i thought 2+2= fish

No, cause I don't like seafood at the moment. Clearly, 2+2 = Ice Cream.

I been trump'd!

OMG!!! This new mathematical equation problem is taking itself to even newer heights than before! lol XD

But ice cream is racist. We can't have that.

2+2 = Chocolate?

Racism!

Oh, man! If you slow the video down you can see that the ice cream cones have little white hoods on them!

*facepalm* I actually looked before I realized you were kidding. Today's not my day.

I believe this man can accurately express how I feel about that--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM

Maybe this is why the masses look to someone who can discern dillussion from reality and set forth and ordered structure that meets between what we want and what we need?

I suppose if you wanted a healthy society, its leadership would be aware of the dilemma between logic and delusion, but that's not enough. The people at large also need to be aware of what is real and what is unobtainable. Most voters are unfortunately ridden with fantasy, their votes the product of a moment of fear or euphoria. Even so, the iniquities of a voting public are certainly preferable to the whims of a totalitarian state. I can attest to that personally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

LOL, that's a good one! Of course, I still encourage folks to vote, if only because they haven't made it illegal yet.

I'd say it's our ability to believe the impossible. After all, we've achieved the so called impossible before.

And I have another one! 1+1=3!

Impossibility = Not possible yet.

Lies!

Whoa, heady stuff

turn wrench=fixed

Wrench turned. Nothing happened on a cosmic scale. Disappointment.

makes bombers go though

Very nice approach (hope I used the right word...)!
But in my point of view, there is only one reason of the human delusion. We humans are one of the only creatures on this planet that create, destroy und directly change the environment(landscape,etc).
So they think they are something powerfull that can do everything they want.
From this it follows, the only force wich is equal to the humans (except catastrophies) are other humans.
Paired with the concept of "homo homini lupus" it creates a giant paranoia in every human on a high social level.
They have to manipulate the "low classes" the generate a kind of peace.
On the other hand we have, like yov've said, the others who do not want any problems, complications,... only an ordered life. They take any truth to live in their illusions and ban the truth from their minds (happend everyime in history, holocaust-lie, tschistka, kommunism, andsoon).
But there are the lateral-thinkers, too.
Though they are not really accepted from the other classes. I thinhk you all know, what i mean.
And i don't know ANY other lifeform whose social structure is so selfdestructive. That is, why we are the masters of delusion, to keep the appearance of a well-ordered life in a world where your only enemy is your own kind; make them thinking like you want, follow, ignore ore destroy

I think it's a common misconception that humans are the only animals that destroy or alter their environment. When you consider it, though, there are other animals that do the same thing. Nevermind the old factoid that Elephants knock down trees... any animal (or life, really) removed from its natural threats tends to flourish and expand at the expense of its surroundings until new factors arrive to control the population. Humans are the only animals naturally equipped to repeatedly overcome factors that limit our population, but we're certainly not the only animals that victimize others through our success.

As for self-destructive behavior, I believe that applying the term 'self' to humanity as a whole is kind of silly. As individuals, it's not normal for humans to consciously try to destroy themselves. Rather, it's easy for us to come to the conclusion that another human being should be removed from existence. We're not self-destructive. We're just destructive, and even that is an unfair representation. Again, there are other animals that destroy members of the same species, but they generally do so because they think it will benefit those around them.

The issue of suicide comes up as well, a decisively self-destructive behavior. Is it something only humans do? Nope. In terms of suicide, we're still not alone. Humans may have elaborate rituals when it comes to committing suicide, but it's roughly the same as when an animal simply decides to stop eating. None of it is considered healthy behavior, but the end result is the same, the destruction of self. It's rare in nature, but it's also proportionally rare in human beings.

In tis case, you are right! My opninion is very subjective.
Cosmic regarded there has to be a reason, why we act, like we are doing. Would we do so, if it's wrong?
If evolution (sorry for the personification) didn't wants us right where we are now, why have it allowed us to envolve in the species we are?
I know that chimps plan aktions to destroy another tribe, elephants blaze their trail to reach their aim.
And i don't think that they are doing this mindless. There are many other liveforms on this planet that lament, have sex for pleasure, have fun and all the other things that the humans entitled.
But why the humans? Why on this grand scale?
(Sorry if sounds a little weird, but it is not my mother tongue)

Considering that English isn't your mother tongue, you're doing quite well! I can think of a few native speakers that just grunt out a few tired words every now and then as their main means of communicating with others. I admire someone who dives into another's language and culture and gives it their all.

As far as answering the question of why humans do what we do on such a large scale, I think the obvious answer is that there's so many of us. The less obvious answer might be that it's because we're hard-wired to encourage our own success and that the concept of ecological balance is a very contemporary and difficult one to understand on an intimate level.

Hehe, thanks a lot! You really made my day, well, my evening!^^
Well, I hope you don't think that I'm a misanthrophe, but I've got a little problem with the human race as itself. Oh, and I'm defenetly not a do-gooder, I'm just watching andthinking and doing my own thing.
It's really nice to find other people with wich you can discuss an awkward issue like this, cause the whole thing about "why do the humans act like humans" is one of the most interesting topics you can examine.
And to understand, or trying to understand, such a complex subject you need as many other opinions as you can get.
So another really big thank you for sharing! Hope, there will be another journal like this in near future.^^

Well, that is why I admire Carl Sagan, a man who could bring logic and understanding to the common folk. I do like this quote of him: "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

I like that stance and as an atheist, I do not follow any religion at all. I do trust logic and reason and still try to be open minded but as Sagan said "Great claims need great evidence" meaning that I will not simply buy into anything without getting any facts first.

Also I think you are confusing imagination with a delusion, we are not deluded or anything, we just have great imagination. We need imagination, because its imagination that brings us to other worlds and that makes us possible to understand the world around us.

This imagination is what us separates from the animals, but dont be fooled, we are still a sort of animal a highly intelligent one but we are still just some form of animal life. WE exist in this environment and we depend on it. And yes logical thinking might be another factor but sadly we do not use it all to often, otherwise there would be less people that believe in bronze age superstition that is dangerous for themselves and even others around them.

We think that we are privileged and have a special place in this cosmos, we need a constant reassurance that we are special and that is why we invented God as a father figure, but in reality we are nothing special, we dont have any part in the grand scheme of the universe, at least not yet.

We have to find out own purpose and have to find our own way and that means we have to explore the stars, because that is where our thirst for knowledge will lead us to finally get a better understanding about the cosmos that we came from.

Atheism is a religion, though! It is the belief that there is no god, a claim which has no evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence against something.

It's like insisting that Schrodinger's cat is absolutely, definitely dead, without even opening the box.

Wrong, Atheism is the simple lack of a believe in any gods, there are 2 variants of atheism, soft atheism, the simple lack of believe in any deities and then there is strong atheism that goes a step further and says that there are no deities what so ever.

Also, a religion has places to worship, has holy books, holy persons and religious practice, I cant find anything like that in atheism. No I do not worship Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkings and I also do not quote lines out of The god Delusion.

And Schrödingers Cat is a very hypothetical scenario of quantum physics and has nothing to do with relegion at all.

Lacking in believing one thing doesn't necessarily mean that you have to believe that the inverse is true, though.

Many people would consider themselves Catholic despite not going to church or being able to quote their respective holy book. Many don't even practice at all.

I'm simply using it as an example. A better metaphor I've used before is that there's several groups of people standing around a sealed box, arguing over what's in it. None of them can agree. Someone else comes along, who says that they're all wrong, that there can be nothing in the box, because they didn't see anyone put anything in that box, and there's no evidence of anything being in that box. Everyone believes strongly in the conclusion that they've come to, finding different supporting evidence where they can, proving everyone else wrong, but the fact of the matter remains that nobody knows what's in the box.

Well, yes that is true, but so far I have to encountered any solid evidence that would confirm any type of religion out there. Therefor I have decited for myself that there is no good, due to simple lack of evidence. Remember, great claims require great evidence.

As from your analogy, this video may be interesting to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo&feature=PlayList&p=1D0D925E65F281B7&playnext=1&index=36

Interesting. Haven't seen that before. I had come to that conclusion on my own. Odd that someone else would use nearly the same thing as an example.

Much like claiming that god or gods exist, claiming that there couldn't be any require great evidence. Presence of scientific phenomenon make about as much sense as knowing that there's a dog in the box because the room is blue.

I got into that discussion a while back, and the idea I got from most atheists is that Atheism is not a religion, but rather a philosophy. One can develop a philosophy without requiring religion, but you cannot have a religion without a philosophy.

Another factor about atheism that's often misconstrued is the issue of morality. It's commonly felt that, since religion is a vessel of morals and codes of behavior, the lack thereof is a state of amorality and internal anarchy. In reality, it seems that atheism is simply when an individual chooses not to subscribe to a single faith's ideals and customs, picking and choosing what morals are most relevant. In lieu of a deity and a holy scripture, atheists instead turn to society to find values and morals.

Personally, I am not an atheist, but I don't mind their existence. Given freedom of choice, some people will always choose to distance themselves from the structure, customs, and rituals of organized faith. The danger, however, is when a state tries to strip religion from the people and replace it with a form of state worship. Atheism is a choice, but it can never be imposed on society as a whole without serious consequences.

I think that imagination requires delusion. We have to imagine something that doesn't exist, with all the benefits it would supposedly bring to the world, and to bring such a concept into reality we have to be driven by the dream. The people that bring inventions into the world are not individuals who see themselves as molecules drifting through space whose activities in life have no grand cosmic meaning. They're people who believe in a vision of greatness and improving the way things are. Logically, this is foolish- no invention will solve mankind's fundamental problems, change one element into another, or create or eliminate energy. Inventions seldom accomplish what their creators intended for them to do, but all the same I think you'd agree that the world is better served by their existence.

Well, yes and no, because think about it, at one point in time, particles came together to create everything we see and know, yes these particles came together to create you and me as well. I find that very fascinating and even if I know how things came to be and how they work, they are not less fascinating. And those things I do not know? Well, Richard Feynman said: "I am not afraid of not knowing things, it is much more interesting that way"

I mean what could be more fascinating then the fact that this universe was created billions of years ago and that through a process that we still do not fully understand life came into being evolved and became us? In only 20.000 or so years, mankind developed from people living in caves to people flying to the moon, all that in a fraction of the time that it took the whole universe to created life.

I am not a nihilist, I am an atheist, therefor life has a value and a meaning to me and from how I see it, I think we dream because we can, its not a delusion because we can at one point become greater then we are now. We do science because it improves our lives. All those inventors and researchers do their work out of natural curiosity and the wish to improve the life of everyone (At least most of them).

We once dreamed we could fly to the moon, if it where a delusion, then we would not have been made it to the moon, right?

I think its not a delusion to think that we can overcome all the boundaries we have now and that we can explore space one day.

I think Lennon said it best "I maybe just a dreamer, but I am not the only one"

None of that changes the fact that delusions live inside us and that they shape our activities, and therefore the world. The 'dream' was not that we would go to the moon. The 'dream' was that once we got there it would change something on a fundamental level to humanity, that it would prove something vast about us. Looked at logically, however, the moon landing did not change humanity. On the other hand, the dream drove enough people to accomplish something that no human being had ever done before, and they repeated their success.

The moon landing would never have been possible without a combination of logical thinking and delusional dreaming. All the number crunching, trajectory charts, instrumentation, and raw computing involved in the Apollo program would have meant nothing without the dreamers that ran the operation.

In vector math, 2+2={2..4}.

Your theories are intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

My newsletter is boring. It just talks about community events, like chili cook-offs, garage sales, and events at the community pool. The hottest article is about people speeding through the neighborhood at 30 miles per hour. Can you imagine?

Moving over the speed limit is amoral and destructive to society. For shame! (rolls through the stop signs...)

"Let's face it, without the ability to believe in the irrational we wouldn't have our beloved fandom, or for that matter any work of fiction, art, abstraction, invention, and religion."

All of those things except for the last thing are things I would miss.

I would not miss religion. Organized religion is just...ok, no, I'm not going to go into it, it'll get me going for far too long. I'll just point at the two millenia of scientific, social, and even moral repression at the hands of various religious groups...and leave it at that. But art, fiction, invention? Hell yeah I love those things.

I always take religion bashing with a grain of salt. A common argument is that organized religion has brought nothing but conflict, repression, and technological backwardness into existence. This seems to be contradicted by the existence of things like hospitals, which existed as religious institutions for quite some time. Alms houses, charities, orphanages, and public education are also services provided by organized religion, expensive affairs that aren't exactly possible without a structured system. Before nations took on any of these responsibilities, religious institutions did.

You could argue that religious charity and humanitarian assistance are forms of propaganda, that orphanages and schools brainwash children, and that the coffers are drenched in blood, but that would sound a bit cynical to the villagers whose livelihoods and successes were greatly influenced by development aid from the Church.

I certainly don't agree with all the social policies and suggestions of religious mega-leaders, but I'm not going to vilify the little people just cause I don't like the leaders at the helms of their religious institutions.

Religion is one of those tricky subjects to dance with. I do not tend to actually view charitable religious organizations as propaganda or PR-based initiatives; I genuinely believe that they are doing good, or at least, the volunteers believe that they are, which is ultimately all I really want out of humanity. However, I get miffed whenever it is implied that the ONLY people who are charitable are those belonging to church groups or religious foundations or whatnot. This is ironic because most Christians claim themselves to be the most charitable...because they donate a dollar in the donation bin every sunday, or once a month send a (tax-deductible) donation to the endorsed charity of choice of their church....granted, to a noble cause...but I call this irony because the bible prominently features a number of stories about charity. One of which, probably my most favorite of them, too, is where God comes down and poses as a poor, diseased beggar. A rich man comes up, gives him thirty silver, and leaves. Then, a poor woman, who actually IS a poor diseased beggar, comes over and gives him two bronze pieces, and God says that the greater charity was that of the woman; she may not have given more, but she gave all.

This was a value that Christ apparently taught to all his disciples. Yet a vast, sweeping majority of the mainstream Christian believers will always choose to give pittances instead of giving their all. And then as for their usual claim that they are the most generous...I've seen atheists and agnostics giving money not to charity organizations but instead passing by a homeless person on the street and giving him the lunch they were bringing with them to lunch, the money in their wallet to help get something, giving them clothes, and working in soup kitchens and free clinics. Things Christians and the rest do, too, yes, but the thing is...do we REALLY need religion to make us better, more charitable people?

Maybe a time ago. Not anymore, though. Atheism, agnosticism, unorganized belief and the like has started rising to prominence since it's less and less something that is considered taboo, and no longer something you can get burned at the stake, stoned to death, or lynched for...at least in the US, anyway. And yet I see no drop in acts of charity. I see less of them in organizations, but I see more of them in individuals stepping up to help improve the lots of others within their communities and their every day lives.

Is religion a bad thing? Kind of. Is it a good thing? Again, kind of. Do we need it? I honestly don't think so. Not anymore, anyway.

Yeah, like I said, I shouldn't have gotten started. XD

It's OK. I can see where you stand now, and honestly it's sometimes better to take the time to explain things. Well, I personally happen to like that anyway. I'm aware that most healthy, normal people who use the internet don't bother with this sort of thing.

On the concept of charity, I agree that there's a lot of lazy philanthropists out there- people who give a small piece of themselves as part of some charity ritual to make them feel better about themselves. I got in a big argument with a friend about the topic since he was of the mindset that any charity at all, including those whose main impact is to make the donor feel better about themselves, is a good thing. My argument was that the less interested a person is in their charity, the more likely it is that the charity won't serve its purpose and that real charity is giving something significant to an individual, be it time, energy, or possessions. As you suggested above, when you give a homeless person some money you're not making as much of a sacrifice for them compared to taking them to lunch. Monetary wise, the lunch may be cheaper, but the investment of time and trust without promise of a return is much more significant.

I think you're correct that organized religion has less relevance in a more empirical, cosmopolitan, and modern society. I get this feeling that in the United States a lot of the smaller religious organizations chafe at the thought that their parishioners don't view them with the same legitimacy as they once did, and consequently they're trying to inject themselves into politics in order to gain more clout. I find it ironic that the Catholic Church, oft vilified by Protestants as being irrelevant and old-fashioned, is producing fewer reactionary and ridiculous 'reform' movements than a lot of the smaller Bible Belt institutions.

Funny thing is you basically summed up what I had said, and made it sound a lot more eloquent. XD

My main thought about religion is that it was used as a tool for the weak-willed to rule and govern. It basically has always been like this...

King/Emperor/Dictator: I have conquered everyone, the land is united under me. I am fit to rule!
Citizens: Actually...we're unhappy. You are a poor leader, you regard we peasants as expendable. Why should we accept your rule?
Ruler: Because if not, I shall visit suffering upon you.
Citizens: A life of suffering isn't any better than a death in revolt.
Ruler: ...Want to know what happens after you die?
Citizens: You couldn't possibly know.
Ruler: Ah, but I do. See, this all-powerful invisible deity has given me ALL the answers. And if you believe as I believe and put your faith in me, he will let you experience an eternity of wealth and happiness when you die!
Citizens: That...sounds pretty nice, actually. Ok, what must we do?

And so it began. Truly, if you look at history, a vast majority of EVERYTHING had to do with the 'divine right' and power being lavished upon those who were in religious control. Tell people that believing anything against what YOU believe will earn them an eternity of suffering and if they are weak-willed enough they will fall for it, especially when you appeal to a side of human nature stronger than the rest; curiosity and the unknown.

Religion is still being used to try to control people. Bans on gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion are all done because the religious twits want to force their own views on morality on us, and since science, which requires logic, thought, and reasoning is not on their side, they fall back to the 'invincible' argument that "god"'s laws forbid such practices. They can't come out and say "we don't want you to do it...because we seriously just think it's wrong, it just doesn't seem to fit with us, it doesn't sit with our conscience!" Why? Simple.

They're cowards. Admitting that the responsibility of their actions IS actually just that; their responsibility, terrifies them. They'd like to believe that most everything is out of their hands.

In that way, religious people are no different than the ancient cave man; huddling in terror, cowering in fear at the flashes of lightning in the sky and the booming of thunder outside their caves.

I hope I live long enough to see organized religion bucked and trampled upon. I know, if nothing else, I am at least living in the time where ignorance and fear-mongering is truly giving way to logic, reasoning, and understanding.

I think I agree with you on all points, save one. I don't think that if organized religion becomes irrelevant and voluntarily cast aside by humanity that much, if anything will really change. Replacing divinity with science and self-determination isn't going to change the fact that some people are blithering idiots that cannot face themselves.

^THIS! lol Truer words have never been spoken than the ones of the last sentence there.

I'm sure you also know the Eurythmics " Sex Crime " song then?

Heh! I'd never heard that one before, believe it or not. Thanks for sharing! I was familiar with the Eurythmics, just not this song.

It's the song for the 1984 movie, dunno if it relates to your math topic but if you liked the movie check out the song because I know your an 80s / retro artist like me. * reads the above comments * Yeah I think I'm the only one quoting nostalgia here. Dude! You drew Falco in your comic, I wonder if you heard his not so popular songs before.

I'm afraid I haven't. I'm still trying to get more acquainted with 80s music, though I have been listening to a bit of Public Image lately. Also, I read 1984, but haven't seen the film

Really? I thought you'd be pretty good with the retro art since your comics are usually set in the past. I dont get to meet many artist who uses retro as their main theme thats why I look up to you alot. If you like to learn more about 80s music or whatever you can hit me up, also the movie 1984 is on youtube.

wow interesting way of putting it makes me think