It was over two weeks ago that I sent my last email to my brother, the last in a short series that began when he tried to start up another dialog. The last was two weeks ago, as I said, and it seems something I said has turned him off again. What follows is my side of the conversation. It is just my side of the conversation because I would need his ok to post his side. Anyway, here we go, beginning with the first....

I think what woke you up was need to empty your
bladder with temporal efficiency, and the eternal
embarrassment if you failed to do so. :)

What comes to mind? These are adjectives that attempt
to label concepts we think we understand on the
surface, but realize on further investigation the
complexities involved.

#2

There is no way to know whether either statement is
true or not. I think that most of the existentialists
that ponder concepts like these are wasting their
time. It is not that we can't know, but we don't know
enough of what is needed to understand concepts like
these in the first place. The recent advances in
quantum mechanics promise possibilities that we can't
even imagine yet.

It's not like we shouldn't bother even trying, it's
more like we should take the exploration one step at a
time. I know, there are some that believe all is
knowable using a socratic or similar method, but we
perceive the world through our senses, and can know
nothing except through them, so require our reasoning
be based on evidence gained through our senses.

So, anything productive in contemplating such concepts
will be considering whether any experiments that will
produce substantial evidence can be performed. There
is plenty of room for unproductive speculation though,
of course. There has been plenty of thought given to
whether or not there are a multitude of possible
futures. It used to be considered a false
proposition, that the laws of reality would rule out
distinct possibilities, because no matter how random
events seem to occur, they are still following a
logical sequence based on a priori facts, facts we
have yet to discover. This of course negates the
concept of free will, which has beaten like a dead
horse among philosophers, and is really boring.

Quantum physics suggests there truly is randomness,
which would make things much more interesting.

#3

One actual past doesn't necessarily equate to 'one
truth'. You are trying to take an attribute of a
concept, the 'past' being 'true', and equate it, make
it equal to, the concept itself. On top of that, you
are trying to take the adjective form of the concept
'true', which describes a condition, and make it a
noun. At the same time all the attributes and
conditions the adjective bestowed upon the concept of
past, it being 'true' are supposed to be attatched to
the noun, 'truth'.

In other words, the 'past' -is- 'true', is not the
same thing as saying 'past' = 'truth'.

#4

You already did the birthday greeting. I don't pay
much attention myself, it's just another day. In
fact, that is the date I'm getting a crown. Just how
I like to spend a 'holiday', in the Dentist chair....

Sorry to hear about the truck. I used to work on my
cars, but my back gets sore after a few minutes of the
incline that's necessary to work inside the hood. I
know what you mean about time on the computer, I spend
too much time here, time I should spend studying.

Anyway, I was expecting maybe some dialog. I don't
mean to be a dick, but this isn't holding my interest.
I realized a while ago, when I started taking classes
at UA, that were I attending grade school nowadays I
would be diagnosed with ADD. I can't concentrate for
shit, and I spend a lot of time finding ways to make
radiology, and anything I do for that matter,
interesting in an effort to stay focused.

#5

Ok, so in response I will go through as best I can,
line by line, your emails. As far as establishing
things we have in common, or concepts we may agree on,
I don't see why it would be beneficial. Given that, I
will go through the short list....

Our current education system sucks. I assume you mean
here in America, and it is, of course, relative. As a
blanket statement I can't agree with it, because New
York has a very good system. If we are talking
globally, then European systems are much, much better.

There is only one past. If we accept certain
postulates, then ok. However, some theories
concerning subatomic studies suggest the possibility
this is not so. This was tied in with the whole
'truth' thing, which I thought I made clear that I
disagreed with. Truth, with a capital 'T'. Anything
capitalized is extremely suspect as a candidate for
being a 'victim' of injury to accepted definitions.
Meaning, one is supposed to accept the concepts
insinuated by the individual putting the term into
use.

I didn't even address the correlation between conflict
and selfishness, I see no point. No, I have not
lumped you with popular christianity. I think it is a
misnomer, because christianity means different things
to each individual that professes to 'accept' it. I
would say it is a popular shield used by disingenuous
people, but nothing more. As far as the same old
things I have heard before, you really have no clue
what I've heard or considered before. You seem to be
fitting me to a stereotype.

What do I think happened to you? I haven't thought
about it at all. I assume few things. Your motive,
for instance. The only thing I assume in that regard
is that you have one, simply because everyone does.
As far as missing each other, I would prefer to say
that we are able to enjoy each other's company, at
least up to a certain point. I say up to a certain
point because I am considerably socially inept, and
the number of people whose company I can tolerate for
a significant amount of time is very small indeed.
Sounds cold, I know, but I know I'm a cold bastard at
times. I wouldn't call it cold, just that we have
different values when it comes to family. I would
tend to think you place much more importance on it
than I do. My family is more important to me than
friends, but that is because we have spent more time
together.

Reality. Ahh, reality is nice. There, metaphorically
speaking, rationale and reason are wonderful concepts
to experience, which few endeavor to embrace. Anyway,
you group atheism and evolution, as if they are one in
the same, as if you can't have one without the other.
Interesting. As far as having an 'eternity' together,
this would only be possible if we were able to sustain
this life support system that produces something we
think we recognize as intelligence from expiring. Any
brotherhood we could attest to would be a direct
result of processes made possible by something
resembling that theory of evolution you seem to
reject. Again, cold, I know.

Still want a dialog? I'd be more than happy to
oblige. I'm afraid I'm not a very good
conversationalist, it goes back to being socially
inept. The problem, if you want to label it as such,
is that I don't dwell on frivolous things. Not for
any length of time anyway. There are few people that
can go beyond superficial, and any 'deep' concepts
amount to nothing more than sound bytes and talking
points regurgitated with little cognitive effort. I
have no patience for such, and so it annoys the hell
out of me.

You seem to think I use the label atheist. This isn't
so. I do use it, but just to keep things simple, for
simple minds. If someone decides they need to get at
the heart of it and go beyond the label, I always
confess this point. If I had to use a label, which I
resist at all costs, it would have to be agnostic.
This is misleading though, because it suggests to a
feeble mind ambivalence, or wavering indecision, and
this is far from reality. Atheism as a concept, is a
firm attestation that there is no 'god'. I reject the
concept of a higher power as it has been contemplated
throughout history in all its variations. I reject it
on the same principle that, as I said to you on the
phone, I reject the teapot in orbit around the sun.
Any rational person, however, has to accept the
possibility if they are to proclaim any objectivity at
all. This is the case simply because a negative can
never be proven, therefore a firm attestation is
irrational.

Cheers,

#6

First of all, you completely missed the meaning of the
system I was referring to. I was referring to the
biological system that sustains the thought patterns
we like to call intelligence. Nothing more. This
biological system is controlled by processes we have
only begun to understand. The brotherhood is simply
the fact that we are related biologically, our
processes work similarly, the fact of which suggests
the evolutionary aspects of our existence. The
brotherhood comes from the fact that our dna is
similar to each other's more so than anyone outside
the family.

I disagree that evolution is a main bastian of atheist
thought. Creationists like to bash evolution simply
because it suggests something other than what has been
accepted theologically. And it is theists that link
the two for the same reason. The problem is that
theists attack it as if evolutionary theorists believe
it to be fact. This is ridiculous of course, the
whole idea behind a 'theory' is that it has yet to be
proven. Electricity is another example. It is a
theory that our current model that describes electrons
behave in such a fashion that allows us to use energy
the way we do. It is taught as fact in science
classes, when in fact we can as of yet only observe
the results of what is happening. You only have to
ask a victim of our education system what an electron
is, and how it is we 'know' about electrons. They
will tell you they assume we have actually seen them
in action. If those that attack evolutionary theory
were really worried about integrity in the classroom,
we would be hearing about that as well.

Evolution is not the main proof that there is no god.
As I explained in the last email, a negative cannot be
proven. That there is no god needs no proof, just as
there need be no proof there is no teapot in orbit
around the sun . The concept, as it is, is highly
unlikely.

I don't use analogies, and don't give them much
thought. They are very misleading, and tend to bestow
attributes where they shouldn't be. People use
analogies to do just that. They are used when there
is no evidence to suggest the concepts that one is
attempting to communicate, and have little value in
reality based thought processes.

#7

No, it is not humor, and it isn't an analogy as they
have been used in philosophy to explain things we
don't really understand.

Let me break it down barney style. A theist would say
a higher power is a reality because it cannot be
proven one does not exist. This thought process is
flawed, and to show this the same process is used to
describe a teapot in space. It shows that the idea,
that the burden of proof lies with a nonbeliever to
disprove the existence of a deity, is flawed. You can
probably google 'teapot argument' or something similar
and familiarize yourself with the concept..... come
to think of it, I can save you the trouble.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars
there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an
elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my
assertion provided I were careful to add that the
teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most
powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say
that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an
intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to
doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking
nonsense."

This quote has been attributed to Bertrand Russell,
but supposedly it is from an unpublished work, which
is highly suspect. Still, it is a form of apagogical
argument, that shows anything can be stated as true
following some of the reasoning used by theists for a
deity.

Nothing I have written has been intended as humor.
For the record, if I am trying to be funny, I will
probably follow any such comments with the :-)
emoticon.

#8

The 'whole argument' as you put it attempts nothing as
you describe. Did you even read what I wrote? The
REASONING that is used BY SOME theists to assert the
existence of a deity can also be used to assert
anything. This has nothing to do with analogies.

Analogy - a similarity between like features of two
things, on which a comparison may be based.

The arguments for this teapot and a deity aren't
similar, it is the same argument.

The analogy is used, as stated above, to describe
similar features. People use analogies to go further,
as I said before, to bestow similar attributes, or
features, onto very different concepts.

Your assertion that the argument attempts to reduce
'the creator' is nothing more than begging the question.

#9

I forgot about the evolution theory. Simply because I
know it to be a theory, doesn't mean I don't think it
should be taught in school. I brought up electricity
because it is another example of a theory being taught
as fact. The reason they are taught as fact is that
there is supporting evidence. I know, you will say
the evidence is hogwash, so spare me that sentiment.
I put the notion as such in my earlier argument to
make the point that those touting the theory do
themselves an injustice by peddling it as a given.
The only reason I say THAT is because it disregards
the scientific method, which makes that and all
theories possible in the first place. It IS a fact
that both theories have pushed us to further
investigation, which has led us to discover things
that make our lives easier.

#10

First off, this is going to be less frequent. Classes
started a few weeks ago, and I'll be studying for
tests when I'm not reading the news. This response
will be short, as I've got more homework to do.

You didn't finish.... took my comment about the
atheist label out of context. I write like I talk,
and without the inflection it can be confusing if you
just do a once over. It is true I don't call myself
an atheist, meaning (and I explained this already)
that a reasonable person HAS to deny the label,
because a negative can never be proven. (I'm starting
to feel like a fuckin broken record) Occasionally,
when simple minded people insist on talking about
religion, I... well, I lie; I tell them I'm an
atheist. Simply because it's easier than explaining
the agnostic term (although that isn't completely it
either), and easier than putting up with the hopeful
look of someone thinking they have a project in front
of them, someone they can 'save'..... By the way, if
this is how you see this discourse, as an effort to
'save' me, 'bring me into the fold', or some such
notion meaning you are attempting to change my
attitude toward the whole other worldly presence crap,
then you should probably have out with it now.

Also, it is interesting the mindless responses I get.
"Why don't you want to be happy?" "Too bad for you."
"Really!?", as if they were looking at an alien.

So anyway, read the WHOLE statement again, with
inflection as I would say it, cause it really does
make sense.

You talk about blind acceptance. This is exactly how
I see it, someone that believes there is otherworldly
control. That is what the 'leap of faith' is supposed
to encourage people to do. It is a leap, because
'faith' in this context means leaving all reason
behind.

You still miss the point of my comparisons, but I give
up trying to explain it.

Your motive. I guess you probably should just have
out with it, whatever it is.

#11
This is the last, and he either has way too much going on to respond, or something I said put him off...

Not sure why you have to establish some kind of basis,
just come out with whatever you have to say. It seems
you want me to accept in advance some proposition or
other. Also, you talk of being reasonable, maybe you
should define reasonable, or 'being reasonable', or
maybe just reason. We could start with a formal
definition, and discuss how our points of view will be
contrary.

You said, "Trust comes along with love in
relationships, you might want to try it sometime,..."
You should probably refrain from such statements. Do
you not see how offensive that can be? You are
suggesting that I don't understand the concepts, or
haven't tried and 'should'. Isn't that assuming just
a little too much?

Then of course you suggest I don't have an open mind.
Is that even possible? There is no way to avoid our
biases, and to suggest otherwise would simply be
evidence of a position the one making the suggestion
is denying. (not sure if that makes sense, I'll have
to look at it again) We all have preconceived
notions, and the mark of a true reasonable person is
the ability to accept this is unavoidable, and make
some effort to get beyond such notions and think
outside the box.

The point is, your opinion of an open mind may be
different from mine. I consider someone to have an
open mind that will admit they could be wrong about
anything, and someone that is willing to consider
anything. That is, of course, a far cry from
suggesting or demanding someone accept any
possibilities without supporting evidence, or going
further to suggest that someone act on those
possibilities.

I'm into radical, but not things irrational. I will
think outside the box and consider the possibility
that something only seems irrational, but I am also a
realist and won't do it often unless it is more than a
little interesting or may be of some benefit. That
being said, I personally find talking about extremely
controversial issues interesting. This is problematic
because few people venture outside the mundane, where
the discourse is superficial concerning the latest
Idol episode or football game. I don't find it much
interesting when I discuss things with someone that
agrees completely with me, and have been known to be
contrary simply to make things interesting. It makes
me seem crude and rude, and most can't take that.

I know this is just a little discombobulated, but I
have not much time before class.

I believe that his objective was to sway me to a certain view. Religion notwithstanding, that is his nature. He has had the urge to influence everyone around him since I've bothered to pay attention. A remark he made once when I was visiting him with my stepson is indicative. We were waiting to order ice cream, in a Coldstone Creamery store I think it was, and he looked at my stepson, about 14 at the time, and said, "Come stay with me for a few weeks, I can set you straight." Anyone with half a brain can think about a remark like that and conclude how offensive it can be.

Religion is just the convenient vehicle for his ministrations, as goes for many others. It is the vehicle of choice because it is so pervasive, and works so well, as has been evident throughout history.