An interesting look at atheism in politics

So this post was inspired by something the Acupuncturist said to me at MightyMook's wedding, and I have been thinking about posting on it for quite some time. I actually have had thoughts in this direction for years, and I have articulated them in other situations, but I guess I have finally decided to commit the thoughts to writing.

Basically, since the Acupuncturist and I have similar views regarding spirituality and religious expression, even though we have starkly different political views, we have some commonalities - he was pointing out to me that one of the most irritating things about conversations with the extreme secular left was the tendency to completely dismiss religious sentiment and devoutly proclaim one's faith in atheism (heavy sarcasm intentional - atheism is a matter of faith just as much as belief is - agnosticism is more like a non-choice than anything else).

But here is the thing that I could never reconcile about the atheist left (and, I suppose, the atheist right, if there is one - I am sure there probably is, but they are simply mot prominent in the conservative movements) - why they seek to impose the morality they seek to impose.

First, they do seek to impose a morality - human dignity and compassion for the poor and the underrepresented are clearly moral stances. What I have never been able to figure out is why those are important to a true atheist. In a way I understand; if we are simply animals and have no higher "spiritual" calling, then we need a government to enforce that morality so that the law of the jungle does not reign. But therein lies the real problem - if we are just animals, why bother with that sense of morality at all. Why protect the underprivileged? What is "good" about that, and why even bother with the concept of "good" at all? Obviously, I don't believe this, these are questions I have for the atheist left.

Of course, "human dignity" is often raised, but nature does not recognize human dignity - that is a purely spiritual concept. A clever person might argue for the preservation of the "diversity" of our species using a combination of Darwinian theory and popular buzzword, but that idea fails, too, because why preserve the weak members of a species - what genetic imperative does that have? What is "good" and why should we strive to preserve your version of "good"?

Of course, one could always go the Nietzschean route and say that all the were trying to do was make their life a consistent artistic expression of helping the underprivileged, but that carries no more morally compelling weight than the consistent artistic expression of the predatory serial killer exploiting the weak for self-gratification. Since, under this philosophy, morality is superfluous, neither view is more right than the other. Nietzsche would still probably condemn the liberal more than the killer, because the liberal has bought into the "slave morality" of good and evil, while the killer is actually forging his own way, independent of any sense of right or wrong.

Not that I really believe anyone is reading this, but if anyone out there is, give me some insight into "Why?" from an atheist liberal perspective. I would understand it if it was from an agnostic perspective, and I think most people who make the claim of atheism actually fall into the agnostic category, because they cannot actually disentangle themselves from the constraints of the concepts of "good and evil" or "right and wrong" that are required for true atheist thought.

Help me out here.

Once again, into the breach

For fans of physics humor out there (not to mention people who don't like kitties), you have to check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hNDZ79MDC0

A bit with robots and the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment (the cat in the box simultaneously dead and alive, since both states are possible and neither can be observed).

It is an odd property of quantum mechanics that things behave differently when observed vs when not observed. The easiest example of this that can be "proved" is the wave/particle dual nature of the electron.

Electrons are small enough that the "observation" of the particles requires that we disturb the particles. To see them, we must bombard them with photons - the energy of the photons disturbs the motion of the electrons because the particles are on (roughly) the same scale. Since our visual observations require light (aka photons), all direct observations of electrons lead us to see the particle nature of the electron. The problem is that, to use a macro scale analogy, this would be like trying to determine the natural habits of a wild animal while constantly prodding said animal with a stick. You will get a result, but it will only tell you how the animal acts when you poke it with a stick. The kind of direct observation we use in the macro world falls apart at the quantum level.

If you shot a beam of electrons at photosensitive paper while observing the electrons, you would come up with a pattern very similar to what you would get if you fired a bunch of wet tennis balls at a wall through a autopitch machine. You would see most of the tennis balls (electrons) having a central location, with the occasional outlier. The electrons would act like particles.

If you shut out the lights and did not watch the electrons, they would hit the photopaper and leave a distinct wave-like pattern, nothing like particles at all! Kind of cool, and actually an easy experiment to replicate (assuming you have something to beam electrons with).

But in all seriousness, it is a cool way of seeing the difference between the wave and particle nature of matter, especially with a relatively large particle like the electron (large by comparison to photons and such). Even a particle that has a detectable mass still has a distinct wave function quality, and in fact the theoretical models of electron "location" in atoms are built on these probability wave models.

Well, I think it's cool anyway.

I am going to try to write more, and get back into the short story end of the blog as well.

Bye for now.

Blogging

Never have so many had so little to say to so few.


In light of that fact, I will continue to say so little in as many words as possible (like every other blogger out there). I am going to try and get back into a daily posting, just to keep up with my writing.

I will just keep telling myself that I am a unique and special individual...

Just like everyone else.

Every snowflake is unique too, but when you put them all together, all you have is a big wet sloppy pile of mush, all of the uniqueness blended out into a sludge of homogeneity. A metaphor for the human condition - perhaps.

No one wants to look at that aspect of uniqueness - and the fact that uniqueness doesn't imply quality, either. Just because you are unique doesn't mean you are important.

But being important is overrated, too.

So if you are not depressed yet, just remember, as an intelligent species, we have been around for about 200,000 years. We have to last 2,000,000 years to match up with a successful dinosaur species (T Rex). To put it another way, the universe is about 70,000 times older than we are as a species, and we have been technologically savvy for only that last 100 years (not really, but it makes the estimations easier), meaning that we have had reasonably good grasp of the physical nature of the universe for about 1/140,000,000 of the time the universe has been in existence. So if we want another intelligent alien species to talk to, they probably haven't evolved yet, or have and gone extinct, but even if they are out there concurrently with us, we can't ever meet them if our current understanding of the universe is even remotely correct.

And if SETI actually picks up a reading from somewhere in the universe, odds are that the species that sent the signal is long dead, and if we respond, our species will be extinct by the time they hear us and send back a message.

If you still don't feel insignificant enough, then just go to the top and reread this. I'm tired.

But if you want a more upbeat look, realize that we are all made of the dust from the stars, coalesced into some form and randomly rearranged to create what we designate as life, and that the waters of the oceans flow in our veins.

It takes just as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something. I am not sure where I fall just about now.

A more detailed look at the Swarmlord

So there is a closer look at a higher resolution cropped pic of the Swarmlord - looks pretty good, except for the glaringly obvious crappy putty work on the tail, but some of the other work is good enough not to notice.

Here is a close-up of the face - I think my detail work is pretty decent on the painting, and the gloss varnish on the armored headpiece looks pretty damned good. You can't tell I cut and glued on the scissory bits on the mouth from another model (a Starship Troopers bug, actually) and puttied up the smaller second horn. This is some of my better work, I think. I like the yellow glaring eye!

This arm shows some of my better work as well. This was originally a left-handed lash whip - I cut off the whip and puttied on a bone sword, as well as cutting and reorienting the dangly bits under the arm from a right arm of a model to this left one. Looks pretty seamless, huh? Not perfect, if you compare it to the right side of the model, you will notice slight inconsistencies, but close enough for government work.

This is an extreme close-up of the upper left arm. I severed a right arm at the elbow, rotated it, reattached it, and cut all the stuff off of one side and put it on the other side of the arm. the only thing you really notice is the oval bit on the forearm which is not perfectly sanded down - but since it is actually only about 4mm by 2mm, who'll notice?

Top view, so you can compare the left and right arm - the right is stock, the left is a right arm cut to crap and rearranged to look like a left arm. I think I did a good job, but there are some minor inconsistencies, as I mentioned before. Principle among these is the presence of a "cable" in the crook of the right elbow where there is none on the left elbow.

Ugh - an extreme closeup of the crappiest part of the work. That tail joint needs to be sanded and repainted. I will do it at some point. See ya later.

The Swarmlord

So I finally took a couple of pictures of the Swarmolrd model I built. I think I captured the image from the codex pretty well. Here it is. I included the chaos space marine for size comparison - this picture is a bit rough (I re sized it to take less time to load). I think he looks pretty good, though my putty work on the tail is shoddy at best - I should sand it and repaint it. At the time, I did not really wait for the putty to dry, so I painted it as it was (every time I tried to sand it, it ended up breaking off, so I just stopped and painted it.

Ah, the impetuousness of youth :)

Gosh Darn It

I am more upset than I have been in a long time. I am having a perfectly good anniversary with my wife, and other than the fact that my brother neglected to get us Rush tickets for the concert tomorrow, everything is great.

I was a bit upset with my brother for not getting the tickets, but I figured that I would catch Rush the next time around. Then I decide to check my school email and I saw an email from one of my students' parents. This was the kid whose dad was in the music business, and he had sent an email a few days ago saying that he understood that I already had tickets, but he could get me in for a meet and greet with the band before the show. Of course, I don't have tickets and I don't get that email until the night before the show. That F--ING SUCKS!!!!

:(

:(

:(

Anderson Silva and MMA

So it is no surprise to any fight fans out there that I believe that Silva should clean Chael Sonnen's clock. He is a superior fighter in all aspects of the game and has great movement. Chael has shown a great deal of willingness to get punched and keep driving forward, but that is a recipe for disaster against Silva. Just watch the Griffin vs. Silva fight at heavyweight to see what I mean. Sonnen's best chance is to drive forward and get one of his takedowns while Silva tries to counterstrike, and hope he can inflict enough damage and evade the submissions of Silva. Then he should try to smother Silva and accumulate enough points to win. I think that this is Sonnen's only chance, and it is, frankly, quite likely to be his game plan (much as he talks knockout).

But this brings me to my main point. Dana White and others have pointed out that they do not like the hang back and pick apart style of Silva - it is not flashy or aggressive enough for their liking. But here is my beef with that opinion. That is how a premier striker should fight. A jiujitsu guy stymies his opponent in the guard and prevents damage that way. A wrestler smothers his opponent by being on top and raining down blows and avoids damage that way. A striker uses good footwork, evasive maneuvering and counterattacks to avoid damage. There is nothing at all wrong with this!!!

I CANNOT EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH!

I have seen people praise George St. Pierre for laying on top if an opponent for 5 rounds and smothering him - not doing much damage but doing just enough to keep from being told by the referee to stand back up. This is effectively identical to what Silva did in the Demian Maia (though Silva did clown him a bit more than GSP ever does), and Sliva gets trounced in blogs and on TV for it. GSP and others seem to be more exciting because it is clear that they are in a fight - they are in constant contact with their opponents, whether on top or on bottom. People have become so enamored of the BJJ and Wrestling styles they forget that you do not have to get into a wrestling match to win a fight. In fact, I would argue that the striking style is more effective - fights start on their feet and a small striker can put out a much larger opponent the same way a small BJJ fighter can take out someone bigger. But in wrestling and infighting in general, the bigger person has an advantage against the smaller, just by virtue of weight and leverage. One need look no further than Roy "Big Country" Nelson to see this.

Yes, Nelson is a well-trained and well-rounded fighter, but he can smother someone better than he is by virtue of his size. In any kind of ground fighting, the bigger person has a huge advantage unless the smaller one is much better trained. The same is true in striking, of course, but I would argue that it takes less training to become a proficient striker in terms of self defense, and you have an easier out in running away after you inflict damage (this is strictly from a self-defense perspective not an MMA sport one).

But nonetheless, Anderson Silva avoiding damage on his feet should be lauded not derided, and if you think that this is not "exciting" enough than I would say that you are probably ignorant of the technique involved. Demian Maia had no answer for Silva's superior striking, and Silva should not have to come forward and prove that after handily winning the first three rounds. Maia should be scorned for not attempting to finish the fight in the last two rounds, because if Silva was actually tired (as many of his detractors claim) then Maia threw away his only opportunity to win. If Silva was not tired, it was still on Maia to try and win, because he had clearly lost the first three rounds. To fault Silva for this is the height of ignorance.

You can fault Silva for some of the unsportsmanlike ways in which he comported himself in the fight, but that is still forgivable, given that his opponent did not want to bother fighting him. But to conclude, just realize that the fight game is about inflicting damage on your opponent while avoiding taking damage yourself. Whether this is accomplished through grappling or striking is insignificant, and people are so conditioned to the infighting that occurs in the UFC, they forget the true skill involved in avoiding the infighting altogether. That is not at all an easy thing to do, and takes just as much skill and talent as anything else in the UFC.