Reality Crowd

The Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign is having a lot of trouble getting their message out. The original campaign was to start in Bloomington, Indiana, but the town decided they would not allow “You Can Be Good Without God” posted on the side of their buses. Recently, the campaign was approved to start running the ad on buses in South Bend, Indiana, however, there is a delay because of the “controversial message.” RealityCrowd would like the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign to have all the publicity it can. Please send this post to your friends!

Trouble in Bloomington:

Original Campaign Launch:

Every morning I wake up, and I still feel like me. My conscious experience feels stable, natural, consistent, and singular (me). However, as Jill Bolte Taylor, our speaker and brain scientist describes, the two halves of our brains have distinctly separate experiences. They function very differently from one another and care about different things entirely. Having a massive stroke in the left hemisphere of her brain and having left-brain functions individually shut down gave to her unique insight to her mind. She describes in vivid detail how her unaffected right hemisphere became more and more responsible for her entire conscious experience as her left-brain failed. She describes a profound awakening experience as she came to know pure right-brain thought and the hemisphere’s personal experience. She gives insights to the mind on a scientific level and even reaches into—dare I say—a spiritual realm offering her own words of hope for the experience of the human race.

Now for the fun part! Test your own hemispheres with this optical illusion.

In religion and politics, people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.

Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

- Mark Twain

The show “30 days,” a reality TV show on FX, puts people in an unfamiliar lifestyle or culture for a full 30 days and explores the interactions of those put in this juxtaposition. Through stark contrast viewers are able to more plainly see the perceived reality of the groups involved and possible get a closer idea of the actually reality in which we are all involved.

The episode featured in the below video examines the situation of an atheist who agrees to live in the home of a Christian family for 30 days. She attends church with the Christian family as well as Bible study, and she is involved with her hosts daily as a member of the household. As many atheists do, Brenda describes herself as a free thinker: one who builds beliefs based on evidence and logic. The host family immerses Brenda in the community of the faithful.

Highlights of the video are outlined here in minutes and seconds so you can jump to any part of the video you may enjoy:

1:10 - The family and Brenda visit a Christian theme park, The Holy Land Experience where among other events, there is a reenactment of the crucifixion of Christ.

2:40 - Brenda visits the family’s Church for Sunday service.

4:50 - Brenda attends Bible study and is engaged by the members to discuss her views as an atheist. One member asks Brenda, “What did Christ do that was so bad?”

8:10 - Brenda and her host Tracy find some common ground.

9:10 - This last part of the video is especially interesting reporting on general views and attitudes people have about atheists. They cite a University of Minnesota study that showed atheists as being the least trusted minority group in America.

Sometimes reality is hard to define. At Reality Crowd we look at the issue from all sorts of perspectives and angles. Sometimes we have to break out quantum mechanics or theology to make a point. But what hope do we really have of defining reality if we can’t even agree on what an ad is telling us to do? This ad from Checkers is an enigma wrapped in a mystery. What am I supposed to purchase? What do I get when I purchase it? I have read over this many times and I can’t for the life of me figure it out. Posters on this photo’s Flickr page have been trying to discern it’s mystery as well and it’s not going too well. Here are some choice selections:

i would say that the “2 for” deal is a two for one deal and thus i think the add really means. buy two sandwiches for the price of one and get a third item for free…
i think

“So essentially you get two double deals, and 1 double value for the price of 1 double deal.” So, that’s five sandwiches for the price of two, correct? Except that one of them (”value”) is smaller?

So if I order the “2 for $3 Double Cheeseburger Deal”….I get a FREE SINGLE DEAL, which is what, a single cheeseburger? No, can’t be, because it’s from the DOUBLE VALUE menu, which I assume only has things like Double Cheeseburgers. But then is one double cheeseburger a “SINGLE DEAL”?

The debate rages on several different websites…for some choice comments (and a few good laughs) check out the Flickr page, the post on boing boing, and the post on Without Warning for more.

So what do you think? As a lover of reality how do you explain this?

“During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world… The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes… In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests.”

Albert Einstein, reported in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium

One tactic that has been increasingly used by the religious in debates (both online and out in the “real” world) is to attempt to show that their claims are in fact backed up by science and reason. This has been the tactic of the “Intelligent” design movement and is often used by one of it’s leading proponents Kent Hovind. Essentially, their arguments are stated in a manor that makes them sound scientific. If I as a listener wanted to believe what these people are saying I would come away with the sense that they had somehow proven something to me, through reason and science.

However, when people that make arguments like these come across actual scientists, or even just people who are listening closely, their arguments are usually demonstrated to be much less solid then they would have you believe. Take Shawn (aka VenomFangX) on Youtube. Shawn has posted many videos that try to prove the existence of god, or jesus, or that dinosaurs and people were around at the same time 6000 years ago. If you don’t listen closely you might think that he makes some good points…but luckily for us a lot of people listen closely!

Here is an example of the type of argument Shawn tends to use, as well as some rational responses to it:

Sounds pretty good right? From the comments on YouTube you would think that Shawn had stumbled onto some ultimate line of reasoning that forever ended the Reality / Religion debate. After all, he even states at the end that there is no way to disprove him. I guess we can all go home and prepare for the apocalypse right? But wait:

That would seem to call into question Shawn’s rock solid “proof” of god’s existence. It also pretty much shoots down his (and all creation “scientists”) style of argument. By proclaiming that you are absolutely right without question you leave yourself wide open to being taken down, because if you are then wrong about one thing what does that indicate for everything else?

Or how about this response?

In fact, Youtube is FULL of videos of people debunking Shawn’s argument. Shawn is hiding all the negative comments on his videos (why the need if you are absolutely without question correct?). Read on for more videos addressing Shawn’s claims.

Read the rest of this entry »

There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

- Douglas Adams

Read on for some more Douglas Adam Quotes
Read the rest of this entry »

The absolute truth of our existence will likely never be discovered. Everything we learn leads to more questions. When our species learned that matter was made of things called atoms, it appeared that we were much closer to understanding the nature of our universe. Soon, however, we learned that atoms are made of quarks and that there are structures and events existing on an even smaller scale. How do we try to make sense of our existence when every answer seems to lead to more questions?

Scientists who make it their life’s work to advance our understanding of the cosmos play a creative role finding answers. They make theories; they use their imaginations. Having a “theory,” though, means that it needs to be tested. If there really is an answer to the nature of our existence how can we be sure that it is even POSSIBLE to test it? If it can’t be tested, then it isn’t science.

That’s where philosophy comes in to save the day. Philosopher Dr. Nick Bostrom offers his own creative proposal to the nature of our existence: We could all be living in a computer simulation. Though only one of an infinite number of possibilities, his idea sparks much discussion, debate, and creative endeavors by others. His clearest argument is based on the premise that eventually the human race will create a computer that is more powerful than all human brains combined. (He is not alone in making this assertion.) Eventually, he believes, we will be able to run computer simulations in such incredible detail that the inhabitants of this simulated place would simply understand their virtual environment as the universe--the only one they’ve ever known.

It is a compelling argument if you accept that humans will eventually be able to make such a simulation. In that case it seems rather likely that we are also simulated. If you would like an expanded view of Bostrom’s Simulation Argument I have posted three links.

New York Times article:
“Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy’s Couch”

The original Simulation Argument by Nick Bostrom:
“Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”

Popular review of Nick Bostrom’s argument
by Brian Eggleston