What is The Repository?

The Repository is a page where I will list my opinions about many issues. This page will always be the most updated page in my blog. Previous blog posts might not have made an argument as well, and I might not have bothered to go back and fix it. Here you will find the latest stances I have and the best explanations. However, these explanations are not as fleshed out as it might be in my original article. An example of this is religion: I am not going to compress my entire book into this page.


Last Update: 10/19/2015

Free Will:

My opinion of free will is this: Anything and everything we can and will do is bound by the state of molecules in the universe before our birth. Physics does the rest.

We are like a computer which reacts to inputs, doing different things depending on the state of the molecules inside the computer. What the computer will do can be predicted. If we break it down to quantum mechanics, we simply get more chaos and uncertainty, not more free will.

We are the sum of our experiences and physiology which we get by chance. Free will is an illusion. When a brain tumor forces a man to kill his family, we understand the man is simply unlucky. Similarly, I see criminals as malfunctioning people who got the wrong environment, the wrong genetics, the wrong physical causalities that compels a person to commit the crime they did. They could not have done otherwise given those inputs.

This doesn't mean that punishment is therefore useless. Nothing good is lost and something good is gained. We now have a basis for incredible amounts of empathy. Vengeance now makes no sense. Our goal now is to rehabilitate, not to punish for the sake of it.

Morality:

Nobody can prove that torture is bad because "bad" is subjective. Morality is required for a human civilization to function, but that assumes that building a human civilization is somehow a good thing, and destroying said civilization is a bad thing.

If a person is truly happy continuously vomiting and his well-being is maximized in that state, then that person should continuously vomit. However, that is not useful alternative view of medicine to anybody else. Now take that type of thinking for morality.

Practically speaking, to build the best society we can, I believe we ought to act in ways that maximizes happiness and reduces suffering. We live in a human civilization with other humans around us. Moral relativism is true but not in a way that matters. If you disagree that we should minimize human suffering, you will be outcasted and if you act against the public's interest in happiness and avoiding suffering you will be stopped.

Religion:

Theism means believing in a god. Atheism means not believing in a god. If you don't currently believe in a god, you are logically not believing in a god. Therefore, self-proclaimed 'agnostics' are atheists. Agnosticism deals with the ability to obtain knowledge. I don't believe I can know anything with absolute certainty unless I am omniscient, so I am an agnostic. Therefore in total I am an agnostic atheist.

Religions are byproducts of our evolutionary roots. Our propensity to see patterns can lead to false positives. Our emotions sabotaged our ability to reason effectively. I see religion as both of these forces causing a person's reason to go haywire.

Religions do not all teach the same things, and when they do they do not do it equally well. Religions are products of the bygone and should remain in the annals of history, where men used to sacrifice their babies to protect their houses from invisible demons and superstition reigned supreme. Morality cannot be set in stone; rather, it needs to be discussed and debated on a regular basis. I don't want ironclad injunctions about how to act. Humans used to kill gays and witches and treated women as property. Change wasn't brought about by religion, rather religion has been a nice excuse for barbaric men to justify their actions. The many contradictions and obviously immoral injunctions cause believers to accuse atheists of reading their holy scriptures too literally. Of course, any God that cares about suffering would write the answers down intelligibly, instead of writing a scripture so convoluted, people debate the meaning of the scripture thousands of years later.

Faith is belief without sufficient evidence, at least when used in a religious context. Then, faith is gullibility. Religious arguments typically contain fallacies and wrong premises. When every one of them are shot down the response is 'well, you just have to have faith'. Cognitive biases in humans affects everybody. Instead of relying on superstitions of the bygone, let us use a tool that is far more modern and far more successful, of which we base our entire society upon: Science. We realize that believing what we want to believe does more harm than good in the long run, so we ruthlessly test our beliefs with reason and evidence.

Morality

Morality revolves around what is good or bad, but what is good or bad depends on the person. On a purely philosophical level, there is no objective way to prove mass murder is immoral. However, this is too far removed from our day-to-day struggles to be of use.

On a more practical level, we should consider things promoting well-being as moral and things that do the opposite as being immoral. Human beings can be very different, but that also tend to have many things in common, like not wanting to be tortured. Evolutionary speaking, morality just revolves around whatever promotes survival. Today, morality revolves around building a long-lasting human civilization where people are 'happy'. That assumes that a human civilization of happy people is moral.

In the end, moral relativism is true, just not in a way that matters. If you disagree that we should care about human suffering, you will be outcasted, and if you act against the public's interest in happiness and avoiding suffering you will be stopped.

Certainty in Matters of Policy:

I may know some things, but recommend a change in policy I need to be familiar with history. Right now I believe I am far too ignorant to tell other people how to live their lives, barring some extremes. Many people are too certain that their view of how the world should be is correct. For example, redistribution of wealth.

Election Reform:

A 9-month-long campaign for President of the United States is far too long. It might be better to reduce that time, forcibly, to 1-2 months. It should a debate-laden month. Campaigning and giving speeches in swing states does not contribute to public discourse. This should be a war of ideas. Politics should be one huge debate. There is no point to listen to one side talk. Let's throw in Fox News with MSNBC and John Oliver, etc etc.

Campaign contributions is legalized bribery and allows those with more money to buy politicians. Campaign ads should be banned. This decreases the use of illicit campaign contributions. Convincing people to vote for you over a 3 minute ad is the same process Outback Steakhouse gets you to buy their barbecue ribs.

Cannibalism/Incest:

There is nothing wrong with eating people, just like how there is nothing wrong with having sex with people. With sex, you have to make sure the other person consents and is not getting injured. Killing random people to eat them is morally reprehensible because that is murder. Cannibalism of a person you did not kill is defilement of the body and the image of that body without consent. The person must allow you to eat them after they are dead.

I share somewhat similar feelings with incest. The concern is that a parent might use his or her position of power to manipulate his or her offspring into having sex with them. Obviously having sex with a child wouldn't make sense. But if the child is now an adult and moved out of the house, I think there is a possible case to be made there to allow for incest.

The problem I run into with people is their sense of disgust to these ideas. Disgust is not a logical argument. Wishy-washy arguments like 'It's just wrong, fathers should protect their daughter' talks much and says little.

On Charges of Being a Pseudointellectual:

I didn't write an entire book on religion because I wanted to appear smart. I didn't present my issues with overly emotional overtones because I wanted to appear smart. I did those things because those things mattered to me.

I do what I can to make sure my beliefs and arguments are good and that the way I present them are of decent quality. The entire point of this blog was to organize my thoughts. I decided to share them to see what others think. Some people say they enjoy reading about my thoughts, so I oblige. Letting others see my work pushes me to actually write and encourages me to improve my delivery. If I cannot deliver my opinions in a simple way, then I don't know what I'm talking about well enough.

I am up front about where my ideas come from. I'd say that 90% of all I write here originated from other people's thoughts. It would behoove me to do so, to build upon what others have done. Over time I will look back at what I wrote and shake my head. That's good. That means I've grown wiser. If you don't like me or what I write, don't associate yourself with me, for both of our sakes.

I am proud of my work because I spent time on it and I think it's good. If I think it's crap, I wouldn't release it. I don't use big words for the sake of it and I always try to explain things simply instead of trying to make them look more arcane. I am just a person looking at the world, dabbling in topics I find interesting. One day I will die. Right before that happens I have to ask myself: Can I justify myself? If the answer is yes, then I'm at peace. What you think about me does not matter in the fullness of time.

At least I'm trying to wrestle with topics beyond my reach. Can you say the same?

Why is it ok to want to look pretty, but not ok to want to look smart?





---
Relativism in purchases
Feminism