A Pixelated Mind

Least sensitive things ever said:

• Ooh, look, they have some early morning fireworks over by the World Trade Center!
• How was it living on beach-front property for 14 years, Mr. Dantes?
• Oh, it was terrible! You don’t know what it’s like to be alone for so long, Mr. Crusoe!
• Mr. Roosevelt, sir, do you want to go for a quick jog after your fireside chat?
• Marie Antoinette, I take it you don’t want cake as your last meal?
• Yeah, the surf off Indonesia was okay, but it was no tsunami!
• You’d think thousands of hours of unpaid child slave labor would produce better diamonds, but I guess not.
• What, the man you thought was your father actually abducted you from your real parents and sodomized you for years until you grew to old for his tastes and he kidnapped some other kid, thus giving you eternal trauma, an inability to trust and feelings of inadequacy? Wow, sucks to be you.
• I don’t know, I just don’t buy the story that Helen Keller wasn’t a completely useless invalid.
• Mrs. Smith, your son just died in Vietnam…  on the bright side, he was the last person to die for a mistake!

I’ve heard it argued in various circles that children are born without a belief in God, which technically makes them atheists. Richard Dawkins argues something of the sort.

Others disagree. The Catholic church, for example, registers every baptized child as Catholic. I was born to (technically) Catholic parents, so I’m registered as a Catholic and always will be.

I think it is a rather silly point, but I love silly points, so let me offer my own solution.

The word atheist comes from the root words ‘a-’ which means ‘without’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Thus theist means ‘with god’ and atheist means ‘godless.’ This is similar to the root for aliterate (which is a relatively recent term meaning a person who is unwilling to read, although able to do so). Aliterate comes from ‘a-’ and ‘literos’ which means ‘many words.’ There is, however, another word which refers to a person who is unable to read at all. This word is illiterate. Thus, taking a cue from precedent, I’d like to create a new word.

The word I propose for a child who has not yet been exposed to theism is ‘itheist.’

In the same way that aliterate is a person who can read but does not and illiterate is a person who does not know how to read, I’ll parallel atheist as a person who knows about God but does not believe and itheist as a person who is not aware of God at all.

I argue that we need a new word because neither side can possibly win by claiming children all around the world as members of their own camp. What does it matter if atheists win the fight and say that religious people brainwash children? It’s an ad hominem attack, and a poor one at that. I say we create a new word and move on to serious arguments.
I’ve created the word, now let me get out of the way and watch everyone misuse it to refer to people who from foreign lands who may have not been exposed to their religion. Itheism as I know it only refers to people who have not been exposed to any religion, not your religion in specific.

There are currently 71 Google results for itheism, all of them used in different ways. Hopefully this will change.

In rereading an essay I wrote several years ago for my paradoxes class, I noticed that I was marked off for assuming that the universe existed.

“A universe is a necessary being?!!”

My teacher said.

Allow me to defend my A- several years after the fact.

*ahem*

I do not believe that the universe is a necessary being, nor necessary in any way. However, since all of our analyses of anything (with the possible concept of abstractions and laws of logic) seem to be contained entirely within the universe, I argue that it is necessary for intelligibility to assume the Universe for the sake of argument.

To illustrate this in the least illustrative fashion ever, take the statement P:

“Statement P exists.”

It seems almost redundant that this is true, after all P only claims what is obvious by the very fact that P is able to claim it.

Take statement Q:

“Statement Q does not exist.”

This is prima facie false, although there can be some objections here as to whether abstract entities such as propositions and statements exist.  The Universe, on the other hand, is not an abstract entity.  The Universe is the concrete entity and by nature of being contained within it, it makes the universe a necessary prerequisite for asking about the universe.

Therefore, you’re justified in assuming the Universe exists.  Just like a person in a box is justified in assuming the box exists (No, you’re not getting out!).  It’s a bit like when Descartes claimed he knew he existed because he could ask the question.  I, too, can ask the question.

I understand that this gets us into set theory which gets us into self-referential paradoxes and all that hoo-ah  :sad: , but this should suffice for now. :neutral:

Apparently, it’s hard to classically condition people.

For a while now I’ve been trying to condition people to check my blog regularly like malnourished orphans hoping that the lady who runs the bread line will get over her hangover soon. To do this, I took a page out of Pavlov’s book and started posting regularly (see June/July… no seriously) with regular intervals of positive reinforcement (in the case of jabby dialogues, quick witticisms, hot topics, interesting history and insightful arguments).

Because I want a high degree of resiliency to deconditioning in case I don’t blog regularly for a year (see 2006/2007… but not really), the ideal training period is one in which neither the time nor the amount of positive reinforcement is fixed. This is perfect for me, because I have no idea what I’m going to write, think, or say from day to day.

However, I haven’t blogged in two days and, rather than my classical conditioning paying off, the amount of people that checked the second day dropped off by 80 percent. This suggests to me that my audience deserves an F for docility. I’ll even write a note in the report card saying “Needs to learn to have high, and false, expectations”

Thanks to my little vacation, I’ve definitively decided not to kill myself, which was always one of my top three possible actions.

I just read the most excellent poem by Jorge Luis Borges. If you get the chance to learn Spanish and read “Aprendiendo” I heartily recommend it… I mean, you can use Spanish everywhere! And in some places other people actually understand it!

Overheard phone conversation:

1: Hello.

1: Hello.

1: This is he.

1: Hello.

1: I think the best bet would be to take care of this tomorrow when everyone’s available.

1: Oh.

1: I’m free at 5.

1: I’ll see you then.

1: Bye.

Probable Real Phone Conversation

1: Hello.
2: … Hello?
1: Hello.
2: James?
1: This is he.
2: Hey, this is Douglas, from work. How are you?
1: Hello.
2: Listen, there’s a real problem at the branch office. It seems we told everyone the meeting was going to be at 5, whereas it is actually going to be at 5:15. What do you want to do?
1: I think the best bet would be to take care of this tomorrow when everyone’s available.
2: That’s what I’m trying to tell you, It’s today.
1: Oh.
2: Can you meet me today?
1: I’m free at 5.
2: Sounds good, how’s the Waldorf Hotel?
1: I’ll see you then.
2: See you.
1: Bye.

Pixel’s Imagination on Overdrive:

1: Hello.
2: … Hello?
1: Hello.
2: James?
1: This is he.
2: Hey, this is Douglas, from work. How are you?
1: Hello.
2: Listen, there’s a real problem at the branch office. It seems everyone is dead. What do you want to do?
1: I think the best bet would be to take care of this tomorrow when everyone’s available.
2: That’s what I’m trying to tell you, they’re all dead. Me and you are the only ones alive.
1: Oh.
2: Can you meet me today?
1: I’m free at 5.
2: Tough shit, we’re meeting at 4, bitch.
1: I’ll see you then.
2: Cool.
1: Bye.

(more…)