it's been claimed that atheists and others without religion cannot be moral or ethical. to them, I say, "total BS!" (see, I could've written that out, but I didn't! immoral, am I?)
many theories of ethics and morality have been developed that do not require a deity or an external standard. the Wikipedia article on secular ethics will serve as a good introduction to these theories.
personally, I would place myself in consequentialism. a broad term, it states that actions should be judged by their consequences, not by their mere nature (that's deontology).
anyway, not to get bogged down in technical terms, atheists can be moral, since morality doesn't necessarily have to come from an outside standard. this should be at least one defense against the claim that atheists are evil, etc.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
evolution's "circular reasoning"
browsing various areas, I've noticed that one argument that people often make against the theory of evolution is circular reasoning in the principle of "survival of the fittest." the argument generally goes like this:
the theory of evolution states that the fittest animals will survive, and that those that survive are the fittest. this is circular reasoning, and thus evolution is wrong
this is merely the definition of biological "fitness", stated twice. how this really comes into the big picture of evolution is this:
those, that are deemed the fittest, survive and are able to pass on heritable traits (in the form of genes) to the next generation. therefore those traits that lead to fitness and survival become more common over time
are we good here?
the theory of evolution states that the fittest animals will survive, and that those that survive are the fittest. this is circular reasoning, and thus evolution is wrong
this is merely the definition of biological "fitness", stated twice. how this really comes into the big picture of evolution is this:
those, that are deemed the fittest, survive and are able to pass on heritable traits (in the form of genes) to the next generation. therefore those traits that lead to fitness and survival become more common over time
are we good here?
Sunday, February 12, 2012
religious freedom, hmm?
I've just read this article on Yahoo! News, describing how some Republicans allege President Obama's new rules on birth control coverage in health insurance is attacking religious freedom
the article states that Obama has proposed a new rule requiring most employers to cover contraception for women, which violates the beliefs of the Catholic Church, among other religious groups. that, Republicans say, is an attack on freedom of religion, our first right (if anyone asks, they got that one right. it indeed is the first right granted in the Bill of Rights)
hmm... this seems like a good argument. especially being an atheist, I'm in support of freedom of religion. but let's check this one out. what if a certain religion condoned or even mandated such bad things as rape or murder? freedom of religion?
see, obviously this wouldn't pass. the point is, religious freedom must be balanced with other needs, such as public safety, in the case of this hypothetical religion. in the case of birth control, some balance must be made. and, as the article and comments on it point out, there are exceptions
the article states that Obama has proposed a new rule requiring most employers to cover contraception for women, which violates the beliefs of the Catholic Church, among other religious groups. that, Republicans say, is an attack on freedom of religion, our first right (if anyone asks, they got that one right. it indeed is the first right granted in the Bill of Rights)
hmm... this seems like a good argument. especially being an atheist, I'm in support of freedom of religion. but let's check this one out. what if a certain religion condoned or even mandated such bad things as rape or murder? freedom of religion?
see, obviously this wouldn't pass. the point is, religious freedom must be balanced with other needs, such as public safety, in the case of this hypothetical religion. in the case of birth control, some balance must be made. and, as the article and comments on it point out, there are exceptions
Saturday, January 28, 2012
marriage = one man + one woman? who's to say?
opponents of same-sex marriage say that marriage is only between one man and one woman. this is usually a result of religious beliefs. but who's to say they get to decide in law? if we're in the US, or another jurisdiction with no established religion, one religion (or more, for that matter) shouldn't get to determine the law on marriage.
when I'm talking about marriage, I'm referring to a legal union, rather than a religious or social one. if a certain church or religion doesn't want to recognize a certain union (such as a same-sex one) as "marriage", that's totally okay. but that doesn't mean a same-sex couple should be denied the benefits afforded by legal marriage
civil unions (many aliases; see the Wikipedia article) are the solution afforded by some jurisdictions to same-sex couples. but sometimes these don't afford all the same rights to "civilly united" couples as to married couples. but even if they did, why not just call it marriage? again, religion shouldn't get to decide what constitutes "marriage" when church and state are separated. i suppose maintaining this difference in terminology creates two separate but equal institutions...
wait a minute, doesn't that last phrase sound oddly familiar...? here's the Wikipedia article on that phrase to jog your memory. we've got quite some way to go...
when I'm talking about marriage, I'm referring to a legal union, rather than a religious or social one. if a certain church or religion doesn't want to recognize a certain union (such as a same-sex one) as "marriage", that's totally okay. but that doesn't mean a same-sex couple should be denied the benefits afforded by legal marriage
civil unions (many aliases; see the Wikipedia article) are the solution afforded by some jurisdictions to same-sex couples. but sometimes these don't afford all the same rights to "civilly united" couples as to married couples. but even if they did, why not just call it marriage? again, religion shouldn't get to decide what constitutes "marriage" when church and state are separated. i suppose maintaining this difference in terminology creates two separate but equal institutions...
wait a minute, doesn't that last phrase sound oddly familiar...? here's the Wikipedia article on that phrase to jog your memory. we've got quite some way to go...
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
126: apparently not a unique moniker
I suppose a simple 3-numeral sequence would be expected in others' usernames as a coincidence. but come on! I might dismiss things like "<name here>126", but a quick search on Google reveals multiple "someguy126", as well as "anon126" (my username on Wikipedia (see my user page), user accounts that don't belong to me.
I don't mean any hard feelings, but it's a little frustrating. especially because I don't use my real name, I'd like to use this post to unify my online identity
these belong to me:
Update: my accounts are also accessible at anon126.tk, and that will probably replace this as the authoritative reference
I don't mean any hard feelings, but it's a little frustrating. especially because I don't use my real name, I'd like to use this post to unify my online identity
these belong to me:
Update: my accounts are also accessible at anon126.tk, and that will probably replace this as the authoritative reference
- Blogspot: someguy126.blogspot.com (what you're reading now)
- Twitter: @someguy126
- Wikipedia: Anon126 (already mentioned)
- YouTube: see below
- SoundCloud: as of 24 Apr 2013, I have an account under the name 126mix, though the URL path is still "someguy126"
- Tumblr: as of 20 Aug 2013, I have (another) blog, someanon126.
- Blogspot: anon126.blogspot.com
- Twitter: @anon126 (seems to belong to the same person as the Blogspot blog; the same slogan and picture are used)
- YouTube: someguy126 and anon126 (both! this sucks because I was thinking of making a YouTube account. I might have other plans)
- as of 23 Feb 2012, I have a YouTube channel, someanon126. lame, yes, but I figured I should combine the two, especially since both individual ones were taken
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
SOPA and PIPA protest
(yea, this is my first post in a while. i'll have more coming up soon)
as you may have heard, many websites are "blacking out" to protest the bills in U.S. Congress called "SOPA" [Stop Online Privacy Act] and PIPA [PROTECT IP Act, actually standing for something else; see below]. my personal website, which currently resides at anon126.net78.net, is a participant.
let's get down to it. what are SOPA and PIPA? and how/why are they so bad?
as you may have heard, many websites are "blacking out" to protest the bills in U.S. Congress called "SOPA" [Stop Online Privacy Act] and PIPA [PROTECT IP Act, actually standing for something else; see below]. my personal website, which currently resides at anon126.net78.net, is a participant.
let's get down to it. what are SOPA and PIPA? and how/why are they so bad?
- well, they are bills currently in Congress that will require websites to be essentially blocked (as well as removed from ad serving, etc.) if they are found to be engaging or facilitating copyright infringement.
- the main issue is that they could potentially allow an entire site to be blocked even for some illegal content that constitutes a small part of the whole. (this is unlike the DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act], under which sites would only be required to remove certain content that was deemed illegal.) in addition, it could threaten services such as proxy servers, which are are so far legal and have legitimate and legal purposes, simply because they can be used for illegal purposes. okay, so what's a proxy server again?
- a proxy server, or simply a proxy, is a system that allows a computer to connect to it to exchange data between it and a certain destination, such as a website. instead of the computer connecting directly to the destination, it connects indirectly, through the proxy. this way, the computer can avoid being tracked or monitored directly, given that the proxy server is good enough to prevent different measures used to monitor
Monday, February 14, 2011
"angry mob, eh? who're we after?" (concerning attitudes toward Muslims)
especially after the 9/11 attacks, the place Muslims have in American society has really gone down. but are Muslims really who we're after?
granted, al-Qaeda is a Muslim group, but that doesn't mean we should be after all Muslims just because a few of them did this, however horrible it was.
i'm sure you've heard about Park51, the proposed Muslim center near Ground Zero. a lot of people are opposed to it since it's an "insult" to those killed in the 9/11 attacks.
okay, let's get this straight. people are insulted that a place for Muslims is being planned near Ground Zero just because the attackers were Muslim. okay, while we're at it, let's not plan any new men's clothing outlets just because the attackers were men!
the problem is, they say that Islam is their cause. but, just because they point to Islam as their reason for the attacks doesn't mean that it is. they attacked the World Trade Center because they were extremists that pervert the teachings of Islam. like all other major religions, Islam teaches love towards others. i don't know how they twisted that up, but somehow they did. so it's not Islam by itself that is their cause, at least not the Islam that most Muslims follow. rather, it's their own brand of Islam they use for their own ends.
(in case anyone was wondering, the quote in the title is from "The Simpsons"; i forgot what the episode was about)
granted, al-Qaeda is a Muslim group, but that doesn't mean we should be after all Muslims just because a few of them did this, however horrible it was.
i'm sure you've heard about Park51, the proposed Muslim center near Ground Zero. a lot of people are opposed to it since it's an "insult" to those killed in the 9/11 attacks.
okay, let's get this straight. people are insulted that a place for Muslims is being planned near Ground Zero just because the attackers were Muslim. okay, while we're at it, let's not plan any new men's clothing outlets just because the attackers were men!
the problem is, they say that Islam is their cause. but, just because they point to Islam as their reason for the attacks doesn't mean that it is. they attacked the World Trade Center because they were extremists that pervert the teachings of Islam. like all other major religions, Islam teaches love towards others. i don't know how they twisted that up, but somehow they did. so it's not Islam by itself that is their cause, at least not the Islam that most Muslims follow. rather, it's their own brand of Islam they use for their own ends.
(in case anyone was wondering, the quote in the title is from "The Simpsons"; i forgot what the episode was about)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)