people by listening to their proof.

I have my own thoughts and opinions and that is enough for me. In no way am I affected by someone else believing that the earth is 6000 years old. I only need to know that it began sometime before May 15, 1987.