Faith, continued.

Faith

                Faith is a difficult topic for me to discuss, because I have already condemned it in my mind, and I frankly find any justifications for it to be flimsy and poorly thought out. Before I say anything, let me define faith as it is defined by those who have it. Faith is the belief in something you don’t know and can't prove. It’s knowing something you can’t know, it’s irrational. Now I appreciate that not all things worthy of merit are necessarily rational, but still, one must admit that when you look at it this way, it does seem distinctly silly. A faithful person reading this might feel just the tiniest nagging sensation in the back of their mind. If you want that sensation to go away, I recommend you step away from this essay and go start a holy war or something to make you feel better.

                Anyway, faith is something that I hear a lot about from theists, but which I don’t really hear explained at all. In fact, I am honestly lead to believe that many people who use faith as an explanation or an excuse, don’t even think about what it really is, even just in the way that they look at it. They leave it a fuzzy, undefined thought buzzing around in their heads, like a bad algebra student might know of the order of operations, but not really have a clear, articulated grasp of it. And yet, when in any kind of verbal confrontation about their beliefs, most theists will immediately pull the faith card, and hide behind it like it’s diplomatic immunity while they’re visiting the land of rational thought. Seriously guys, is this in your handbook or something? I can just see it, “If an irreligious person approaches you and begins making ANY KIND OF CRITICISM OF YOUR BELIEFS, the only safe response is to immediately begin rattling off as many faith-related justifications as possible, and the more vague the better! Most attackers will become confused, flustered, or satisfied by this technique. WARNING: If attacker persists and asks you to consider faith on any level deeper than the word itself, IMMEDIATELY block both ears, yell LALALALALA, and think of cats until attacker desists. IF YOU ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT FAITH, WE PROMISE THAT YOU WILL TOTALLY NOT REALIZE THAT IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE, BUT DOGS WILL COME FROM HELL AND CHEW YOUR BALLS OFF ANYWAY!!!”

                But seriously, whenever I talk to any theist about their beliefs and ask them why they believe in such nonsense, they say “faith,” and go no further into detail. It really is as if they haven’t thought it through, which makes it completely invalid as an actual point in any context. How does this sound? “I believe in something that I can’t know, because of faith.” And this is the same as saying “I believe in something I can’t know because I have a belief in something I can’t know.” Circular much? I mean, you could say it’s because you’re faithful, but that brings up the question of why you are. Because god said you should be? And you know he said so because you have faith. And you have faith because he said… Oh, making less and less sense, isn’t it? Seriously, I would bet that a significant amount of theists, if made to turn a logical eye on this, would probably at least be forced to seriously reconsider their beliefs. But I suppose that those truly determined to delude themselves would just make up some flimsy, vague justification for faith in their heads without thoroughly exploring that, either. And that’s what they've been trained to do; they are given an illogical justification for something, taught to use it as if it were proven fact without applying common sense to it, and as a result if this idea is challenged they simply come up with a new one exactly like it. In the external world, that's enough grounds to call them mad, in a manner of speaking, but the harmful thing is that in their heads they are trained to block out reason. That’s the source of this whole mess, really, corrupted reasoning skills.

                But let’s just say, for a second, that believing in something that you can’t prove has some freakish sort of merit to it. Let’s just pretend that in the way the world works, that actually makes sense. What separates any one belief that you can’t prove from another? What makes the Christian god different from Allah different from Zeus different from Quetzaquatl different from Krishna different from fucking unicorns? If you can’t prove something, there is no evidence to support a belief in it, so why would you believe in one thing more than another, if there is equal reason to believe either? (that amount of reason being zero, of course) It would seem, then, that believing any one thing on faith over another is just an arbitrary choice. I mean, you could say that you have faith that a certain god exists instead of any other, but that's just as circular, why have faith in that over any other? It really is arbitrary, in a sense. It's not in that there aren’t things to influence which belief you have, but there is no factual reason to believe one idea over another. So, since the whole belief in god thing is just a crapshoot that 90% of the world is involved in, screw agnosticism! I want in on this! I think I’ll believe in Zeus, he's pretty freaking badass. I mean, he usurped the Titans and defeated them all, he tricked his siblings into giving him the sky and earth to rule over, and he reins over all mankind, throwing lightning bolts at them when they piss him off. Of all the gods out there, I want that guy to have my back, you all have fun with your “God of the Desert.”

But back to being serious, I’m sure you all can see by now that having faith is really for its own sake. Faith justifies faith? Sure, why not, I’ll let you get away with saying that. You’re deluded for thinking that, but if you can say that with a straight face and not realize how stupid and pointlessly circular your faith is, you aren’t even worth my time and breath. Well, maybe I’d invest some into getting you put into a mental asylum…

Okay, by this point I have pretty much slapped every theist reading this in the face, and I know what your reaction will be. Faith is the first reaction any theist has to being questioned about their religion, and whenever it is challenged you guys almost invariably come around with good old number two. Predictable. Can any of the irreligious ones out there guess what I’m thinking? That’s right, it’s scripture! Okay, listen, I will only say this ONCE. The freaking bible, or quran, or torah, or whatever the hell kind of scripture you can use to justify faith, IS NOT VALID EVIDENCE. EVER.

                Do you want to know how I got into the stupidest argument of my life? I told a Christian that he had nothing to prove any of his petty ideas of god and the universe, except the pages of his bible. He responded by telling me that the bible was valid evidence, because the stories in it were first hand witness accounts of the resurrection, etc. Okay, there are so many things wrong with this. I will keep this broad and brief, because I don’t want to torture to many of the sane people reading this by wasting time explaining things. Just because someone wrote down that something was true, does NOT make it a fact. If multiple people did, it might make it a popular legend/story, but it is NOT historical evidence. I have in my book shelf a copy of the story, “The Alchemist,” by Coelho. It is a story that was completely made up. It had a few messages about life and morality that may be solid, but none of the events portrayed were anything more than loosely based on actual events. Just like all stories are told, it was written as if it was true, and it was also published into fifty six different languages according to the copy I have. But does that make the impossible events in it any more plausible to happen? Does that make it historical fact? FUCKING OF COURSE NOT, YOU TWIT! And it could be so many other things too, the person who wrote it could have been delusional, it could have been a common legend at the time, the people who confirmed the story could have gotten it from the first guy! The bible was written in like 300 AD, what the fuck do you know about how it was written? Besides, there are tons of other stories in Greek and Roman mythology, hinduism, etc that all are very similar to those of the bible, and do you believe in them?

Anyway, moving back onto the topic of faith itself: We’ve addressed why faith of something that cannot be proven is irrational, yes? What about faith in something that can be disproved? That is the kind of faith that many literalistic Christians have, I’m sure as well as plenty of other groups. Now this is where the idea of faith goes from trivially stupid to condemningly harmful. Science, as I either have said or will say in a different article, is basically observation. It is using your senses to observe and learn about things you do not understand, right? I mean sure, a microscope isn’t your eye, but your senses do tell you that the microscope will accurately show you infinitesimal particles, right? Even though the microscope is not your eye, if you cannot trust what it tells you, then you can either not trust what your senses tell you, or you cannot trust what your logic tells you about the connections between what your senses say and actual fact.

So, if science disproves things like how old the universe is, or that creatures evolve, or anything like that, and we refuse to believe it, then we are essentially saying that we cannot trust our senses. And think about that for a moment, if we can’t trust our senses, how the hell can we trust anything? How would we know that all the stimuli we have ever received, even that pertaining to god, isn’t just fabrication, and that all real truth about the universe is completely lost to us? If we cannot trust our senses, we are essentially perpetually hallucinating. The other alternative is that we cannot trust logic and reasoning, but honestly, I don’t think I should even need to justify those things. If you think that you don’t need logic, then tell me why you don’t go stick your head on a stove right now and do the world a favor, you dip-shit. And I just know that someone out there is thinking “Well faith is its own separate sense, I feel it inside of me, it tells me what is true!” This isn’t worth its own paragraph, so let me keep this concise: Teenagers think they feel true love, schizophrenics are sure they feel the presence of aliens, and everyone of every other goddamn religion thinks that they feel their god, just as surely as you think you feel yours. Feelings are not fact, nor are they evidence; and though I can’t stop you from honestly believing that you are the one person in a billion whose unexplainable feelings are actually fact, I’d just like to remind you that every person who was ever wrong followed the same thought process.

Using faith as grounds to disbelieve logical reasoning and one’s senses is actually harmful. If you can deny one thing that you have reason to believe is true, then please tell me, when does it stop? Do you attribute everything to god, or fate, or some higher power? Do you renounce control of your destiny because you believe someone else has it mapped out? Do I even need to explain why these things don’t work? Okay, so these are rare cases that people actually let faith get in the way of helping themselves, but on a smaller level it’s a bad thing too. I mean, just the very attitude of believing in things that don’t make sense is just unhealthy! It makes one gullible, irrational, and prone to choosing actions unwisely for the sake of superstition. Let me put it this way: if a forty year old man says he can speak to unicorns, would you be concerned? If the world were ending and, say, the president could save us from an apocalypse (just make up the scenario in your head, the specifics aren’t the point) but he chose not to because he thought it was god’s will for us to become extinct, would you approve? If a business man made his investments based on star patterns, and he inevitably became broke, would he have spent his money wisely? If the leader of a poor nation wasted money that could be used for hospitals, to donate to the Vatican, (which has plenty of money) would you say that the leader was smart? No, and all of these things practices are clearly detrimental to those who practice them, and all are a result of faith. Though usually they manifest themselves in much smaller forms of harm or inconvenience, often emotional or mental, the point is that faith is not a virtue, it’s a mental condition with a pretty name, that is glorified by society.

                This leads me to my final point, and also back to my first. Why have faith? Sure, the ostensible reason is because god says so, circular reasoning, blah blah blah, but what really causes people to have it? Well, the answer is pretty obvious. It’s the same thing that makes a child become a christian, or a hindu, or an atheist. Indoctrination. Children are born, and immediately they are fed mounds of information about god, and just taught it as if it were fact. Never mind that it doesn’t make sense, it’s ingrained into their minds, and they are programmed to believe these things. And whenever they have doubts, because they don’t see the logical reason to believe their teachings, what are they told? Believe it because of faith. Of course, they don’t realize that this is the same as saying “have faith because of faith,” but it is drilled into their heads, and treated like a virtue and a valid point. The idea of faith is reinforced in people’s minds not only as a logical, agreeable reason to trust something, but it’s also presented like a virtue. When everyone treats the very word faith as if it were a holy relic, how is a child, growing up around the people who do so, supposed to see that it doesn’t make sense? How can they hope to learn proper reasoning at all? Reasonable people will believe something, justify it, and say “It makes sense because…” but what happens with people who use faith as a justification, they are just trained to think “It makes sense,” and not even think about why it does, but instead to just take it for granted. In this way, faith is inescapable in the minds of individuals, and in the consciousness of society. Not only is it inescapable, it is possibly one of the most dangerous of all human follies, and despite its connotations in society, it is nothing short of a fatal cognitive error, worthy of as much disdain as any other form of insanity.

Caution, the following paragraph is just me rambling on in self-reflection. If you care about my history with religion, feel free to read on; but if you really don’t care, just skip to the signature.

On reflection, it’s truly a miracle that I escaped from this vicious cycle myself. I don’t know if I said, but I was once a devout Christian. I think, however, that who I was got the best of me. Even while devout, I would question what I was told and modify my beliefs to suit what made sense to me. “God hates gays,” I was told at times, and I would think “Well, I don’t think gays are worthy of being hated just for being gay, so I doubt that god would hate them.” My only flaw was that I overlooked the idea of whether god even existed or not, I took it for granted without thinking it through fully, because I was never taught to do so for that particular topic, even if I did with others. It was my grandfather who first exposed me to atheism. He showed me a video of Pat Condell’s, because he thought it was funny. To this day I can’t tell if my grandfather agrees with the man, and I don’t fully agree with him myself, but it triggered something in me when I listened to him tear down the concept of religion and god and faith. After that, I immediately began thinking about the topic, and reading up on various sets of beliefs about it. Through introspection and a newly opened mind, I came to acquire the set of beliefs (or lack thereof) that I have today. I suppose it wasn’t so amazing, though, because it didn’t come as much of a shock of me to learn it. I honestly think a small, repressed part of me doubted the existence of god for a long time before that, and as I write this I even recall it nagging at the back of my mind frequently while I was theist. Regardless of exactly what happened in my head, I am grateful for every circumstance that lead me here. Through once being religious, I came to understand it, and through an open but critical mind, I came to realize exactly what is wrong with it.

I don’t know if what I have been through has taught me anything. I couldn’t say if really know what is right and wrong on anything more than a basic level, or if I have any kind of wisdom about the universe. I am uncertain of so many things, because I can see that there is no way for me to be certain of them, and so I can only hope for a day when we as a race can see the real truth about the universe. I only really want to do one thing in life to help accomplish this. I don’t want to change the world. I don’t want to teach any specific ideas to any person, forcing them to see only my vision. What I hope to teach people before I die, is how to see past all of the lies, and cognitive error, and anything else that stops them from thinking reasonably; and to use logic and reasoning as their tools for finding truth. In short, I do not want to teach people what to know, but rather, how to know, and why they should never be fully certain. And perhaps one of the most important ways that I can do that is to address the issues that prevent rational thought, like obstinacy to reason, bias towards certain beliefs, and most importantly of all: Blind, irrational, self-destructive, unquestioned, and mind numbing faith.

Perversely Yours,

The Ellipsis…

Why Agnosticism is the Shit

Jesus Christ (if you'll excuse the expression), dear audience of several! Do you even know how many bloggers there are who don't post things for ages, and then apologize for it? I feel so blood unoriginal because I was about to do more or less the same damn thing, but hell with that! And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sorry! I've been busy having a life (kinda) and I really don't feel compelled to post on this. Do I even have any followers? Oh well, that's rather moot. I really do this more for myself anyway. I find the best way to organize my thoughts and remain rational, is to write them down, and I really just do so online because it's kind of cool.

Anyway, now that you've all listened to me whine quite enough, let me get down to the actual topic of this post: Why Agnosticism is the shit. Before I go into this, I'll just throw out this little disclaimer, by no means do I feel that atheism or theism are completely bad. Theism is more so, but both serve a good purpose, and cause at least some good. What I am trying to say, however, is that while both atheists and theists have relatively defensible ethical and logical positions, (especially atheists) they are both wrong. And annoying. And the very concepts of both beliefs were embodied in physical humanly form they'd probably be ugly. And fat.

Meanwhile, sitting at my logical high ground, I am now speaking on behalf of the beautiful and slim Agnosticism. Now I've heard Agnosticism take a surprising amount of abuse. I've heard agnostics criticized for being fence-sitters, indecisive, afraid to decide, etc. by atheists. And theists, well, I don't think that most of them really know or care that we're any different from atheists, the ignorant shits! But back to the point, and I don't recall if I've said this before, but what the hell makes Agnosticism (And I do insist on capitalizing it, so long as spell check gives me the little red zig-zag every time I use a small "c" in Christianity) so bad? I really wouldn't expect to get criticism from atheists, considering we're more or less on the same side here.

I think the point that Agnosticism's critics are trying to make is that the mindset of agnosticism can be associated with cowardice. Sure, I can easily see how one might think this, especially because it's entirely possible for a timid, indecisive person to become agnostic. I'm honestly a little offended, though, because some people seem to have the idea that we are agnostics are like sheep, who decided to stray from the flock that is organized religion, but were just too afraid to go all out because we think we might wet ourselves if things get too unfamiliar. I'm not saying no one's Agnostic because they couldn't handle the notion of there being no god in the universe, but I'm sure as hell not Agnostic for that reason! If I felt so inclined, I'd shave off my delicate white wool and go join the wolves, (don't read into that metaphor, it's just arbitrary) but I don't feel so inclined; because I'm of the impression that while most of the sheeple from whom I've departed are total dipshits, the wolves on the other side of the spectrum are only lesser dipshits.

I'll explain exactly why those are all dipshits later, but in the meantime let's get back to the topic of Agnosticism. Another criticism it gets is that it's not really much of an opinion. It's been said that as an agnostic you can't really be that enthusiastic about your belief, because it's an "I don't know," as opposed to a yes or no. I think where they're coming from is that while theism is an affirmative statement, and atheism is a negative statement, agnosticism isn't really either, it's more of a shrug of the shoulders. Well let me clear something up for the people who don't understand. Going into disclaimer mode again, I may not be speaking for all or many agnostics when I say this, the following is only my view on it: Agnosticism is, indeed, a rather neutral position, a middle ground of sorts. But that doesn't mean that it isn't it's own belief, as much as theism or atheism is. To help the smaller minded people out there, let me give you a better image to go by: Instead of thinking of Agnostics as saying "I don't know, maybe." In a neutral tone, think of them shouting: "I don't know, you don't know, and neither does anybody! We can't prove whether a god exists or doesn't, so stop freaking pretending that you know for certain!" Does that give you a different idea of agnosticism?

Building off of the last paragraph, Agnosticism isn't so much a lack of knowledge, as it is a belief that knowledge is not currently possessed. I'm not so much saying "I don't know if there's a god," as I'm saying "humanity doesn't know if there's a god." Being an empirical agnostic, rather than a "strong" agnostic, I don't believe that we can never know. And can a single atheist tell me that I am not justified in saying this? Atheists have even said that they're, in a way, agnostic, because they don't really know if a god exists. Frankly, I'd call this small amount of uncertainty enough to justify calling oneself agnostic, but why not take it further.

Atheism is, by definition, the theory or belief that god doesn't exist. I would like to pose this argument to any atheist: How can you prove that there is no god? I would pose the same question to a theist, but really, why bother? For the rest of this post, in fact, I'm going to totally forget about theism, because I really can't bring myself to take them seriously at the moment. Anyway, as I was saying, it is clear that it cannot be proved that no god exists, because one would have to simultaneously search every part of the universe, with every conceivable sense. So, in response to this, an atheist will say that they still don't believe in a god because it seems improbable to them. The logic behind this, I believe, is that because no god acts in any perceivable way on humanity or earth, he probably doesn't exist.

Going off on a brief tangent, most atheists would say that someone shouldn't become an atheist simply because they encounter misfortune. Rationally speaking, any moderately intelligent theist can explain this away to fit into the religion they defend. Furthermore, an atheist would say, the case doesn't disprove the possibility that there is a god, only he's a total ass. Similarly, I don't find that a lack of "divine" interaction with Earth disproves that there is a god. What if there is, and he simply doesn't care about our planet? What if he only does things to an entirely different race, on an entirely different planet? I could go into the whole ordeal of aliens' existence, but I think any rational-minded atheist would agree that it's possible, if not likely, that life exists somewhere else. Anyway, does that not effectively cast enough doubt on the notion that not god whatsoever exists, to give logical cause to be agnostic?

This, my dear readers, is why I am Agnostic. Though I haven't the faintest clue of what lies beyond this world, I am at least well aware of it. If there are any atheists who happen to read this, I would be very happy to hear a different argument for atheism. Frankly, I just feel like there must be more to the belief than what I've said, and if you would explain to me other things that give you logical cause to be atheist, rather than agnostic, I would sincerely love to hear them. Oh, and also, just to clarify: I don't mean to disrespect atheists in any way. I actually have lots of respect for them, just for the fact that they have the beliefs that they do, despite that many are strongly encouraged not to. So though I disagree with you, atheists, please understand that I'm only poking fun at you, no insults intended! If anything I think of atheists as my friends, and fine, interesting people. But theists, though, I really can't stand. Seriously guys, pick up some common sense, or at least go breathe paint fumes, if you're that determined to drown out your better judgement in retardation.

Sincerely,

The Ellipsis

Oh, yeah, and by the way...

I know I only have a few viewers, and I don't even know if they're regular viewers. Regardless, if you're reading my blog, please follow if you're interested or leave a comment if you feel like entertaining me. I'm more than open to disagreements, different opinions, criticism, all of the above... Just please, no trolling. Thanks for reading!

Sincerely,

The Ellipsis

Childhood, A Condition

                I’ve recently heard a fair amount of people saying that they hate children. Although I don’t really have a contention with this, it kind of made me think about my relationship with children, etc. I guess I don’t really like children all that much either, but I definitely don’t hate them. I mean, I know that they’re still developing, and I respect and understand that, but this doesn’t change that they are annoying, immature, and sometimes infuriating. I don’t know if this goes for all children, but the ones I know are all major assholes by universal standards. And again, I don’t begrudge them this, it’s really not their fault, but again, I still don’t like hanging out with them. The fact that they aren’t really to blame for being egotistical, narcissistic, annoying little bitch-faces doesn’t change the fact that they are all of those things. I mean, that doesn’t mean that circumstances don’t call for you to treat them right, but if anyone else acts like a child, you tend to dislike them for it. Would you choose someone who acts like a child as a friend? Of course you wouldn’t, because you don’t like that in a person! The only difference here is that if a grown person were to act like a child, you wouldn’t have sympathy for them, or patience either; because they don’t particularly have to act like children. So the fact of the matter is that I like what I like, and where it comes from has only to do with how I react to something, not how much I care for it. For this reason, I don’t like children very much (most of the time) but I’m still kind and patient towards them.

                Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I harbor any kind of resentment for them, or that I blame them in any way. If a kid runs up and kicks my leg, that doesn’t mean he’ll be the next Jack the Ripper, or if he is obnoxiously mean to his friends he’s not going to become Hitler. All it means is that it’s a child, and that he hasn’t really matured enough to have a refined personality. In him is a mold, a potential to be a more mature person in the future, but he just hasn’t filled this mold yet. So as children, people aren’t really themselves, which is why I see it as more of a condition than a vice.

                The thing about children is that they’re so blissfully ignorant of the world that they don’t know just how stupid they are. I mean, it’s actually kind of pitiful to see how oblivious they can be, going about their lives being obnoxious, rude, or otherwise foolish and not even realizing it! They’ll realize it one day, sure, but in the mean time they sure do make idiots out of themselves. I remember when I was a kid. I was always self-assured, hypocritical, hyperactive… I actually think I liked my childhood, but today it isn’t a fond memory of mine. Though at the time I would do stupid things and just laugh, and think I was funny, I realize now that some of them were genuinely stupid. Those memories of doing or saying stupid crap, like trying to come onto my mother, are now freaking humiliating to me. It hurts to even remember, I can hardly stand thinking about what a little prick I was.

                First off, there were my imaginary games. I would always play pretend with myself when I was younger, enacting epic battles in my room, and going between different settings, characters, etc. The thing is that I would always follow the same imaginary story for a while, pretending that I was imagining a whole imaginary book, even though I often just imagined the same thing over and over again. And it would always be based off of whatever I liked at the time, too, like Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings, or a videogame, or anything. I would literally imagine the adventures of a protagonist who was invariably perfect in every way. He was a genius, as strong as a bull, devilishly handsome, never did or said anything wrong, and everyone liked him… I would seriously have a single antagonist who disliked him, and make him inferior in every way. The story would consist of arbitrary battles or scenarios involving whatever my whims commanded. There’d be a battle on the moon if I felt like it, there would be a mellow-dramatic love scene in which an almost perfect female protagonist fell for the perfect male protagonist (if I was in the mood for that), or there would be a god damn song and dance scene if I heard a song I liked! There are some who may have found this cute, but when this was still going on in like 5^th grade, you know something wasn’t quite normal. I personally wish I could go back in time and give me a hard kick in my vacant little head.

                The second part of my childhood that I dislike is how oblivious I have always been. I mean, even since kindergarten I have been spacing out in class, and missing important details. I never had any idea what was going on, I would ask questions the teacher had just explained, and I would fail to know common knowledge all the time. (Like how many are in a dozen, for example.) This was mostly harmless for most of my early school years, though I can still think of plenty of embarrassing moments from my 3^rd grade school year and below. But sometimes it got very harmful. Here’s an example, I had no idea what the deal with 9/11 really was when it happened. Sure, I got the basic concept, that a guy flew a plane into a building and he was evil and all of that. I guess the gravity of it, though, never really hit me until long after it happened. I just never took it all that seriously, and I’m sure you can imagine how that might cause problems. In 5^th grade, we were doing group posters for something or another, I don’t remember what, and my group’s poster had a sky scraper on it. For some reason, at the time, I thought it’d be just hilarious to draw a plane flying into it… Well, an incredibly offended homeroom, a stunned teacher, and a visit to the counselor’s office later; I finally realized that 9/11 must have been some kind of big deal, and that I should probably have watched my mouth better. Yeah, it still hurts to remember.

                I guess the last thing I’ll mention about my childhood that I don’t like is just the type of person I was. It’s hard to fully describe just how messed up I was, but I guess the best way to describe it is melodramatic, and over-emotional. I can think of a few examples off the top of my head. Whenever I had anyone in my class I didn’t like, (they were usually popular) I would think of them as the embodiment of evil, and take it upon myself to get into a row with them whenever I could, often unknowingly making an idiot out of myself. Also, I would never let things go if someone did something I didn’t like, even if it wasn’t really that mean, I’d still get upset. Like for example, one time a kid laughed at me when someone else told me that the eagle he was studying was bigger than the one I was, and I was very indignant about it. So, to get revenge, when something just slightly bad happened to him, I laughed (a forced laugh, trying to really make it sound cruel) and he said “That’s not funny,” a true statement. Being the little moron I was, though, I responded “Oh yeah, well neither was my eagle!” And then anyone who was looking on at the time was reminded, yet again, that I was retarded.

                Another aspect of my personality is how melodramatic I would always get about my damn friend. At the time, I only really had one friend, and I was so incredibly freaking possessive over him, it’s not even funny. Wherever he would go, I would go, and whenever he did something that didn’t involve me, I would get offended. In fact, I would get so offended that I would have a “break up” with him, and get absolutely furious, exchange shouted insults, and then later exchange apologies with him. On multiple occasions I would feel like someone else was “stealing” him from me and I would hate that person with every fiber of my being, making him my arch nemesis. To be fair, I later came to be best friends with one of them, and another turned out to really be a genuine asshole who no one really likes to-date, but that doesn’t excuse my overreaction. I would cry, I would yell, I would think it was the end of the world. I would go as far as to say that all of the drama I went through in middle and high school doesn’t even compare to what I went through in those years of elementary. Well, maybe the drama was worse, but my reaction to that was complete Zen compared to how much I blew up back in my earlier years. It is the memory of this part of my life that just makes me want to punch my past self, and I honestly feel embarrassed to have ever been that way.

                The final part of my personality that I so dislike, and even disliked at the time, was my hyper disposition and my sense of humor. I only group these into one because between the two of them, I made an image of myself that I came to loathe over time. Basically, I was the type of person who was always making jokes and doing crazy, hyper things. Two problems existed, first being that my jokes sucked. A lot. The second was that I never knew when to stop. In time, I learned to be funny or sense when I wasn’t being funny, or not care, but this used to make me hate myself. I was such a spazz that it got to the point where at times it looked like I was retarded, because I would make a joke, then take it way too far, go crazy with it, and just look like an idiot, the joke having stopped being funny long ago. I eventually learned to calm this down a little, but it took years of conscious effort on my part, and it used to be the thing that I hated about myself the very most.

                So how do I look at this past of mine? Well, I don’t like it at all. When asked what I miss most about my childhood, I will invariably say nothing, and that I’m glad it’s over. Childhood, to me, is like a condition… At least mine felt that way. It’s as if ignorance and all of my other flaws were simply symptoms to a potent disease, which I have since recovered from. I know that it is these experiences that somehow shaped me to be who I am, but still, I wish I did not have the memory of my childhood following me around. To be honest, I find it haunting to know that I used to be how it was. It not only angers, but also shames me to know that the oblivious, over-reactive, and often rude child in my memories… Was actually me. The fact that that the person I am now is the same as that one of so many years ago, still awes and disgusts me. Even among my actions of a single year ago, I find plenty that do not sit well with me in retrospect, and the same will be the case in a year. I can only hope that once I’m through with puberty, I won’t have to deal with my mind so quickly shifting about, but I think I can say that the person I am now is more or less the person that I am for good. At least I don’t expect to change as much between now and when I’m completely mature, as I have over the last half of a decade. And so, I am who I am. I see as clearly now as I ever have, and I will understand even more tomorrow. Childhood is, indeed, like a disease, and I am just one of many of those who are on their way to a miraculous full recovery, from the most devastating condition known to man.

Sincerely,

The Ellipsis

Love

Note: In this article, any use of the word “love” refers to true love, meaning not shallow infatuation, or anything of the sort. I mean the kind of deep, unconditional love that two people feel towards each other at all times… Like you hear about in the fairy tales.

                I’m agnostic. Have we all established that? Okay, good. Well agnosticism isn’t just a world view, a sort of in-between set of religious beliefs, it’s also a mindset. You can be agnostic about anything, really. You can be agnostic about whether your socks are clean: “They don’t look bad from over here, but they’re too far away to smell, and I guess they could be dirty.” You can be agnostic about people: “Oh sure, he looks dodgy, but who am I to judge? Maybe he’s a perfectly nice guy.” Or you can be agnostic about whether or not concepts are real: “Well, I suppose it’s possible that [god, absolute truth, morality, happiness, love, etc.] really exists, but I guess I don’t really know… I’m not sure if I’ve experienced it, or if I would know if I did.” See, it doesn’t seem so damn unreasonable, does it? In fact, I’ll bet plenty of theists would be able to relate to my second example. Ha! See, you’re agnostic! Bet you didn’t see that one coming, now go drown yourself in holy water, or drown altar boys in your semen, or whatever it is you do when you're feeling under the weather.

                Well I have an agnostic mindset myself, (also known as a realistic, critical, pragmatic, or reasonable mindset) and it has always served me well. Sure, it’s forced me to believe what  I don’t want to, but truth is always healthier than delusion… Or else you might as well give yourself an IV drip with PCP in it, and spend the rest of your life hallucinating. But I digress. Believe me when I say that it does kill me to look at true love in a very objective way. If you could argue that I still harbor any faith inside of me, (see article on faith) then it would have to be faith in love. True love is something I want to believe in, it’s something that I can hardly imagine the world without. For those of you who believe in love with all of your bloody hearts, go drink some warm milk or something, before I break the fragile little things.

                Now the idea of love, and I mean true love, is just another one of those half-philosophical, half psychological, and half realistic conundrums, which is also a paradox because it has 3 halves, and is somehow only 1 thing. I know that most of you out there, being human beings (and less inclined towards bitterness) will probably be thinking, “Why Ellipsis, of course love exists! Isn’t that obvious, how could it not?” Well it does seem pretty self-evident that love exists, but the operative word there is “seem.” I mean, when you really think about it, what actual evidence do you have that love exists? What you have is media reference, fairytale legend, and pretty much everyone around you seeming to believe in it, albeit perhaps in a different way. Maybe you feel like you've experienced it, but you probably can't really be positive that it was love, and not just infatuation or something similar. Is this starting to sound familiar? Of course it does, it’s those are the same damn reasons that you believe in god!

                Now one could logically suppose that, if someone they know tells them that he found love, then clearly it must exist. By that, I mean that it would be logical to assume if the person in question wasn’t probably an over-sentimental dipshit with as much sense of reality as a schizophrenic on an acid-dosed IV drip. And I’m inclined towards distrust of said hypothetical person for the same reason I don’t believe someone who claims to have met god, it’s just not believable enough to take someone’s word on. What with the varying definitions of the word love, the fact that everyone wants to believe that they've found love, and with emotions and hormones being so able to cloud our judgment and common sense; it’s actually more than likely for someone to believe they have found true love when in reality they didn’t.

                If any of you out there think that you have found love, and actually have, (though I’m honestly not sure you’d know it) then I am sincerely happy for you. Personally, I can think of few worthier achievements in life, and you have my envy. But the thing is that if you tell me the good news, I hope you will understand why I can’t believe you. What with all the confusion and doubt over whether someone else has found love, (mentioned above) the only way to really know that it exists is to find it for yourself. I mean, I could have just described a demographic that doesn’t exist. Maybe all love is flawed, and two people can never truly be happy together forever. If every single relationship harbored some form of conscious or subconscious discontent, then I guess I wouldn’t necessarily know it, meaning that it could very possibly be the case. If you don't understand quite what I mean here, read my article on Absolute Truth. I posted it relatively early on for a reason.

                For all of you who read this, it might be perfectly easy to justify belief in love, at least to yourself. You might see examples of it (or at least what looks like it) all the time and think “Why of course it’s real!” I mean, that doesn’t make you right, but you’re still lucky to have that kind of optimism. Because if love doesn’t exist, then all we can hope for is to find the closest thing, and I get the vague idea that believing in it would probably help you get close to it… But I guess I don’t know, that's kind of off-topic anyway. Anyway, my point is that I, personally, have no reason to believe in love. My parents have been divorced since I was 3, and now hate each other. They both remarried to people that they seem to sometimes hate as much or more than they do each other. I have thought I was in love, when I was young and naïve, and then I realized that I wasn’t really in love, but I was only fooled by my own head into thinking that I was... Oh, the list goes on, but you get the idea. I've always wanted to believe in true love, especially when I was younger, but from the examples I'm given, love doesn't look too believable when looked at critically... Its existence at least isn't a given, like it may be for you.

 Outside of my life, though, the image of love only gets worse. Can you, dear reader, even count all of the stories you’ve heard about husband and wife that don’t end happily? Think of all the fights, the divorce, the violence, the unhappiness, the resentment… Sure, people can still have an okay relationship, at the end of the day, even if it does have its flaws… But that’s just not what we’re looking for. We don’t want wives who we think ruin all of our fun, and who we have to fear the judgment of. Ladies, you don’t want husbands who are often oblivious to your feelings, or too lazy to do anything to make you happy. Sure, these can all be lived with, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re flaws… Is this true love? Is love just having to live with a partner who you know damn well isn’t what you hoped for; mostly because the person is at least okay, and won't leave you? Is this true love, living with the knowledge that your one and only isn’t exactly the “perfect” one for you, and that there are some things about him/her that you will never be content with, and just have to bear? There’s something to be said for loving others for their flaws, but I honestly don’t think that this is the case with most of the examples we see when married couples complain about each other. That seems more like loving someone despite their flaws...

Just to clarify the above paragraph, I really do know what it means to love someone for their flaws. I know that you’ll never meet the perfect man or woman, because human beings don’t naturally tend to function entirely for the sake of impressing the other sex. I guess what I'm talking about is someone whose flaws genuinely don't bother you. I'm talking about loving someone completely, without a shred of doubt over remorse over choosing them, and with the knowledge that there isn't a single thing about them (at least their personality) that you would change.This is, perhaps, the most idealistic idea of true love, if it really exists. To be honest, it seems to me like a infatuation with someone, the kind that you get in when you go through puberty, the kind that makes all week-long highschool couples think they're in love. Maybe that's what love is, just a state of perpetual infatuation with someone... I don't really know.

If you look up the definition of love, you’ll more or less get: “Love: noun, a strong feeling of affection or compassion towards another human being.” This definition is, in my opinion, about as much of an understatement as referring to the Holocaust as "mildly detrimental." To me, love (and I mean true love) is so much deeper than that definition. Love is a feeling that you begin to feel for someone only after a long time, and that doesn't just fade away… It’s the feeling that every single aspect of them is just the way you would have it, and that there is no other person in the world who you would be happier with. Love is an absolute feeling, it’s the knowledge that you will never tire of someone, that they can never be replaced in your heart, and that they are perhaps the most special and important thing in the world to you. I know, it sounds really cheesy, coming from a cynic, but I’m not saying it isn’t a fairy tale… It might or might not be. My point is that true love is incompatible with doubt, and resentment. I mean, maybe in realistic terms, love is never perfect. Maybe in the real world, two people will never see each other, and think that there is nothing there to change, or at least not permanently. If this is the case, then okay, fine, I guess that real love isn't like the fairytale "true love." I guess what I’m debating here isn’t whether love exists, but whether it exists in the form that we all hope that it does.

Maybe I’m really talking about perfection. Can perfection exist in a world as flawed as ours? Is it really possible to meet a person, get to know them, and realize that they are absolutely perfect for you? You know, it doesn’t even need to be in absolute terms. There are almost 7 billion of us, you’ll never find the single person in the world who fits you best. But can you ever really find someone who you’ll never have any regrets about whatsoever? Someone that you’ll literally be able to spend the rest of your life with, and always be happy about it? That, to me, is finding true love. I guess that anything near that general description is considered “finding love,” by today's standards, but finding someone "close enough" isn't really finding what is generally considered true love, is it? Maybe true love doesn't exist, and maybe it's impossible or astronomically improbable to find. Maybe only certain people are able to find love. Maybe love isn’t even real in any form, and we really just have to find the happiest way to live and accept that anything better is a fantasy. Who knows, maybe somewhere out there is the one and only person for me… Maybe I’ll find love some day, and maybe you will too. Maybe we’ll just think we did, and be happy enough that way that it doesn’t make a difference. But I don't know, I'm only an ellipsis... Good luck to all of you out there, though.

Sincerely,

The Ellipsis

Hatred is Freaking Bad for you.

Hate is a term which, in this culture at least, is considerably overused. On a daily basis, you can hear it used in contexts like “I hate how they put ads before youtube videos now! Stupid youtube, how dare it waste 15 seconds of my time before letting me waste 5 minutes of my time!” or, “[jokingly] I hate you, what did you do that for?” all the way to “OH MY DEAR SWEET JESUS LORD AND SAVIOR, I FREAKING HATE JEWS!!! THEY SHOULD ALL BE SWALLOWED UP BY A HOLE IN THE GROUND AND CONSUMED BY SATAN IN THE FORM OF A TASTY BREAKFAST CEREAL!!!!!” I hope Satan uses milk. But anyway, you get the point. In the first two, the word “hate” is obviously kind of misused. I mean, think what hate means. When you hate something, you despise it with every fiber of your being, you have no positive thoughts for it, you would like nothing more than to see it destroyed. Now come on, do you really hate those people who cut you off in traffic, or that one person who accurately told you that strapless dress you got at the thrift store doesn’t go so well with your hairy armpits and man-boobs? No, you probably don’t, so stop saying that you do!

I mean the real problem here is that the word has now lost all meaning. If you say that you hate your damn cat, when he barely does anything at all, and does even less worthy of hating him for;  if you then say that you hate Hitler, it’s just not going to have any kind of effect. Sure, with Hitler, I suppose, one could have a reasonably good idea of how much you like him, regardless of your reputation with using the word “hate”, but what if you’re talking about hating something less obvious? What if you really hate your next door neighbor, or a social rival? If you keep complaining about hating things, then you have to go to much more trouble to convey your feelings for a person. This isn’t too huge of an issue, but wouldn’t it just be easier to be able to say “hate”, and people would understand the severity of your opinion, rather than having to say things like “utterly despise,” “loathe beyond all measure,” and “hold in the highest of contempt,” just to get a single point across? In fact, in the likely event that you need to use all of these in a single conversation to properly express yourself, you’ll probably end up overshooting it and looking like some deranged, neurotic lunatic with homicidal tendencies, rather than just someone with a strong opinion.

So, in short, you need to stop using the word hate unless you really mean it. I know this won’t happen, and that you’ll all just keep on overusing it to the point that you say it more than teenagers use “like” in a sentence, but I feel like I have to try to persuade you. In fact, sometimes these essays seem utterly futile, in that I am trying to pull the heads of millions of human beings out of their own asses. With one person this is hard enough, but it is pretty much impossible for me to persuade an actually significant amount of people to stop what they’re doing, no matter how much they masochistically enjoy it, and start doing things that are actually progressive. No one man has enough leverage and tact to incite such a huge change in an entire race, no matter how stupid the problem he faces. This is because, no matter how stupid something is, if people have already decided on doing it en masse, there’s just no stopping them easily.

Aha! This is the part where you were thinking to yourself “Oh, looks like this lune has finally stopped talking, that was short. Well, I might as well get back to Minecraft and gay porn.” But you’re not getting off that easy! I have just one more point to make about hatred, which I think I can drag out for at least another few paragraphs! (And now you’re thinking “Oh shit, he’s not done yet, and I’ve already gotten my lotion out.”)

Probably the most important thing about hatred is that it is actually bad for you. Hatred is, perhaps, more harmful to your mind and psyche than any disease or drug could ever be to your body. The thing about it is that it only causes pain to hold on to it. If someone slaps you, you can be angry at them for a while. But think of my definition of hatred above. Whether you call it hatred or not isn’t really important at all, what’s important to your health is whether you do it. And if you do, truly hate something or someone, for something as trivial as slapping you, then… Well, I’m sure that you can all see the problem with doing that.

Another thing to worry about is holding on to hatred. As the Buddha once said, “Holding onto hatred and anger is like holding a hot coal, with the intent of throwing it at someone. In the end, it is only you who gets burned.” This is exactly the case with hatred. Whether you hate someone has no effect on them whatsoever, especially if they don’t seek your approval. But it does have an effect on you. Think, again, of my definition for hatred. Think of all of the negative emotion and intense rage and resentment caused by hatred. That must take a lot of energy to maintain, yes? Hating someone is emotionally draining, when you think about it. It simply takes out of you to put so much energy into hating, as it would if you put as much energy into mourning a loss, or into fearing something. So that’s one consequence of hating, it exhausts you mentally.

The second consequence of hatred on your mind is what it does to it. Hatred can change a person drastically, and even if it doesn’t it can change what is thought of him. Truly hating something, like I said, is very intense and very powerful. As a consequence, it has effects on a person who hates. It can make someone angry, or bitter or spiteful. It can even blind someone from their better judgment, and drive them to do, think, or say things that they wouldn’t ordinarily. If someone holds on to hatred for long enough, this kind of thing becomes permanent. A hateful person, like I described above, is seldom thought fondly of by others, and the odds are that no one is going to really like someone who is generally hateful. Like a lot of traits, hatefulness can be permanent or temporary, but it is never good. It can harm or offend those around you, and change your mind forever.

You may think right now, that being a hateful person isn’t so bad. You may think that having your mind changed to be hateful is just another personality. Let me say one more thing about what hatred does to you. Hatred hurts you. As was said with the coal metaphor, hatred can cause you more anguish than the thing that you hate could ever hope to. You may think that being bitter, or angry, or contemptuous is only harmful to others, and it is very easy to do so, as I’ll go into later. But hatred never feels good to possess. Hatred never gives someone a happy feeling. It leads to bitterness; it leads to anger, to frustration, even to despair. Hatred will never lead someone to feel happy or whole, the will always feel negative while they are hateful of something. (Provided they’re thinking of that something, if they’re just hateful in general then they’re obviously not feeling negative for every second of their lives.)

Possibly the worst part of hatred, though, is how easy it is to hate, sometimes without even realizing. Hatred is never caused by oneself. No one ever finds himself feeling hateful just when he’s thinking of himself, it’s always someone or something else that someone hates. It has to be any object, because unlike happiness and sadness, hatred cannot simply be a spontaneous mood without some kind of subject. And when someone feels hatred, they don’t think about feeling it. They just think of what the hatred is directed at, and how horrible it is. Part of hatred is seeing something as worse than it is. So it’s easy to think that the subject of one’s hatred is entirely to blame, and that you only perceive something as it is, rather than experiencing an emotion which is skewing your perception for it, and causing you to feel the way you do. This is exactly how hatred is allowed to continue, it is because people identify it as entirely someone else’s fault that they possess their hatred, or even they don’t realize that they hate something at all.

From this stage, hatred becomes a parasite. It leeches out your happiness, it takes away from your enjoyment of life, and it leaves you feeling bad (bad is fairly general, but it can cause a whole load of negative emotions.) It even fools you into believing that the source of your problems is someone else. The truth of the matter is, though, that while someone else may or may not be making you feel the way you do, the true source of the problem is you. It is only by letting go of your hatred that you can begin to heal and feel better, even though it seems easier and more reasonable to hang onto it; it will simply do you no good. There are, of course, exceptions to this, like when someone is physically or verbally abusing you; but even then, justified or not, it's simply better for you not to hate them. I suppose it is only the pointless hatred, hatred that you have for something which no longer affects you, that letting go of can make one feel completely better.

There are very, very few instances where it is actually helpful to hate anything. Even in those examples, it is no good to you or anyone if you continue to hate something forever. To the human race, hatred is more of a disease than anything else. What people need to do is this: Firstly, to learn to recognize when they hate something. Like I said, sometimes hatred doesn’t feel like hatred, or an emotion at all. However, if you hate something, it is always possible to realize that you do. It does take some difficult self-evaluation, at times, but it is vital that you learn to identify any hatred you possess. Secondly, we need to get rid of hatred. No matter how hard this is, no matter how justified someone is in hating something, it just needs to stop. HAtred can only cause harm, it can only destroy things; and it has destroyed things, at innumerable times in history. The only thing hating or not hating something really changes, is you, and the latter option is certainly better. You can even have the same opinions about something without hating it, and be far healthier for it. Finally, if you must hate, then sometimes it simply can’t be helped, so try to overcome your hatred, but don’t beat yourself up about it if you can't. And finally, whenever you don't hate something… PLEASE DON’T SAY THAT YOU FREAKING HATE IT!!!

Sincerely,


The Ellipsis