Argument Against the Possibility of an Afterlife

Reductio ad Absurd um:
Telling a religious person that they are wrong is pointless. Instead follow them in there hopes and dreams and illustrate the conclusions. What are the ramifications of eternal life?
Eternal paradise is an individual concept, obviously. But it is always based on the epitome, the peak of happiness in his or her life. If that moment were stretched on into eternity, it would become mundane, meaningless. If it were a single moment stretched to eternity, it would still seem like only a moment.
No matter how varied and imaginative your activities, they are all based on the same governing rules that define the universe, if for no other reason than your mind isn’t capable of experiencing anything else. It is a product of the universe, and as such, is wholly endemic to it, and dependent on it for all experience, function, and even imagination. Say there is suddenly no such thing as gravity, and you can float and fly as you please. This is still based in reality though, because it is only in comparison with a concept, a rule of the universe.
Unfortunately for the religious concept of eternal life, the human mind is geared to operate on the concept of change, of cause/effect, the passing of experiences defines time, and the pace of time. The untrained human mind is trapped between the conscious realization of the unknowable future, and the animalistic tendency toward self-preservation. It naturally tends to seek constancy and eternity as a comfort from the unknown.
Once constancy is found, though, the mind tires of it. There is no change introduced, and the mind stagnates and submits to entropy. The whole world appears from the mind’s perspective to freeze up and lose motion, focus, and meaning. When faced with true eternity the untrained mind begins to understand, and recoils in fear.
I believe that no matter the state of eternity, whether it be heaven or hell, after a billion trillion years of unchanging constancy, the mind will be reduced to a wisp of neutral gray emotionlessness, beyond even the pain of watching all your hopes, dreams, fears, loves, ideas, knowledge; your very existence become meaningless and inconsequential in the infinite halls of heaven or hell.

Eternal life is an individual concept that is incompatible with individuality.

Humans, and Their Foibles

Human beings are essentially mad. Madness defined as a goal which contradicts its own existence. Humans are the essence of conflict. Power corrupts them. They desire power. They are imprisoned by shelter, and terrified of freedom.
They are both social AND individual creatures, and as such are essentially opposed to themselves. Since they operate in a societal form, humans pay attention to other humans, and are blinded by the “human experience” of the universe. They cannot gain a sufficient experience of the world as it is, instead of merely as humans expect it to be. Because of this, they are disillusioned, easily misled, and frightened of a world they struggle to understand only through the avenues of social human perspective. They are often the subject of a vague sense of general unease that arises when they forget for a moment their human conceit, and perceive their insignificance in a world that they suddenly feel is infinitely large and threatening. They forget that it is no more threatening than it was when they saw themselves as an integral part of it.
But the objective viewpoint can only be gained through societal interactions; through communications of other ideas and experiences; therein lies the problem. An individual can only see the world truly as it is through an objective viewpoint. So the only way for an individual to find balance and peace within their self; to start resolving the eternal conflict that up till now has been the very essence of humanity, is to find an objective viewpoint through society. This is a very hard thing to do. This is why the majority of humans suffer from poor education and suffering based on subjectivity of their surroundings. It should be the primary objective of any society to bestow on its individuals a widely educated, objective viewpoint. It could be argued that the primary, or dual purpose of society should be to protect its citizens. It is true, however, that if the majority of humanity were bestowed with a truly objective education, there would be far less need to defend yourself from your neighbors. It would be as the Dalai Lama said; that eventually we would see that there is no such thing as enmity, that everyone is part of a cohesive whole. We should not be warring against one another,  we should be promoting each other to benefit from one another. Like the cells in the human body. And it is also as Alan Watts said, that to rightly describe an individual, you would also have to describe his surroundings, both past and present. So it would be a misconception to separate the individual from his surroundings. So by this reasoning, we as humans, as individuals and as a society, should treat our surroundings, our world and everything in it, as part of our bodies, to be promoted and benefited from.

The Big Bang Theory for the Semi-Educated Layperson

* This paper is supposed to be largely self-contained. It may be that it is full of tangents and topic breaks, but the topic being explained is a bit abstract, and is based upon studies that have been layered more deeply with complexity the more thoroughly they have been explained. I feel that for the layman to have any chance of understanding this topic they must have certain explanatory breakdowns, that tend to manifest as topic tangencies. Please treat the parenthesized sections as explanatory tangencies, that relate to the overall point. I will try to remain on the topic of the big bang theory as much as I can, but I can assume that this paper will evolve as I write it to sound, at its end, nothing like it did in the beginning. I suppose this is suitable, since the topic in question is the universe itself.*

This is the parable that comes to mind. Imagine that you are floating in empty space. (it’s a common scientific practice to try and eliminate all variables in order to more clearly observe a given occurrence. This is much easier with mental experiments.) So imagine that you are floating in empty space. You can see nothing, not even yourself; there is nothing at all to measure the passing of time with, except the rate of your own thoughts. Suddenly a shiny, translucent bubble appears in the middle of the space that you inhabit, so that as soon as it appears you are contained within it and are at the center of it. The bubble expands outward at a rapid, yet steady speed. It is this way that you discover that you are a point of light, or you inhabit a point of light. The bubble is the only thing in your universe that reflects light, so that it was only after it appeared that you could even tell that you were giving off light at all. Through observing the rate of speed in which the bubble expands outward, you begin to get a sense of time separate than the rate of your own thoughts, now that you have something else to observe. Eventually the bubble becomes big enough and far enough away that the only way you can observe the rate at which it is moving is to observe first how fast the light that emanates from you is moving as compared to the speed of the bubble, and then how long it takes that particular light that emanates from you at a given time to bounce off the reflective bubble and return to you.
This is essentially how scientists estimate the age of the universe. The bubble that we are measuring is matter and energy. As observed by the Doppler Effect…
(if an object in space is moving towards us, the light is relatively reaching us faster, and is therefore “blue shifted,” because the wavelengths of energy have been shortened, and shifted toward the more energetic ultraviolet, or “blue” end of the spectrum; conversely if the object is moving away it is “red shifted” toward the less energetic red end of the spectrum, due to the wavelengths being relatively stretched out from the object retreating)
…of energy being put off by equivalent, comparable objects, we can tell that the universe, (our “bubble”) is expanding outwards at a rapid speed from a central point. Which we have identified as a particular point in space as the “center of the universe.” And guess what? It’s not Earth! If we extrapolate backward, we can only assume that all matter and energy in the universe originated from this single point. Since everything is expanding so rapidly and dramatically, we can also only assume that some sort of explosion occurred there to launch all matter and energy outward. To offer an analogy, lets say you see a baseball flying at rapid speed towards home plate, but don’t see from whence it came. You can observe its direction and rate of speed, though, and trace it with good confidence back to the pitcher. Everything, from the speed at which the stars are expanding, to the very shape and form that matter takes on a universal scale, (galactic clusters, super clusters, and galactic filaments, which are known to span billions of light years and make up the largest structures known in the universe) confirms the theory of the big bang. (humans may have only observed and catalogued only a tiny, tiny fraction of the known universe, but this is still enough for us to start to build a somewhat accurate picture of what it is and how it works. In the same way that we need not observe every known example of gravity’s effect here on Earth to build up an understanding of what it is and how it works.) A simple experiment helps illustrate what I mean when I say the structure of matter in the universe supports the big bang theory: pour water into a transparent glass with as straight and undistorted sides as possible. Wait for the water to completely settle in the glass and become still. Then drop a single drop of food coloring into the water (green is visible yet opaque enough to work well for me). Watch the natural dispersion of the food color as it moves through the water. It tends to form abstract structures; columns and sheets and walls and flowing ebbs and tides, created by the dispersal of kinetic energy from the “explosion” of the color hitting the water in the first place, and the direction of the energy away from the explosion at the top of the glass down towards the bottom of the glass. In this way you can see that the explosion of the big bang releases kinetic energy which has the tendency to create momentary structures during the course of the explosion, which we are still  currently experiencing. The universe is still exploding.
I think all scientists will usually agree, however, that this is not a complete picture of the universe. There are still an almost infinite number of unobserved events to gain insight from, and a number of aspects of observed events that don’t necessarily add up. Edwin Hubble first observed that galaxies were not just moving, but accelerating away from each other at a constant rate, proportional to their distance from each other: the farther away  they were from each other, the faster they accelerated. Because of the inefficiency of equipment and the resulting inaccuracy of measurements, scientists for a period of time thought that the universe was 10 billion years old. This contradicted the fact that the oldest observed stars in the universe were apparently 20 billion years old. (not just observable by humans, but observable, period. This was the oldest received energy output. If there were things older in the universe, they were not behaving in a way that fits our understanding of matter.) For a long time this was a paradox in the scientific community.
Scientists nowadays assume the universe’s approximate age at 12 billion years. They estimate this using much more accurate measurements and more thorough data than we’ve ever had available in the past. As the different techniques for estimating the universe’s age become more and more accurate, their results converge closer and closer together. The 12 billion-year estimate matches more closely the oldest observed stars in the universe, and the old paradoxes are starting to fade away. (This is apparently the natural course of science: phenomena in the universe are observed, and then explained. The first explanation is not likely to match all observed events and is only accepted until an explanation comes along that is more accurate than the first, and/or makes more sense in a larger perspective. The next available explanation of something is usually based on the flaws of the prior explanation, so that the more accurate theory could not exist without the inaccurate hypothesis. Eventually, ideally, the theory will fit all observable data, and fit comfortably within the “mosaic” of theories about different phenomena in the universe. This is what happened with the estimated age of the universe: it was modified based on old paradoxes and new, more accurate measurements.)
All this fills in the mosaic of understanding that is the big bang theory. It shows that the theory of the beginning of the universe is only based off of hard evidence, and is fairly conclusive as such. Not only do we know that it happened, but now we even know approximately when it happened.
It is hard to imagine the magnitude of revelation necessary to shake our certainty in the big bang theory; it would probably have to be something that would shake us to the foundation of our existence, to the point that the big bang theory would really be the least of our concerns. Until this revelation rears its head, however, we need not concern ourselves with it.
The eventual conclusion cant truly be known until all relevant facts have been accounted for. My assertion however, is this: we know that parallels exist between the behavior of different phenomena  in our universe; if this were not the case then things like metaphors, similes, and parables couldn’t exist. If we go back to the experiment with the food coloring, we will see that left untouched, after a relatively long period of time, the food coloring will disburse completely into the water, losing all shape, definition, and energy. Granted, there are many variables at work in this equation, but I believe that this is accurate in regards to our universe. Eventually all the matter and energy will be disbursed evenly throughout the universe; ceasing to form shape, losing all energy, halting any possible expansion or contraction. Without anything to move in relation to something else, and for no living things to possibly exist to observe it so, time will effectively stop. Eventually the universe will reach a state of equilibrium, which is the destiny of all contained systems unless external forces are applied.

Why I Engage in Conversation

Why do you enter into a discussion with another person/people? Do you wish to prove a point, and convince others of your own correctness? Is it to serve your own ego; to make yourself look bigger/better/faster/stronger? Is it an academic exorcise, purely in the pursuit of advancing your understanding of the universe and your place in it?
I suppose for me it is all of these, to one extent or another. I wish to convince others only if I feel that my reasoning is more advanced than theirs; if I have a greater degree of objectivity, if I am more experienced and informed, or if I felt my ability to reason, or “see through the mist,” as it were, was more highly developed than their own. I believe that in helping others I am in essence helping myself, because the sooner more humans are awakened to a higher truth; to a more reasoned and educated, objective awareness, the sooner we will be able to start actively improving life for ourselves as individuals, and as a whole.
I engage in dialogues on controversial topics to serve my vanity; to stroke my ego. Because of the course my life has taken, the experiences that have shaped my consciousness, I am a highly individualistic person. As I have stated in the past, I believe that the natural balance of self-consciousness and individuality, is vanity and pride. I sustain my individuality with pride, but temper it with reason, and thereby with humility. Having been a dependant thinker, and highly conformist; only recently having escaped the “ignorant masses” (with all due respect), I am well equipped to understand the necessity of reasonable pride.
Its always possible too, that my pride-stroking is more basic than all this individuality nonsense. Maybe I am merely engaging in some abstract survival instinct, or even an animalistic reproductive instinct, puffing out my chest for a potential mate. Even if that were the case, though, I still believe that pride is necessary for individuality, or at least a symptom of it. As I grew older and became more self aware, I watched my arrogance and pride grow proportionately, and I witness the same trend in all levels of society and all variety and manner of people that I engage and come to understand. However I also witness that the wiser and more reasonable a person is, the more tempered their pride is by humility.
Humans, as self-conscious individuals, risen above the animal masses and separated from them by the barrier of sentience (even if that in and of itself is just a glorified animal survival instinct,) have been gifted with a sense and awareness of our place in this universe; a degree of understanding of our own importance. I believe that sentience is the thing that separates us from the average animal, and allows us to be motivated by purely academic pursuits. We are motivated by self-consciousness to understand our universe to its fullest extent, and thereby gain an accurate picture of where we stand.
The academic pursuit isn’t only motivated by our static drive for understanding, however. It is also motivated by our dynamic drive for self-advancement. We are moved by our own “will to power” as Nietzsche would say; driven not only by the more obvious animalistic drive for dominance, but also by the need for change. Since life is defined by change, change is necessary for life; and therefore the motivation for survival is in essence the motivation for change. Since change most naturally comes in the form of progression or regression, and regression is opposed to the survival instinct, the natural goal of the motivation for change is progress. I pursue intellectual progress as a result of the survival instinct; but more specifically from the self-awareness that has risen from it, and transcends it. I also recognize that an integral and necessary part of that intellectual progress is in understanding other people, and their perspectives.
Maybe I have been a little far-reaching and presumptuous, but that is essentially why I engage in conversation.

On Pride…

Pride is necessary to an individual, and there are benevolent, and even beneficial forms that pride can take.
Pride is the device of individuality. As pride flourishes, so does self-awareness; the ability to see yourself as separate from your surroundings. Pride is also a good motivation and point of inspiration. Any activity, idea, or interest a semi-reasonable person places their pride upon tends to flourish. Obviously, if the pride is placed on an interest that is harmful to human life in some way, or that goes against the local social fiber, then the individual will decline correspondingly. Humans are defined by their natural and social environment, and thought patterns become part of the environment due to human memory retention and their tendency for past/present reality correlation; defining their world around them by combining their current circumstances with their memories. Because of this, positive and negative states of mind are apart of the environment and affect the development of the individual as a whole. Placing your pride in a negative interest will lead you to either be a person who is either harmful to life, or against the social grain. In the case of the former, as a living person who is interested in promoting life I would be against you; in the case of the latter I would have to let reason be the judge.

On Bravery…

Bravery often is a matter of disregarding consequences and focusing on possible positive outcomes. As a result, bravery is often easier for the young, or less experienced; those with little knowledge of circumstances, and their possible outcomes. In this sense bravery is the cousin of ignorance. But being brave doesn’t necessarily describe you as wise or ignorant. The ignorant may be cowardly, and the wise may also be brave.  Notice, however, that these special circumstances breed either the most hated or most revered of society.
The term bravery itself is a bit of an abstraction. Truly there are only your goals, and what you are willing to risk to attain them. Bravery is more of a term used in a social context. An act is most usually brave when it benefits another person, and is only brave when another person is around to deem it so.
Bravery is the term that is often applied to those who risk a great deal to attain their goals, but usually the term is only  used when their goals benefit more than just themselves.
I would only apply the term “brave” to a person who risks a great deal wholly for the benefit of another. But this is a hard thing to determine in anyone but yourself.

A bone to Pick with A.D.D.

When I say that I have trouble concentrating on signs, or when somebody asks if I know a place that I go by every day and I say no, they say “how the hell not?” they tell me I might have A.D.D.
What you call A.D.D. I call a healthy disassociation with symbology.  When your mind is occupied with the symbol of a thing, your attention is taken from the thing which that symbol represents. If your mind is constantly preoccupied with interpreting symbols, such as reading all the signs, talking endlessly,  listening to conversations, or even reading, then you never become truly aware of the world around you; you’re partially blind, and everything only shows up as blurry masses.
This obsession with symbology causes people to feel dissatisfied, hollow, meaningless. The barrier, the middle man, symbols stand betwixt them and the world of indescribable sensation, for to describe it would diminish it. it’s a tendency I’ve noticed in pop culture more and more as time goes by. This sense of dissatisfaction that is reflected in the themes and plots of  the 08’ box office busters. Also I notice it in everyday conversation, especially with the youth. Largely, the older you get the more beaten down and accepting you’ve become, (though no one would ever admit that, surely) and the more willing you are to operate solely in the world of symbology.
Free yourself from the distractions of constant sign reading, word forming and word interpreting. Open yourself to the world that flows into your mind by way of the senses, and break down the barriers of symbology that lie there. Stop thinking of things in terms of what they are called; instead think of them as what they ARE. The apple is red, yes, but the word “red” distracts you from what it represents; that which red IS.

I wrote this the first time i tried shrooms. i think it’s insightful. and funny.

All paths of the mind lead to the unknowable void, for those who are willing and brave enough to walk them. The trouble with words is that in using them you negate the purpose of their being. They are meant to describe something, but in using a symbol that represents  the meaning they are distracting from what the word actually means; that unknowable real moment…you see how all the words I spin around the void weave a web that becomes nothing. Words are words. They are symbols that we have been trained to attach meaning to. Should we take advantage of that tool to build ourselves a certain understanding of the world around us; or do we acknowledge that all attempts at building a web of rationality, of logic… are merely attempts to blind the inner eye to the truth of the darkness; the unknowable void.