Listen to my latest experimental glitch track, coin-operated

A self art-trait of me trying to look cool when I am not.

A symphony starts
when the tempest winds blow,
moving gray cloud pads
behind lightening strings bow.

The thunder brass strikes
between the rain drums beat,
rippling once silent puddles
into hi-hat heat.

Undertones of texture,
crackling rooftop patter,
synthetic ambient ocean pads,
indoor muffled chatter.

Natures atmospheric ensemble,
Rhythm-ized to relax,
through the rain drums beat,
and its symphonic sax.

Guerilla global warming,
hung from careless hands,
sands slowly sinking,
shrinking tropic lands.

Temperatures are toasting,
roasting artic S’mores,
species extinguished,
dished by summer’s wars.

Heat strokes and skin cancer,
dancing through the smoke,
provoke Mother Nature,
all together now, choke.

Forests set a’ fire,
carbon in the sky,
goodbye dear planet,
for I murdered you and I.

Romancing free will is but an attempted love affair, a love affair with one’s self, with control, an effort towards independence from the causal environment. But because we are part of the casual environment, no real betrayal can be made, for any attempt to divorce from ones arranged marriage would be determined by the very union one is attempting to break. We are in wedlock, a civil union where we take on the role of both spouses. Not only are we casualties of our environment but also contributors to it. Ironically, the illusion of free will that one believes one is romancing was caused by the very deterministic environment one is rebelling against. So there can be no rebellion against it without it’s authorization and direction. To have an affair with the illusion of free will is still making love to one’s casual environment. There is no escape, there can be no affairs, as it is everywhere, we move it, it moves us, it can be your only love as it is determined and established by the trajectory of the initial conditions.

We’ve all had em, lonely days. Since there are many types of lonely feelings, some of us may even feel a loneliness everyday. So, as a tribute to you and I on those lonely days…

I present to you, my latest track, It’s a lonely day today

1. They find the idea of being a descendant of an ape highly unfashionable and degrading. Their ego has grown since the days of their ancestors, and therefore they believe they are far too superior to have evolved from these ancestral apes. They would rather believe something that was written to sell to their senses, that they are independent from causality and were created by an all powerful supernatural deity that allows them a chance to live past death in a blissful perfect place called heaven.

2. They are ignorant to what evolution means and how the process of natural selection works. They only know and care about the ancestral ape point.

3. They are ignorant to the evidence (transitional fossils, genetics, dna research, ect…) that indicates and supports evolution. Sometimes they are even willfully ignorant.

4. They misunderstand evolution to mean that we evolved from the modern ape rather then that we and the modern ape evolved from a common ancestor.

5. Because evolution is classified as a theory, they ignore all the evidence that support the theory’s verity.

6. They are too lazy to care or think about it, It’s so much easier to just say, “god did it.”

Additional reading - 24 myths and misconceptions about Evolution

I see it time and time again, after a non-believer has explained away creationists arguments, the creationist will often end their argument with the question, “What if you are wrong?”

When a creationist asks a non-believer, “What if you are wrong?,” what they are really suggesting is that if a non-believer is wrong about god not existing, then the non-believer may go to hell for not believing in god. With this question they are proposing that these “operant conditions,” heaven and hell, be ones motivation to believe in god, that if you believe, you have nothing to lose, if you don’t believe in god then you put yourself at risk of going to hell. This train of thought is commonly known as Pascal’s wager or Pascal’s Gambit. It does not try to prove that a god exist, It only proposes that one believe that god exist even without proof.

There are several problems with this reasoning mostly due to it assuming way too much:

Additional resources on the problems with Pascal’s Wager –
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/pascalswager.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pascal_w.htm
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/pascalswager.html
http://www.freethoughtfirefighters.org/a_refutation_of_pascals_wager_Massimo_Pigliucci.htm
http://godisimaginary.com/i46.htm