The Man From Earth

I recently watched a movie called "The Man From Earth." It was a low budget movie; there were no effects, no intricate cinematography, just a group of people in a room, talking. Specifically, the plot focuses around John, a man who continually leaves wherever he resides every 10 years. He gathers some friends from his work for a final drink and to tell them about his life's secret: he's much older than he looks.
He reveals to his friends that he is somewhere around 30,000 years old. Obviously, they don't believe him; they think that he's interested in writing a fiction novel. He begins recounting his life, and some of his friends are more skeptical than others. For the purpose of the movie, he is actually that old, though some of his friends would rather not believe him.
WARNING- If you want to see the movie, stop reading here.
The most fascinating part of the movie comes when John reveals that he studied under the legendary Buddha. As he continued living and traveling, he found that he could try to bring the teachings of Buddha to the Roman Empire. Of course, the teachings of Buddha are similar to a mythical figure who espoused peace and understanding: Jesus Christ. John reveals that his name was misconstrued and re-translated multiple times, leading to the label of Jesus.
Being an Atheist, I found this to be pretty interesting; according to the movie, there was no one person named Jesus Christ. It was, instead, a "more evolved" man who was simply looking to spread a word of peace and understanding.

While it's not exactly the most probable explanation of the man called Jesus Christ, it might be a good way to understand how the myth of Jesus Christ was created. Seeing as the apostles wrote stories of Jesus a few decades after his supposed death, what's more likely is that several folk stories of healers and teachers were amalgamated into one story. For what reason, I don't know; perhaps the writers of the bible were interested in proselytizing all of the Roman Empire, or perhaps they wanted to have a competing religion with Paganism and Judaism. Either way, I don't know.

Thus, instead of the man from heaven, the Jesus is more likely to be a man, or men, from Earth. Nothing metaphysical, nothing phantasmagorical, just human.

I recommend watching the movie. While the ending is a bit contrived, the story itself is interesting.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

My Ideal World

Some would say that conditions in the world right now are worse than they have ever been, and that may be true for some things: climate change, modern war, public political scandals, etc. Those, however, did not prompt me to think about my ideal world; playing Pandemic 2 did.

The game involves you creating a disease that is supposed to eradicate the human population while the human population eventually attempts to fight back by creating a vaccine to your virus/bacteria/parasite. The disease starts in a randomly assigned country, whether it is the United States or Madagascar. At a certain level, the disease becomes noticed (though the game is flawed in that it takes a long time for a country to notice an outbreak, whereas in real life 200,000 people exhibiting unique symptoms with the same disease would be very public) and countries begin to close their borders, their ports, and their air travel. While it is a game that takes a scenario to an extreme, it is worth thinking about.

For example, would countries cut off all communication with each other upon discovery of the disease within the affected country, or would medical aid flow into the affected country? Most likely, the latter would happen. The game makes no mention of this contingency. (Eventually, everyone in all affected countries become infected unless a vaccine is developed.)

How does this lead into my grandiose portrait of an ideal world? Two simple words: International cooperation, my friend.

In my ideal world (and political conservatives will likely vilify me for this), the world has a unified government. This unified government is all-encompassing, including all countries under one united Earth umbrella. Countries reserve a degree of autonomy, much like states do within the United States. The united world government, however, remains predominant in all cases dealing with law. Having all countries under one government would improve the world by:
-Expediting international cooperation in times of duress, such as during natural disasters.
-Ensuring universal human rights for all people.
-Bolstering the economies of traditionally weaker countries.
Before I begin talking about this world's economic system, it is necessary to state that countries dedicate more money towards education and scientific research than military spending, religious spending, etc. Health is paramount, so proven carcinogens such as tobacco are gone, as well as manufactured food additives, such as high fructose corn syrup and partially-hydrogenated oils.
At first, the economy would be based on traditional trade between countries, i.e. food, transportation, etc. Eventually, as technology develops, food and products will be commonly synthesized by advanced technology, thus rendering the trade of items for profit superfluous. (Research into this is being carried out in Japan already, though not as directly as I would hope.)


Thus, the economy would no longer be based in money due to an abundance of necessary goods.

This would entail a new fundamental philosophy of all human existence: Instead of each individual doggedly pursuing an accumulation of material capital in order to live well, the value of education and pursuit of knowledge would have to replace money as the driving force of mankind.

Knowledge can be progressed by the exploration of space. Humans have yet to break the seal on the vast scores of knowledge the galaxy, let alone the universe, holds. We reside as a veritable dust particle in a mansion. There is so much to explore and learn that only generations from now will humans truly understand their place in the universe. (That is, if this future comes to fruition.)

Being an Atheist, I can only hope that my imagined future is full of Atheists; however, that's unlikely, so tolerance for all beliefs will be a key concept in this overly idealistic future. Even more fundamental concepts that should be taught are logic, rationality, and empathy. A combination of the three, with each assuming an equal role in human relations and interaction, can assure equal understanding both between humans and the world in which we live.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

P.S. I may have neglected to mention some things, so just leave any concerns/questions in the comments section and I'll respond forthwith.

"God is Love"

Sorry I have not posted anything in a while; I've been working on a political campaign.

I recently came across the idiom "God is Love," which I believe refers to a requited loving relationship between the biblical God and his (or it's, because why would God have a gender?) worshipers, i.e. if you promise to love God, he/she/it/them will love you in return. Instead, I began thinking about this phrase in what could be it's most literal meaning: God, or a belief in God, is in fact love.

I suppose I'll have to have a different definition of love than is typically adhered to; love, in this sense, would represent a feeling or acknowledgement of belonging and acceptance regardless of personal or physical faults, traits that are often mocked or scorned in society. The fact (as claimed by proselytizers) that God would accept a person regardless of their downfalls is a comfortable feeling, almost like being wrapped up in the arms of a lover. That someone, whether they are a supernatural deity or not, is willing to accept the totality of a person means that those who consider themselves faulty will have some chance at redemption, since God is all-forgiving and understanding (at least in some beliefs).

Thus, the feeling of embracing the notion of a God is one of love- acceptance, comfort, a jovial quid pro quo of love and forgiveness.

One would wonder whether this would set a bad precedent, i.e. if one's relationships always fail, there is always the love of the intangible God to fall back upon. Does that mean that instead of attempting to improve one's acknowledged faults, one would simply turn towards the comfort of a supernatural being? Does this negate human love in any way? Would a love (a true love instead of a superficial one that many hold) of God require a diligent and constant devotion towards maintaining the preternatural relationship? There are too many open-ended questions for my taste.

Being the ardently Socialist-Communist-Jedi-Lennonist (not misspelled) Atheist that I am, the consideration of a relationship with an omnipotent being doesn't concern me. I go about my life as anyone else- seeking comfort, warmth, love, friendship, happiness, prosperity, etc. If I do, mazel tov; if not, tough luck.

Anyway, there's my two cents on that. In other news, I need to study for the GREs. They're in a month. Hooray.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Ad Infinitum

As I have been relatively busy so far after moving into college, I haven't had time to update my blog. My psych teacher recently asked us an online question about belief and religion, and I thought it interesting enough to post on here. Included are my answers.

What role in the life of the individual is played by a belief in God?
Being an Atheist, I can safely assume that I am in no way objective in my beliefs, but I will try to be as much so as is possible. Being an Atheist also means that I made a concerted effort believing in some kind of deity, but I eventually rationalized to myself that there was, in fact (at least to me), no existence of any tenable God of any kind. The concept of any god, in its origins, serves as an explanation for the natural world around us-i.e., the seasons change because Demeter only sees her daughter Persephone for 1/3 of the year (Greek mythology). In modernity, a belief in God is typically accompanied with a belief in some kind of afterlife and the perpetuation of life after death. It is a very comforting thought to believe that a deceased relative is continually living in a "better place" rather than simply dying.

In trying to understand someone, how much importance should we give to studying that person's attitude toward and faith (or lack thereof) in a god?
When attempting to understand someone, we must not only gauge their belief in a god, but the belief in the mythology surrounding the god. For example, the "great flood" as described in the bible would have been scientifically impossible on Earth because of the massive amount of heat that would have been released after the enormous rainfall, not to mention the gathering of two animals of every species from around the planet crossing great distances and oceans to simply reach one boat. It is not impossible, but certainly extremely implausible.
To be concise about my point, one has to be religious within reason. One simply should not dismiss what others would consider scientific fact simply because it contrasts with one's religious beliefs (Galileo and the church).

If we think of the idea of God as referring to any principle or power, however defined, in which one believes absolutely and with certainty, is there anyone who does not believe in a god?
If it is defined as such, then seemingly everyone believes in some sort of God. If that is the case, the Tea Party can be considered a "God" (though I shudder at the thought), Rutgers can be a "God", and greed can be a "God." There is a difference, however, between absolute belief in something and actual worshipping.

Do all people have such a faith somehow expressed, somehow anchoring their existences? Or is human life possible in the actual absence of such absolute commitments? If our task is to understand a person, can we do so without including a central consideration of what that person's areas of faith and certainty are?
All people have faith in something- I for one have faith in the Mets, though they continually let me down every single year. I do not, however, anchor myself into their every undulating phase. I do feel a bit depressed with each loss (though I've gotten used to it), but it is not enough to drive me to the edge of insanity (though they have tried). I should hope that most people do not entrust their lives into a concept without actually considering themselves before said concept. To be clearer, I hope that no one so inextricably links their lives into some religious meaning so deeply that they end up not being able to reason without relating to their deity.
Understanding a person without knowing their preferences in faith and religiosity is like eating in Tillet Dining Hall- you see that it's food (or used to be), but you're just not sure what it is. There is a certain "level", if you will, of people that is beyond faith and is simply the person's own beliefs, but it takes extraordinary circumstances to reach that level.

There's my opinion, though I personally already disagree with myself.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Thought Experiment

Imagine this: an Atheist runs for president and has a viable chance of being elected. Assume that he or she is a Democrat, as an Atheist in the Republican party is about as likely as Glenn Beck passing a math test. (An Atheist being nominated for president for the Democratic party is unlikely as well, since the party as a whole hopes to gain votes from moderates.) What would happen?
Firstly, the morals of the Atheist nominee would be challenged; the common belief is that morals are grounded in religion, and those without religion are immoral, rabid sexual monsters (cough*catholicpriests*cough) who would destroy all civilization because of a preference for mass anarchy.
It's more than likely that religious groups would protest fervently, heckle, send death threats, etc.

Why should belief in a deity factor into politics, a seemingly non-theocratic institution, especially in the United States, which was built on religious tolerance? I suppose that's my question of the week to you, my single reader. Feel free to comment if you like.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

To be or not to be

To tackle a subject as broad as "God," I would have to write my own novel. I will have to try to condense everything, unless someone actually wants me to write a novel. I wouldn't mind.

God: the ultimate power of the universe, the matter of all creation, the father of all being, or, simply an illusion. God is the factor that divides and paradoxically unites humans the most. For centuries, those believing that they are of righteous piety have struck down others with the claim that their god is superior. For what reason would humanity have so much devotion to a character neither seen nor heard?

This necessitates an understanding of the origins of the concept of god. The most well-known example of this would be the ancient Greek religion, whose mythology continues to strive in contemporary society. Greeks, unlike today's major religions, were polytheists. They deified rivers, oceans, mountains, and anything that seemed mystical or phantasmagorical. We can analyze their reasoning through a very simple idea: lack of scientific knowledge. While the Greeks were aware that the world was round and that the stars were (to some extent) heavenly bodies, most ancient peoples attributed all life to some creator. Many couldn't comprehend living on a planet, orbiting a sun, which orbits the center of the galaxy amongst billions upon billions of other galaxies. People were unaware of the structure of a living cell or natural selection. They believed what ego taught them to believe, and that is a subject all in itself.

Ego, the part of the self which creates personality, pride, and determination, one might say. It also allows us to be arrogant and obdurate. As Aristotle put it, man is different from animal because we have the ability to reason. That being said, it would then be logical to reason that because only man has the ability to reason that we are, by some standard, special. This raises the question of "why?" Why were humans chosen instead of deer, or platypus? This hearkens back to ego; the arrogant belief that nothing is chance. Thus, a higher being created us. Logical? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Skipping ahead a few millenia, past the cold-blooded killings of the crusades and the dank, unproductive time of the middle ages, we stop at a man called Nicolas Copernicus. Many (hopefully) would know that he was the literal beginning of the scientific revolution. While it may have been Galileo who was persecuted for believing in heliocentrism, it was Galileo who defended Copernicus' views on the solar system. As many know, it took the church approximately 500 years to issue an apology to Galileo.

Continue ahead to present day, past the discoveries of Newton, past the postulates of Da Vinci, past Kepler, past Einstein, to today, November 7th, 2009. Consider the great scientific strides made between the time of Copernicus and today: the invention of the telescope, the discovery of the animal cell, the invention of the microscope, the invention of the atomic bomb, planes, space shuttles, an international space station, and computers. One would think that with all those scientific innovations, religion would become less important as humans discover their place in the universe.

Pictured: Andromeda Galaxy

Instead, we see the persistence of theocracies and the denial of basic human rights based on someone's religion. We also see this (warning: not for those opposed to reason):


God is now the reason for everything. Some pray to him on daily basis, thanking him for bread. If that is the case, why not pray to the farmer who grows the wheat? Why not pray to the owner of the Stop & Shop, thanking him for importing this bread from Kansas? Hell, why not just pray to the cashier, thanking him/her for not telling you to go f*ck yourself? One can plead in court that one was "inhabited by the devil" when one commits a crime. Since when is NOT taking responsibility for one's actions the human action?

It is interesting to note that only one brain chemical separates the cognitive processes of apes from humans. One. Imagine if a different kind of ape had become the dominant species on the planet. Would they have worshiped the same gods we have? Would they have killed in their names? Would they have the same struggles that we do today? Possibly. One can only speculate how similar we are to our simian ancestors; however, one thing is certain: we may not consider ourselves animals, but at our core, we are not human either.

I could continue on this subject, but most people would not read it.

Das Flüg

What is God?

I hope that this turns out to be an interesting movie; I will give my two cents about what I think God is at another time. Right now, studying.

Das Flüg