A short film I worked on with my intern for my friend Tom Lutz, the Pastor of the local Lutheran Church.

I recently had a debate with a friend of mine about the documentary film, Unmistaken Child.

I was arguing in favor of reason and he was arguing in favor of the movie. The events in the film are virtually harmless; Tenzin Zopa, a Nepalese monk, sets out on a journey to finds a child he believes to be the reincarnation of his master of 21 years and proceeds to take the child from his parents to be brought up in a monastery.

Things go rather smoothly for the monk and without any questioning and that's what bothers me.

This is 2009, we actually know something about the Universe we live in, we have observed objects in space lightyears away, we have discovered a subatomic world, we use satellites to guide us while we drive. What are we doing using wind directions, the interpretation of ashes and astrological readings?

The monks aren't hurting anybody, so their practice doesn't bother me as much as the exoticism that surrounds it. The people that come to its defense are the same people that will defend something like this:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20091124/twl-tv-presenter-on-death-row-for-witchc-3fd0ae9.html

The attitude of, "Well, that's their culture and beliefs, so we should respect them," is something I've lost patience with. Magic is not real and this casual belief in it holds the door open for more dangerous nonsense.

Perhaps in the future we can have a series of robot older brothers whose only function is to recognise stupid statements and follow them with a punch to the person's upper arm.

If you're not familiar with the Global Blasphemy Law allow me to sum up:

No one anywhere on the planet Earth is allowed to, in any way whatsoever, insult any and all religious beliefs, under penalty of something probably very nasty and ludicrously legal.

(If you like, you can read more about it here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1027/p08s01-comv.html)

So, why exactly am I for this nonsense when it clearly violates any and all free speech, while also giving these people permission to slap several hefty fines on my person?

Because they couldn't.
And the reason they couldn't is because they wouldn't be allowed to admit they were offended in any way whatsoever, because that would mean that they would have to admit that they held religious beliefs, which, under Global Blasphemy Law, they are not allowed to do.

Allow me to explain, and follow my logic carefully, because it is calculatedly flawed.
1. No one is allowed to insult any religion according to Global Blasphemy Law.
2. Most holy books will insist on its followers not worshiping alternate deities.
3. Belief in another deity or set of beliefs is abhorrent in the eyes of God and therefore an insult to that religion and its people (not to mention the act being punishable by eternal torture).
4. Hence, the mere practice of any religion would be an insult to any other religion, thus making it impossible for anyone to practice anything.
5. World Peace?

So there you have it, problem solved and everyone can go back to just getting on with their lives.

Back in college, the editor of the campus magazine nicknamed me Toby.
This didn't really change anything about me. Another personality, a "Toby" with his own distinctive qualities and characteristics never developed.
Oddly, I never felt the urge to correct him when he called me Toby and neither did anyone else. No one else ever called me Toby, just him.
All his calling me Toby really did was allow him to remember my name.

Recently I took an online poll of what people believe.
Below is a list of the more interesting responses.
( The List )

This morning I read an article about how Long Island convenience storekeeper, Mohammad Sohail, used compassion and a shotgun to change a "would-be criminal's mind -- and apparently his religion."

The whole story in a nutshell is that Mohammad Sohail was closing up shop when the criminal entered demanding money, at which point Mohammad pulled out a shotgun causing our now would-be criminal to cry. Mohammad felt compassion for the man and gave him $40 and a loaf of bread. The man reacted with an interest in being Muslim. Mohammad wasted no time, converted the man, and gave him a new name.

What I wonder, and what my mind has been toying with since this morning, is what if the storekeeper had a completely different set of beliefs.

Say the storekeeper was a Scientologist or a Trekkie, would the criminal have been so impressed that he would have wanted to become a member of Starfleet or a Jedi?
Or what if Mohammad was a greyhound enthusiast. Would the night have ended with the would-be robber adopting a dog?

I think so. Under those conditions, a desperate and impressionable mind met with compassion would have accepted whichever formula brought about that reaction.
The storekeeper could have been a really fat guy and he could have given the criminal a box of twinkies and explained to him the benefits of high-fructose corn syrup.

However, the story ends with the would-be robber running out of the store as Mohammad turned around to get him some milk (or in the case of my imagination, chocolate milk). I'm not sure what this means. It could mean that the robber was just placating Mohammad until he could get away, but I doubt it.
I wonder if he remembers his new name.

“Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.” -Oscar Wilde

Have you noticed how some ideas will lend themselves more easily to certain people?

We've established in a previous entry that words are placeholders for thoughts.
"I can has cheezburger," and "Good sir, might I request from you a hamburger with a slice of cheese on it," communicate the same request and are both equally absurd when used in a public forum.

Words find themselves divided amongst certain groups.
A film critic does not sound like a fanboy, a sailor does not sound like a school girl, and Christopher Walken does not sound like a lolcat.

Words are very good at assembling and displaying for us the impossible:
Red is blue.
Kangaroos are brilliant cooks.
Pickles grow in space and when they are ripe they fall from the heavens into a field just outside of Linlithgow where they are collected by black dogs who only speak Esperanto, and if you ask them you'll find out that pickles are also blue.
Statements like these are known as lies.

The average human can pick up on a lie by applying their senses and experiences to whatever statement was made in order to determine whether or not that statement is dependable.
This is sometimes referred to as, common sense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all

I don't think the intentions of the parents were malicious.
Chances are they believed they were doing the right thing.

"Le malheur est que, parfois, des souhaits s'accomplissent, afin que se perpétue le supplice de l'espérance." -Marguerite Yourcenar

And now for the juxtaposition of opposing viewpoints on when violence against women is justified.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/10/saudi.court.wife.slapping/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Lately I've obsessed myself with attempts at getting a better hold on what the Internet is thinking.
One of the more amusing attempts came from a google screenshot someone showed me displaying the search results for the phrase "Chinese people are..."

Taking it a step further I made my own collection of screenshots from google involving the intimate and unprincipled relationships of human dichotomy.

Three of my favorites so far:
Men are like waffles women are like spaghetti
Young people are no longer interested in buying newspapers or magazines in print format...
Fat people are harder to kidnap

( The rest are here )

"Never discourage anyone... who continually makes progress, no matter how slow."
-Plato

It does not escape my attention that I have the tendency to become something of a misanthropist from time to time. And just in case I find myself forgetting, thankfully I am surrounded by people who will remind me of my critical tendencies.

One area I am highly critical of, as it has been pointed out to me, is religion.
However, as with anything, it does not help to only point out the negative.
If something positive happens, one must make note of it.

Therefore, I post this:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/14/saudi.arabia.woman.minister/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html

So here it is, another well written document describing the painfully obvious, albeit with a little more insight; that insight being how babies, while observing a box moving on its own, will become confused, because we, as humans, are born with an instinct for what's alive, and therefore supposed to be able to move on its own, and what's not alive, and therefore should stay still until you say, "Robot, bring me that ladle."

Humans also have some innate disposition in reaching daft yet intuitive conclusions about natural phenomenon they don't fully understand, like rain or wind or carjackings.

Tlaloc, Thor, and Hadad thought they had cornered the market on rain, until Science came along and noticed that when water becomes exposed to air the liquid molecules turn into water vapor which rises up to forms clouds... and so on and so forth, until these Gods were forced to retire.

What drives me up the wall is how thousands of people, who willingly sit inside a MEGA-church watching some maniac communicate with them through a Sony JumboTron about how he chats leisurely with the Creator of the Universe, will look at a group of Scientologists pushing the latest edition of Dianetics from a kiosk at your local Mall, and whisper to each other, "The stuff those people believe in is crazy."

Uh-huh.

Every belief system thinks alternate belief systems are mentally deranged as manifested in a wild or aggressive way. The only time these people choose to become skeptics is when some unfortunate mild mannered person attempts to make a basic conversation about the weather a little more lively by mentioning something they happened to read in an science article, at which point all the believers literally jump down the mild mannered person's throat in an effort to exorcise the demon before it utters anything else that could coarsely brush up against any of their delicate beliefs which they require to murder female TV personalities.

On a day to day basis I try to challenge my way of thinking.
I'll find something I disagree with, something I'm morally/intellectually opposed to and try to argue in it's favor.
Typically I try for three solid arguments, no straw man nonsense.

I also have the tendency, as you might have noticed, to add or dock humanity points for their meanderings throughout life the Universe and everything.
At the end of the week I compile the points. If humanity is in the positives, no matter how low, it's a win, and if it's zero or in the negatives humanity gets a fail.
The week hasn't started out all that well:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1099447/Saudi-court-tells-girl-aged-EIGHT-divorce-husband-50-years-senior.html

While I'm posting links, I'd like to also bring your attention to this one that talks about the experiment where people are willing to shock others if an authority figure asks:

http://www.physorg.com/news149193177.html

The reason I post these two links together is because they are connected in my head.
Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, in 1974, tested human obedience toward authority figures with disturbing results. Professor Jerry M. Burger tried the same thing producing similar results.

If a human authority figure makes demands and produces disturbing results, imagine how disturbing the results could be if an even more powerful authority figure were to start making demands.

Right, well, this isn't exactly composing arguments that would help me understand the opposition.

Argument one: Certainly this marriage is a religious one and therefore it can be assumed that each party is somehow being spared a Hell of some sort by being involved in the ceremony, no?

"Forgive him, for he believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature!"
-George Bernard Shaw

And now, here are the top ten futurist forecasts for 2009 and beyond:
http://www.wfs.org/Sept-Oct08/Nov-Dec%20FUTURIST/topTen.htm

The most frightening and dubiously obvious forecast was made by Gene Stephens in "Cybercrime in the Year 2025," where he writes, "Everything you say and do will be recorded by 2030."

Are we already seeing the beginning stages of this in social networking sites and items like digital dog tags?

There seems to be a fine line between safety and invasion of privacy.

Perhaps in the future, with "Access to electricity reaching 83% and Urbanization hitting 60% of the world by 2030," people can dispense with the literal witch hunts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/3407882/Child-witches-of-Nigeria-seek-refuge.html

A Man wants to marry an anime character
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?Man_wants_to_marry_cartoon_character&in_article_id=380269&in_page_id=2

Proposition 8 set passed in California
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story

Young woman stoned to death by 50 men
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7708169.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-advertising

"To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition."
-Woody Allen

"I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means."
-Clarence Darrow
Scopes trial, Dayton, Tennessee, July 13, 1925

"The most merciful thing in the world... is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." -H.P. Lovecraft

Belief can alter observations, sometimes to the point where evidence to the contrary will reinforce one's belief.
For instance, people who continue to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon after it has been proven false, even by the author of the event, will mutate the proof into something that further verifies their belief.
What's most curious is that the evidence isn't being denied, it's being accepted but mentally designated to another part of the brain.
How does this happen?

Q. When was the earth created?
A. Archbishop James Usher, working out a chronology from the Bible, calculated in 1654 that the earth was created on the night of October 23, 4004 B.C. Other timetables reach back as far as 10,000 years.

Q. What about oil and coal, which seem to have been generated from ancient forests millions of years ago?
A. They are evidence of a Great Flood about 4,400 years ago, which laid down all the layers of sediment at once. They are nowhere near as old as evolutionists and archeologists say. A fossil claimed to be 200 million years old, found in Nevada in 1917, shows a shoe print.

Read more here:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/COMMENTARY/809219997/-1/RSS

I think this type of mental gymnastics is the result of age and our brains decaying.
How many people do you think would believe in Santa Claus if they weren't told he didn't exist until 30?
When someone is still young it is easier for authority figures to tell blatant lies and get away with it. The same authority figures are also the only ones that can undo the lie, but not without tarnishing their credibility.
After someone has aged they become the authority on certain aspects of their life, mainly their beliefs, and no longer allow those they consider equal or beneath them to influence these beliefs.
Conveniently, anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is automatically beneath them.

"We must observe that the moose probably does not seem absurd to itself."

9830
5538

Making an informed decision is one of the more difficult tasks a person will encounter in life, especially if it is an informed decision about death, since that appears to be where the choices cease to happen.
I would like to purpose a thought experiment.
The world is maddeningly filled with Religions to believe in:
Abrahamic, Indian, Iranic, Taoic/Far Eastern/East Asain, African diasporic, “Pagan” Historical Polytheism/Indigenous/Traditional, Nonsectarian and Trans-sectarian, Spiritual movements, each with its own fascinating and dubious history and each including a considerable variety of subcategories to choose from.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions)
In addition to the traditional religions we have the new religious movements to consider as well.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements)
At this point I think it’s safe to say we have established the entire spiritual catalog, each with its own thick tome to sift through and aide in the decision making process.
One difficulty with making a decision on a religion is that it seems so final, you only get to choose one.
Except for the Jubu who have combined two major religions into one amalgamation of what was previously thought to be conflicting faiths (and they are not the only ones).
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Buddhist)
This brings us around to the final series of questions in the thought experiment.
Some of the religions listed in the “new religious movements” are the result of combining separate belief systems. How many religions do you suppose one can combine before there are too many structural conflicts?
The dictionary defines faith as: A belief that is not based on evidence.
Without evidence every possibility becomes an option therefore one's beliefs becomes limitless.
Would it then be possible, with all the conflicting beliefs found in each individual religion, to have faith in them all at the same time (including atheism and agnosticism)?

Okay everyone, here we go...
Apparitions of the Virgin Mary, 2003-2007:

* Tree stump, Passaic, N.J., 2003
* Grilled cheese sandwich, Hollywood, Fla., 2004
* Expressway underpass, Chicago, 2005
* Pretzel, Nebraska, 2005
* Firewood, Janesville, Wis., 2006
* Chocolate drippings, Fountain Valley, Calif., 2006
* Souplantation restaurant, Grantville, Calif., 2006
* Pizza pan, Houston, 2007
* Watermelon, Arizona, 2007

What I want is for someone to study these items and locations (I don't really think the years matter as much, but if you disagree find a way to include them) and find a logical correlation between them all.
If you can crack this one you'll have unarguably improved the world in some way.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." — Pascal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdkyLrDpaUg

Typically I don’t pick up hitchhikers, at least not anymore, not after the incident with the man who tried using relijon as a reason for me to give him money for gas.
“You don’t have a car.”
“Yes I do.”
“Then why am I giving you a ride, get out?”
“Son, don’t you believe in Jesus.”
“Jesus, good sir, is dead.”

Well, the other night it was cold, rainy and windy and I came across a man with two very large backpacks walking about in these miserable conditions.
So, I asked myself, “Self, how much importance do we place on this life thing of ours?”
To which Self replied, “Same as ever.”
I stopped the car.
“Say, need a lift?”
“Where’re you headed?”
“South a few miles.”
“You passin’ the McDonald’s?”
“Yeah.”
“Alright.”
He throws his backpacks into the trunk and hops into the passenger seat and I turn to him offering my hand, “Anthony DiNozzo, you can call me Tony.”
He shakes it, “Ernie.”
One of my favorite moments in the hitchhiking process is that moment of tension when the car starts to move and it is clear both parties are asking themselves, “Is this person going to kill me?”
Neither of us did.
Instead Ernie told me how cold, wet, and windy it was outside, about being originally from Maine and currently headed for North Carolina, on having walked much more than what he thought was his share in this lifetime, how his fiancé was thrown in jail for an expired drivers license (which we both agreed was a little excessive) and other things that people blurt out while calculating whether or not they may have made a fatal mistake getting into a car with a man whose only reply seems to be, “Oh ah.”