The Cunning Adam Raty

2011 Boner Choke

2011-11-01T14:04:00.001-07:00

I've got so many thoughts on this year's tournament that I have decided to dust off the blog and share my defeat with the spammers.

A team's success depends on its players to put forth their best effort. Some players are in a position to do more than others. Though I'm not a captain of the Polar Bears, I see myself as a leader of the team, and I know that I carried more responsibility to produce results and achieve the team's goal of winning another title. Throughout the season I embraced the responsibility, and when I felt that I came up short, I pushed harder in coming workouts, practices, and tournaments to get to where the team needed me to be. When everything was on the line and I had my opportunity to come through, I failed. Specifically, with a drop at 13-14 PB lead. I've let past teams down before, but never on such a grand scale, with so much sacrifice on the line. As a team we logged over 1500 workouts and practices.
I can recall some ESPN analysis raking Tony Romo over the coals after a poor performance he had in the final minutes of a game. They said, "Players are defined by how they perform in critical moments." I fucked up, and unfortunately, others had to share in my failure.

Sideline Hucks

2009-06-03T21:25:00.000-07:00

There is this notion floating around these parts that hucking the disc to a receiver cutting away from you, on the same sideline, is a bad throw. It's been preached to me, and I in turn, have preached it to others. However, I am now questioning this notion and will discontinue teaching youngsters said throw is a bad option.
So let's be perfectly clear on the exact situation I'm talking about: The disc is on the sideline, or there about. There is an away cut from the same lane (closest to the sideline) as the disc, going towards the endzone.
I think that this throw can be a very beneficial weapon for an offense. Not only does it open up the deep game more, but it allows for an easier way for a cutter to get open. A cutter can gain body position very easily on this throw by merely stopping on an intense in-cut then turning in the opposite direction. Since the throw doesn't have much angle from the thrower, body position is already attained. Additionally, this huck prevents the typical poach advantage that defenders have in a 'trap' mark situation.
From a defender's perspective, guarding this type of throw is exceedingly difficult. The throw comes fast and typically outside in. Giving very little time for the defender to catch up to his man, unlike cutting from the opposite side for a huck.
Arguments against this throw tend to point out that there is a lack of angle from the receiver and the incoming disc. Though this is true, I don't believe it is enough reason to warrant the throw void. This is a difficult, outside in huck. It is a throw that needs to hit the cutter in stride much like a football pass, and not like a typical ultimate throw to space (though the disc is much more forgiving than the pigskin). Because of this difficulty, I hear that this huck has a low percentage completion rate. To which I'll agree generically speaking, but disagree when used amongst high caliber players. With the correct amount of practice, all your competent throwers can learn and complete these challenging passes.
Logistically breaking down the difference of a cross-field deep-cut huck and a same-sideline deep-cut huck is only a minor change in timing. The distance the disc travels is the same, the difference in the throws is in the speed at which the cutter will arrive in the catch area. Hence, the throw must come at a faster speed which can be attained by curving the disc. Just a minor variation to an already drilled throw.
I believe this cut & huck should not only be considered an option, but should be practiced for better completion rates. In fact, I doubt an elite vert stack would be effective without this threat and throw.

Self Assessment

2009-05-19T00:00:00.000-07:00

What did I do well today? What did I do poorly today? What can I do to make myself a better player?

I'm always asking myself things of this sort. Trying to get perspective on my game. Currently this is where I stand:

- I'm breaking the mark well. I feel that I'm capable of hitting nearly every cut that comes my way. But also, I'm breaking the mark quickly. (Which I think is a separate quality that is just as important.)
- I am not accelerating and changing direction fast enough. I'm a tad too quick to turn my hips and in doing so I get outworked and outjuked when playing defense.

My endurance is coming back... positive, but my aggressiveness in the air is still not what I want it to be... negative.

I try to keep myself on the level when analyzing because I'm afraid I won't reinforce the areas I am excelling at. Conversely, only focusing on positives won't allow for any growth in my game.

Finally, and by far the most difficult and essential part of the process, applying the changes. It's too easy to fall back on habits once the cleats hit the field. It takes strong determination to keep your objectives in priority. You have to push past muscle memory, even when you're fatigued, and train yourself in the changes that you wish to see.

Here's a trick: Watch somebody better than you, even if it's only one aspect of ultimate. Why are they better than you at it? Usually it's one, or a combination of the three:
1.) They are physically superior. Ex: X always skies me.
2.) They have better technique. Ex: Y gets open on the dump everytime.
3.) They have better skills. Ex: Z has the greatest throws ever.

Solutions-
1.) Physical: Train harder. Hit the weights, use a track, do some plyos, etc.
2.) Technique: Observe what they are doing, learn it, use it, make it better if possible.
3.) Skill Based: Practice. Do whatever it is over and over until you have the skill every bit as good as Z.

Endzone cutting

2009-02-11T23:08:00.000-08:00

At the risk of helping out my opponents play better ultimate, I have decided to reveal the secret to endzone cutting. I like to think of this as my way of giving back to the ultimate community. So here goes...

EYE CONTACT... it's that easy... well I guess it's not just that easy, you'll have to run hard and not dance, as usual cutting rules still apply. But if you keep eye contact with your thrower, then you will have the extra reaction time to get to the disc before your defender can. Scores don't have to be pretty they just need to be scores. Eye contact allows for every brief window of opportunity to be a viable option. The other reason to keep eye contact is so that you are aware of when to time your cut. Timing your cut is ever so crucial around the endzone, because more often than not you will only have space for 1, maaaybe 2, cutters working at one time. So you don't want to waste the real estate with miss-timed cuts. Poorly timed cuts lead to clearing out time, which leads to more dumps/throws, which leads to a higher turnover rate.

Any good offensive endzone set-up takes away poaching opportunities from the defense. (After all there is no deep game when you are in the red zone.) Therefore if your team has a good endzone formation (meaning low to no poaching circumstances) then all the crazy break mark throws into space are great options. Thus the briefest of moments where the cutter is open in the endzone will suffice for a score. However, many times I see, either from a throwers perspective or sideline, cutters watching their defender, or even worse, the ground. I've seen this error enough to warrant this post about the holy grail of endzone cutting... ( 0) (0 )

PS: I am god's gift to ultimate :)

Winter

2008-12-17T16:51:00.001-08:00

It's winter time, and competitive ultimate is in its yearly slump. Club is over, and college is on hiatus... and so begin the "fun" tournaments.

Not that every other tournament isn't fun, but these are the tournaments where drinking is encouraged and winning and losing have no repercussion. You play with new people, and with no set offense or defense. Your playing time is decided by last back. And even though your attitudes are laid back, there is still the thirst for victory.

I kicked off my "funtimate" with the always exciting trip to Vegas. For the second year Niccce came together for a weekend full of boozing, kissing, and ultimate. Note, the activities were ordered by level of priority. We came in a disappointing 5th place, but came out huge on the party. We had DD's (designated drinkers) roaming our sidelines all weekend, and didn't go a game without finishing a bottle of Carlo Rossi or a jug of jungle juice. Our women were arguable the best out there, but indisputably the most drunk. The weekend was chock full of great memories, and lost memories. The full write up can be seen on capt. Shy's blog. Be sure to read about his antics at the super sweet party and his subsequent journey back to the hotel.

The following weekend I found myself in an "elite" crowd of beach ballers on the cold ass beaches of San Francisco. Mostly comprised of Revolver and local coed talents, 30-40 guys ventured into the cold rain to play a 5 on 5, 1-day tourney. The cost was 5$, and only if you wanted to partake in the upscale keg that Rocky kindly brought for all. Sporting the chocolate milk leggings, I survived the cold in a perfect Lei-Out tune up.

Which brings me up to date. I'll be out of town for Beware-O the Logo (12). Before I possibly catch a Davis Hat tournament, which will be followed by round two with Niccce at Lei-Out. As the saying goes, "It's fun to play ultimate drunk, but it's even better to win drunk."

Now, feast on some jpegs courtesy of many awesome photographers, starring Niccce (and a couple others):

Long Beach, a program on the rise.

2008-11-23T15:37:00.000-08:00

Long Beach went 7-0 this weekend to take the SoCal Warmup, congrats to the black and gold.

In Cal State Long Beach's short 3 year span, they have gone from scrapping a mixed line of savage players, to a dominant A/B squad of 20+ ultimate hungry athletes.
LB has put together a near perfect preseason this fall with an impressive victory margin in each tournament. Even though the competition was on the simple side, the Stalkers have tasted victory, and learned what it takes to win. The team is led by captains Dan "layout D your ass" Smeltzer, Marcos "pubes of a goddess"Perez, Rory "the sideline" Cohen, and Daniel "head games" Davisson.

The Stalkers are primed and psyched to continue their unprecedented season of first place finishes into the more difficult tournaments that lie ahead. They've accomplished where many other newer teams fail by establishing themselves first as friends and secondly as teammates. It shouldn't be a secret that you play better ultimate with your friends. I'm convinced that it's the same comradeship that has contributed to the Buzz Bullet's success coming from Bunka Shutter employment.

But there are more signs of Long Beach's impending success. These players have become obsessed with the game. They've embraced the ideologies of work and hustle. Many of the Stalkers play ultimate 5 to 6 times a week in Long Beach's historic ultimate community, where a young'n can be nurtured in a veteran rich environment. Plus the only time rain cancels practice is when it's raining ash. It also doesn't hurt that Long Beach played in the most tournaments of any other college team last year, with plans of repeating the rigorous schedule at higher competition.

So a fair warning to all you college teams: while you're at your leisure, they're getting better. Watch out for the Stalkers, cause they're watching you. (Alright that was cheesy as hell, but I just can't resist.)
And to all you Stalkers out there: ya'll still suck... learn to throw <3

This is how close we keep it in LB... No on 8!

Sean Ryan

2008-11-18T00:30:00.000-08:00

http://upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=18&id=5699

It was the latter half of a back to back ultimate weekend where I found myself concluding my fall collegiate career. The weather was sunny and clear with a slight breeze on the beautiful fields of Santa Cruz. Perfect ultimate conditions.
Perhaps the biggest story of the weekend comes from 2 teams trying to establish themselves in their respective sections, SLO and Davis. Both teams turned in terrific finishes on the weekend tied for 3rd place. SLO Core came out with a big win over sectional rival UCLA in pool play only to outdo themselves with a bigger win to top '08 sectional champs in Claremont. On the other side of the card was Davis showing their heroics on the weekend. With a big win on universe against Cal, the Buddies rode the momentum into another win over the favored home team, Santa Cruz.

SLO is finding themselves to be a competitor in a wide open Southern California section. It'll be interesting to see if they can put themselves on the map with a win in the coming SoCal Warmup where they should be ranked as the top seed.
Davis looks like a team on the rise, only losing to one team that (for now) seems to have their number. If they can develop and utilize a few more "weapons" they ought to be a scary team for any NW competitor this year.
But as always, it is early in the year and "upsets" don't mean anything at this point of the season. How a team responds after a good finish is more insightful than the good finish was originally, so I await the upcoming tournaments to see exactly how these teams step up, and how other teams react.

I quick note on the finals: After coming off some of my worst ultimate in quite some time, I pulled myself together to finish strong and give it everything in the championship match. I believe I was on the field for every one of LPC's breaks and I recall our O team scoring every point I played. It would have been a satisfying performance if not for one point.
It was universe and we were pulling. Tight defense led to a rushed and poor huck by Stanford resulting in a turnover. LPC gets the disc and begins moving it up the field. I begin a deep cut and finding an open lane cut back under to get the disc. My defender bids as I catch the pass for a completion. There I stand with 2/3 of the field ahead of me, no mark, and my favorite receiver cutting deep. I consciously assess the situation, and with the tournament in my hands, I decide to rip a backhand to our fastest player streaking for the endzone. With a slight breeze at my back I launch the disc towards the back edge of the field and watch as my receiver sprints his hardest only to be just short of my overthrown huck. Stanford cherishes the disc this time, and after an injury and a late pick call, puts it home for the win.

When it was all said and done, LPC played a terrific tournament. There's no doubt that we improved as a team and discovered something new in our squad that hadn't been there before the weekend started. I was delighted to see my team battle and step it up despite my personal struggles and poor play... I look forward to the exciting '09 that awaits.

"Forgive many things in others; nothing in yourself." -Ausonius (and Bob's facebook, friend him)

What good am I?

2008-11-11T22:47:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG5La6k6eTI

What good is a cutter who can't...
- read the disc
- catch
- run
- dump?

What good is a handler who can't...
- break the mark
- huck
- get open?

What good is an offense if it can't... score?

What good is a defense if it can't... score?

Turnovers and the learning process...

2008-10-28T16:10:00.000-07:00

The cardinal rule when stepping out onto the field is almost always: No turnovers. If possession is continually held, then eventually the disc will find its way into the endzone. It is the stat that everyone should be striving to perfect, because if your team never turns the disc over, your team won't lose.* Having said that, turnovers are inevitable.

There are two types of turnovers, execution and judgment.

Execution turnovers are the miscues, drops, bad throws, and so on. These turnovers tend to be a result of physical mishap. These types of turnovers are the reason why you practice all those skill based drills (going to the disc, reading hucks, throwing to space, breaking marks, etc.).

The other type of turnover comes from poor judgment. Usually in the form of throws, these mental errors are hucking to a cutter who is already too deep, a forced breakmark, a "hero" throw, tunnel vision, etc. Unnecessary risks are the heart of mental turns. Many times it's not easy to see that a particular throw has a terrible completion rate, or that you may just not be playing within your skills; so it is always a good idea to reflect on your errors when they are fresh in your memory. Mental turnovers are fixed through composure, awareness, and experience... not quite your easy fix.

A common example of poor judgment I've been guilty of, is the quick, blady flick around a defender to an away cutter in the endzone. If you followed that example, well done. Now the problem with this throw is I know I can complete it, but more often than not when I'm rushed in-game I will lead the cutter too much (an overthrown turn), or not lead them enough (which results in a D). After turning it enough times on the endzone and having enough teammates giving me the business, I now holster that throw for another higher percentage option.

Identify your turnovers, train your body into the good habits and train your mind out of the bad ones, and you will be on your way to decreasing your turnovers.

*Of course this is ignoring a break-less game to hard cap.

My return.

2008-09-15T13:36:00.000-07:00

At last I had my chance to answer the doubts that I'm sure both my teammates and myself had about my playing condition. With one practice alongside YR under my belt, I took to the Stanford fields in the Northern California Open Sectionals.

After a half hour of taping I finally got to warming up. Anxious as ever, I made sure to take my time and get a good warm up in despite missing my team's normal routine. I had four months worth of anticipation, strategy, and health concerns all taking their turns in my thoughts.

My first point was clumsy, but felt good. I would go on to iron out the kinks and put a couple positive stats on the board. As game one and two went by I found myself really gearing up for the game that had been on my mind all year. YR vs. Jam.

I've got a tremendous respect for this team. They play the game the way I love to see it played, everybody playing everything. O/D line means slightly more than handler/cutter, which means next to nothing. While playing with this team at DUI I could easily recognize the confidence and intelligence that every player had. They know what it takes to get the job done, and they carry themselves as if they were already champions. So dropping a little knowledge on these seasoned vets would be the exact confidence boost I'd need to take on the rest of the season.

I was back at home, playing o-line cutter, and starting. YR's first point we marched right down the field making 4 or 5 passes to score with an IO break to the endzone. I didn't touch the disc, but ran hard and cleared good space. We went on to trade the first 3 points with Jam until our offense finally faltered and Jam capitalized. The game continued and I found myself in the endzone and threw to the endzone a couple times, at which point I would see Eastham guarding me for the rest of the game. He was my hardest defender I faced all weekend, but I still got open. However, once our o-line turned the disc I found myself gasping for air like David Blaine in his latest "magic trick" while Eastham seemed depressingly fresh. I fought off death chasing him around, and my most obvious concern had become reality. No track workouts and very limited running coming into the series was a huge disadvantage. We went on to score 10 to Jam's 15. I thought we played pretty well (closer than the score would entail) however they were missing as many as 6 or 7 very impressive names during our match. I would take comfort in having no turns in the game, scoring twice and assisting in two others, and only having to play defense from offense twice while I was on the field.

YR went on to finish 3rd. Losing to Revolver handily in both of our games. I felt that I played well, yet I'm still far from satisfied. I had 2 turns against Santa Cruz and 2 turns against Revolver. Frankly I wish YR was in a better place than where we are now. Sure we have a lot of potential, but potential doesn't mean jack when you're on the field.

The highlights of the weekend were:
- The gasps and praise I hear from the sideline after I cut and stupefy my defender. (These may very well be a figment of my imagination, but keep me going on the field non-the-less)
- My dramatic misread of Ernst's late huck... sorry I didn't catch that one, put it sooner and I'll get it every time.
- Sky'n a couple people
- Regaining that fearlessness, by putting my body on the line for a D. (And I wonder why I'm always injured)
- Dropping an easy pass (lost my focus due to fatigue)
- The awesome and very supportive sideline

Going into this weekend I really felt that I had to earn my spot on the team. Aside from hosting numerous pool parties I hadn't really proven to my teammates that I indeed deserved my spot over the other tryouts. Yet after this weekend, and from some encouraging words from Taylor, I feel that for the most part I have (hopefully) done that.

What I will take away from this weekend: Track workouts suck, but being out of shape on the field is many times worse. Don't expect results if you don't put in the work.

The most influential ultimate players to me

2008-08-24T13:08:00.000-07:00

Here's a little ode to those that have influenced my game the most. In no particular order:

Ben Spears: One of the nicest and coolest guys I've ever met. He also has perhaps the greatest work ethic I've seen. The man is always going 100% no matter how mundane the drill is. He does everything in ultimate the way it ought to be done, every single time.
I wish I had his - "go to" abilities, and work ethic

Ben Wiggins: He has taught me more in one lecture than any professor I've ever had. I'm referring to the series of UltiVillage lectures that were released a number of months ago. He gave two, "Marking" and "Offense from Defense." They were full of useful information that I constantly keep in mind on the field. But moreover, he showed me just how much somebody can actually think about the intricacies of the game. Because of his lectures I am constantly analyzing different aspects of ultimate to improve everything and anything that I can. And he seems like a pretty darn nice gentleman.
I wish I had his - handles and smarts

Mike Caldwell: Arguably the best player on one of the best teams in the world. The guy can cut like nobody's business. I'm convinced that just by watching this guy play, he will make you better. His cuts are tight, positioned perfectly, and timed very well. MC is a defender's nightmare, he doesn't stop running and he doesn't slow down. When I'm cutting on the field I think W.W.M.C. do?
I wish I had his - cutting ability and stamina/endurance

I hope to be continued...

Road to Recovery

2008-07-21T18:55:00.000-07:00

In a study by Torg et al in 1982, the average time between the fracture and diagnosis was estimated to be 7 months.
*I had a gradually increasing pain in my foot for about 9 months. Before finally getting the correct diagnosis.
In a 2006 study by Saxena and Fullem, navicular stress fractures took up to 4 months to heal post-treatment.
*That'd put me at 100% healed a week before sectionals September 6th.
Because navicular stress fractures are not easily observed on plain radiographs, the reported incidence rates vary widely.
*After multiple xrays and doctors, it wasn't until I got an MRI that the fracture was found.
http://www.emedicine.com/sports/TOPIC85.HTM

I get orthodics and then start physical therapy tomorrow. I'm hoping to play at Discos in August, 3 weeks before I should be "fully healed" however my body and my doctor will have the final say. Although they've been known to disagree.

GG Yeager Bombs... YR 3.1 in roughly 4-8 weeks.

Defending the Dump

2008-05-27T00:22:00.000-07:00

It seems simple enough, but it is probably the most difficult position to defend in ultimate. Among my teammates I'm known for "occasionally" being beat upline. I know this is the cardinal sin of dump defense, don't allow the upline cut because it gives the handler a wide open look downfield for a huck. However, and feel free to disagree with me here, I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it out to be.
The reason the upline gets past me in the first place is due to the fact that I'm taking most of the throws away to the backfield. However, it does put me in a spot if the dump realizes this and takes advantage of the upline. (BTW, I will only do this when forcing a single direction, and generally when the disc is not in the middle of the field). The reason being, my upfield defense should already be aware that a huck can come from the open side. So should the handler get the disc with an open huck, the disc will still be coming from the open side anyway, and the defender should therefore have a decent shot at the D no matter how easy the huck was to get off.
The idea behind taking away the backfield is to give yourself every opportunity at a block. And by forcing the upline throw you give yourself as a defender the most time to catch up on the disc and layout. When a player is looking dump, he has narrowed his choices of recievers by at least half. So the chances of a throw going up to your man has dramatically increased. By stopping every possible throw you can for the longest amount of time will be to the defenders advantage.
Overplaying the backfield dump has been a natural progression in my play simply from getting more d's using this technique. The vulnerability of giving the upline (beyond the notorious huck) is that the handler can now break the mark easier. But considering all the negatives, when weighed against the positives, this style of D works when - you feel that the chances of shutting down the dump are greater than the chances of the handler getting the disc and having an open reciever at the same time, plus that the huck will be completed.
Okay, I'm sure that was way too complicated. To summerize, I think a solid dump D should play in a way that shuts the majority of throws down, even if that sacrifices the forbiddin upline cut occasionally. One shouldn't compromise their overall defence for fear of getting beat upline.

...and so the season ends.

2008-05-15T01:28:00.001-07:00

It was a decent year...

Things I learned:
-Everybody wins with a Goose port.
-Bob's just a couple bughouse loses away from being on tilt... always.
-Hallmark Inn at happy hour has been confirmed... free.
-Them cougars, they'll getcha.
-Greg loves to gamble... cha ching!
-An easy way to make a 100$ (TSBC)
-Obtaining a shot glass from a bar is easy.
-Soulja Boy
-*snaps*
-etc.

I <3 this sport, but sometimes it bores me...

I think I'll give it say, 10 weeks before I come back...

See yah on the sidelines.

Pre-game routines...

2008-04-22T16:32:00.000-07:00

How do you get up for the big game?

I've got regionals in 4 days and I'm sitting at my computer failing to get any work done. The NW schedule just hit the presses and all I can think about is the intense weekend ahead of me. My mind is jumping through every detail of the game. I've been g-chatting and emailing teammates all week while reading the latest blog hype. So how am I going to get myself into "game mode" this weekend?

Michael "don't touch me" Liu says he doesn't like to get all fired up and jumpy before a game. He's an O-line handler, the sturdy backbone of the offense. Like a jedi, he seems to rid himself of emotion and be content with his duties that lay ahead of him. His pre-game prep mirrors how he plays on the field; calm, consistent, and boring. He fully participates in the team warmup fairly quiet. However, and I don't think he'll be offended when I say this, 808 isn't a playmaker.

The d-line however, could use that extra adrenaline and excitement. Part of the D's job is to get inside the heads of their opponents, and do what it takes to create turnovers. Any encouragement that comes from cheers, speeches, or music would be welcomed. I think there is something to be said with matching your pre-game preparations with your style of ultimate. But above all, how you physically and mentally prepare yourself before a game reflects on how you handle pressure, and what type of competitor you are.

My routine is typically:
1.) bitch about how early it is
2.) cleat up and stop bitching
3.) pop pills and sunscreen up
4.) a few mins. of 5 yard passes
5.) team warm up and plyos
6.) special back stretches and goofy "duck walks"
7.) team drill
8.) throw long
9.) bonus 3 man mark drill
10.) circle up

I'd like to stress the importance of #'s 4, 8, and 9.
#4 because it's a simple throwing warmup. I focus on getting good spin, with a flat disc, hitting my target in the chest. Also gives me a chance to focus my catching.
#8 because hucks often times have a short window of viability, so you had better get that muscle memory primed. It's also extremely important if you plan on pulling. It always bugs me when our first few pulls go OB without fail.
#9 because half of your options are through a mark, and more importantly this gets your marking skills honed.

I don't spend too much time on these drills, but it is a big difference to come into a game and have broken a mark or hucked it deep 10 minutes prior to the game, as apposed to last Thursday night.

Back to motivation. Speeches and music seem to have the greatest effect on me for getting that psyche all pumped up. And since we don't have King Aragorn on our team, I tend to stick to music. I love the idea of a sideline boombox (perhaps one of the greatest ways to spend team funds). Here are some picks of mine to fit your personal needs for game day.

Nervous? This one will boost the confidence (This song reminds me of Oregon):
"The Shit" - Jemini

The literal pump you up song (A little fun, but also slightly homosexual):
"Break My Stride" - Matthew Wilder

O-line handler specialty, instrumental build up:
"Auto Rock" - Mogwai

The classics:
"Don't Stop Me Now" - Queen
"The Final Countdown" - Europe

Something to play really loud:
"Microphone Fiend" - Rage Against the Machine

Bonus - Remember the old Chicago Bulls intro?:
"Sirius" - Alan Parsons Project

This weekend's gonna be fun as hell. And if you haven't guessed, I recently watched Star Wars and LOTR.

What's your style of cutting?

2008-04-17T23:49:00.000-07:00

Matching up smart is essential to a good defense. Any good offense will tear up a mismatch all day, especially in club. But what is a good matchup? A balanced assignment takes more than just comparing players' speed and height. Like a poker book, I'm going to categorize styles of cutters to portray the various methods they use to get the disc.

The Squirrelly Cutter:
These are your quick players. They've got an incredible first step and will explode at the drop of a hat. These cutters don't need all that fancy schmancy changing directions crap, they see space and will flat out beat you to it. Often times these types of cutters will handle or will initiate from the stack because it won't take much time for them to get open. It's easy to throw to space with squirrelly cutters, because in a race from a standstill they can't be beat. Examples: Alex Harper, Josh Zipperstien, Nick Handler

The Runner:
This cutter usually comes from a cross country background, and they're a bitch to guard. From when the disc goes up on the pull until a score/turnover they are running. They will put in cut after cut after cut until they get the disc, look up field quickly, dump, and repeat. These guys are the workhorses of the O-line, if nothing else, The Runner will make their defender feel pain. Examples: Zid, if you know this guy 'nuff said.

The Dancer:
We've all got at least one of them on our team. They will shimmy fake, do the two-step cut all day long until they eventually create enough space and get open. These cutters are communication's worst nightmare. They're strengths come from reading their defender's body very well, and the second a defender turns his/her hips or gets put on their heels, the Dancer will exploit it. Examples: Robot, Seraph

The One Trick Pony:
These cutters tend to be the most athletic of them all. They've got some speed on the straight-away and love to take it to the house. Johnny Bravo, Chain Lightning, Oregon, Colorado Claremont, etc. live and die by these players. The one trick pony is usually the fastest deep cutter on the team. But should the huck fail them, they've got their physical strength and athletic abilities to come down with the disc. They've got one cut in mind and they are really good at it. Look for the One Trick Ponies on the highlight reels and in the endzone, because that's their specialty. Examples: Stout brothers, Jay Schulkin, Beaufort, A-Bomb

Of course these are generalizations, and the better the cutter the more characteristics from all categories are shown. As a defender you will naturally matchup better to certain styles and worse against others. When the shit's on the line it's very important that you play to your strengths. Are you a jumpy player? Can you can keep up with those quick guys, but get juked out of your socks against every shimmy? Are you a more physical defender and good at bodying? Do you have the endurance to keep up with a runner and still play offense should you get a D?

There are more considerations to figure into defensive matchups that I won't go into. But knowing your strengths and weaknesses is crucial to improving your game, and helping your team.

Injuries...

2008-04-10T14:58:00.000-07:00

they are an inevitable aspect to the game. If you're looking to play this sport at any sort of competitive level you will eventually encounter an injury that will put you on the sideline. I have dealt with my share, and I am currently battling yet another pain that is keeping me from participating at the level I'd like to be.

While playing ultimate I have strained/sprained my: sternum, thumbs, wrist, shoulder, knee, ankles, big toe, and foot. I've broken my pinky finger, nose (technically it's cartilage), and 3rd metatarsal of my left foot. I've had a grapefruit sized hematoma on my hip and lost a few toenails.

But the trauma isn't the worst part of these injuries, it's having to watch your team helplessly from afar. What I lose in muscle I gain in mental anxiety. Going to practice and not being able to cleat up eats away at me, until I eventually come back too soon and re-injure myself. Injuries have gotten to a point that I am more stressed mentally than physically. Perhaps it is my competitive nature, me taking the game to seriously, or just missing all the fun that drives me nuts on the sideline.

I remember watching an interview with Matt Hoffman after he was making a comeback into the world of BMX after nearly dying from a bad spill. The interviewer asked him why he would continue playing a sport which almost killed him. Matt responded, "Biking may hurt at times, but not biking hurts a lot more."

Ultimate is completely worth the aggravation of injuries, and I've been fortunate enough to avoid anything that requires surgery. But, that still doesn't make it easier as I watch my teammates run sprint after sprint for the team, essentially for me, and I can do nothing but encourage and watch.

I often think if it's my style of play, bad luck, or petite physique that gets me injured all the time. Seeing as that I'm strong as an ox, it couldn't be the ladder... right? Ah fuck it, maybe I'll get healthy one day, and until then; Rule #76: No excuses, play like a champion.

I just couldn't resist

2008-03-30T21:39:00.001-07:00

Originally this blog started out as a class midterm/final for a college class. I've since decided to throw in some substance... ie; ultimate psychobabble.

Science and Religion Final

2007-05-21T00:42:00.000-07:00

Lane Final – Science and Religion

Adam Raty

Couldyoupleasenot

http://attractiveadam.blogspot.com/

movie is yet to come

4 excused absenses, and a couple minutes late to class on numerous occasions… but it was only to create excitement for the tardy people betting that was going on.

C+ (which was a little low)

The God Solution:

(http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2118)

I just came across this... hopefully it hasn't already been posted.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Solution-Reply-Delusion/dp/1418528587/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/\
103-4424846-7609413?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177912753&sr=8-2
It is a rebuttal book to Dawkin's God Delusion, comes out July 10th...
mark your calendars!

Re: the video today in class (http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2058)

Que Sera Sera... what will be will be. Worrying about the next nuke
going off seems like a great waste of emotion. It seems silly to look
back at the cold war days when kids practiced the duck and cover
drills. Living in fear sucks. If us humans can just live in accordance
to the the Silver Rule, as opposed to the Golden Rule, we will have a
future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_rule

Re: Sexual Morality:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2052

I've heard the Christian stance about chastity, but I don't understand
the reasoning behind it. What specifically makes it virtuous to stay
chaste? What is it that makes God happy when he sees people abstaining
from sex? Additionally, why is the vast majority of 'soul' music about
making love?

Re: Morality:

(http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2043)

Is abstaining from alcohol, smoking, and partying the idea of "good"
in our society? To some yes... to others no. Deciding to drink or not
is a lifestyle choice, not an ethical choice to many people. It is the
popular notion in today's society that college students drink, smoke,
or party. If an ignorant person were to hear that a seemingly typical
college student was acting outside the "norm" it's reasonable to
believe that some outside factor was causing such behavior. Given
religion's popularity and dislike for drugs/partying, the conclusion
of religious motives to your lifestyle choices makes sense.
Instead of alcohol or smoking, what if a person decided not to eat
saturated fats? People wouldn't judge their decision on a moral bases,
but instead on a pure health conscious lifestyle choice. It's not
right nor wrong to eat saturated fats, it's just a way to manage your
diet.
Finally, treating other people the way you'd like to be treated is
perhaps the most underlying principal in all religions. This is not to
say that secular moral people don't share the same belief. However in
our current society, odds are if you don't drink, smoke, party, and
follow the "golden rule" you are, to some degree, a religious
individual. Perhaps in the future, if more agnostics and atheists come
out the popular religious assumption will change.

Does God Exist? On ABC

(http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2200)

I came across this a bit late, but here's another debate on the
existence of God that was on TV. Anyone see this by any chance?
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3130360&page=1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070510/ts_csm/cbelief_1

1. I read Dawkins cover to cover. I continued to skim the rest of the material.

2. I still think my favorite book was Dawkins, just because of all the ways it opened my thought to atheistic beliefs. I also am enjoying Feynman’s book too, I think he just has a pretty pleasant way of looking at the world. He seems to really enjoy life, and his philosophies seem to support his optimistic view.

3. Nietzsche believes that transvaluation of values is a product of human’s desire to feel power. Values and morals change for somebody’s benefit, according to Nietzsche. Everybody wants to feel power, so the weak often times would change values and morals to benefit themselves, to put them in a more powerful state. Morality is just a tool to influence power.

4. One example of a morally right thing to do in today’s society would be to assist handicapped people. Assisting them medically, physically, and spiritually are ways that people support various handicapped people. Yet the idea of helping the physically weak is counter evolutionary instincts. The genetically weak, in theory, should be weeded out of existence in favor of more survival oriented genes.

5. Bertrand Russell isn’t a Christian because he finds the Old and New Testament appalling. Morally, he found the books offensive. He also couldn’t accept eternal damnation, and looks down upon believers of such a notion.

6. C.S. Lewis believes that there is too much to the human mind and universe that can be explained by any science. Natural selection cannot account for the deepness of humanity. Human dignity through morality is another huge sign for a creator in Lewis’s view. Our morality comes from a desire to do good despite some survival instincts. If not for a god, especially a Christian one, then humans would not have such thoughtful tendencies.

7. Evolution explains why science originated in the first place, simply because it helps us survive. An obvious example is to look at the health sciences that have now extended human’s life expectancy dramatically. Finding things out are innate in humankind. Science is perhaps the biggest tool in evolution, in that it both helps the species survive and thrive. Religion seems to be an outlet for a lot of the troubling questions that come to humanity. It can easily be explained, through evolution, as a way to express morality and and give us support in dealing with what can be an overwhelming life. Religion gives many people a purpose in life, which alone illustrates a perfect evolutionary use for religion.

8. Cargo cult science is belief without actual science, but the illusion of science as proof. Even simpler, it’s basically pseudoscience. My first example comes from the notion that people should drink 8 glasses of water a day. Though it is true that people should stay hydrated the number of 8 glasses is arbitrary. There is no proof from nutritionists that the specific number of 8 is beneficial, some people can get away with much less water, the answer is not concrete. In fact, there is no science to support that specifically 8 glasses is correct. Another example of Feynman’s cargo cult science would be superstition, specifically the tradition of blowing on dice prior to throwing them in a craps game. Although you may have blown on the dice once and gotten your desired results, it doesn’t mean that the blowing of the dice causes a good roll. A third cargo cult science would be the Native American rain dances. Though it has spiritual authority in that it produces rain by appealing to the rain gods, the dance has no bearing on the weather. Rain will fall or not independently from any ritual.

9. Richard Feynman’s definition of science is more of a concept than a definition. He in fact doesn’t like the normative definitions of science. Finding things out and exploring the relations between things is the objective to science. Methods and labels are useless as long as the ends bring about an understanding. Discovery is the main objective to Feynman’s science, everything else is second.

10. Feynman would critique the intelligent design theory because it bypasses the scientific method. It falls into the same category as cult sciences. They don’t support claims.

11. Well I’m sure that agnosticism and atheism are very appealing to Dawkins, Nietzsche, and Russell for many reasons. First off, agnosticism and atheism are more scientifically supported and rational than religion. Belief in provable theories is much more reasonable than a fictitious god. Another appeal to agnosticism and atheism is the freedom that it provides as well. It’s liberating to not be forced to follow morals or religious conduct. Finally, I get the impression, mainly with Dawkins’ book, that perhaps they feel smarter than religious people as well.

12. According to lecture, religion can avoid the scientific critique by going beyond what science can test. There are three levels of thought pre-rational, rational, and trans-rational. Instinctual responses such as hunger, pain, breathing, and natural basic human tendencies are pre-rational, because you don’t need to really think about such actions. Rational thought is where science lives. It is the king of the rational realm. This is why when religion stoops to this level of thought, it can’t hold it’s own. However, if religion goes beyond rational thought into the realm of trans-rational science cannot argue with it. But then again nothing can, and it can’t be provable in any way. Although higher knowledge or trans-rational thought can go beyond science, it cannot help you in the physical world. Perhaps it can ease your mind, but it won’t satisfy testable answers. It will only be hearsay about a spiritual being, that you may or may not relate to. It’s merely peace of mind on the trans-rational level.

13. Christopher Hitchens argues that god is not great for a number of reasons. Firstly, he believes that god is a manmade creation. God and religion is an outlet for infantile needs, such as comfort and reassurance. Hitchens also attributes many killings and wars to religion and god. There has been no greater reason to die in the history of man, than for god. Hitchens also seems to focus on the counterproductive effects religion has had on science.

14. Evolution is such a contentious issue amongst certain fundamentalist religious groups because it directly contradicts certain holy scripture. The idea that the world was created in six days in less than 10,000 years ago would not be possible with Darwin’s theory of evolution. The core issue is the insecurities that religious fundamentalists have with their faith. They deny science because that would prove that the holy scriptures that are praised and revered as the truth to be wrong. If the holy scripture were wrong, then the foundations of all fundamentalists would be wrong, and there in lies the problem with fundamentalist religious views and evolution.

15. In my opinion science can help religion by weeding out all the false and dated material which have clouded the religious objective. Looking at the finger pointing at the moon analogy: Religion is a finger directing us at the moon. At times people lose touch with the objective of the finger, to help us find the moon, and focus instead on the finger. Religion argues accuracy with science, and science can easily disprove specifics about religion. By accepting science as the rational belief and finding a higher level of knowledge as religion’s place. Don’t look at the rational specifics of religion, but look to the trans-rational and experiential aspects of religion.

16. Religion can help science by putting science into perspective. Science has it’s limitations, and therefore should not be looked at as the end all, know all philosophy. Science evolves just like religion, thus should also be recognized, because scientific truth will evolve. Where science ends, religion can take over.

17. A skeptic would most likely critique Yogananda’s explanations of miracles by simply applying Ockham’s Razor. The simplest answer is most often correct, the simplest answer being the one with the least assumptions. An example given in class in a couple lectures was the miracle of creating scent. The miracle turned out just to be scented wax under the fingernail which would emit an odor when heated.

18. One of the most public episodes of the science vs. religion debate has taken the form of evolution being taught in schools. There is conflict between teaching the theory of evolution and teaching the idea of creationism.

It wasn’t until the 19^th century that the United States began to recognize a wider array of scientific fields. Creationism was being taught to children as fact. To retaliate the trend of the science influence into schools, politicians and concerned citizens pushed for legislation to prevent evolution to be taught in schools. This push for evolution’s banishment worked for several states. In 1925 a teacher went to trial over the laws banishing the teaching of evolution, the Butler Act. This trial was called the Scope’s Monkey Trial. Scope’s ended up losing the trial, but was let off of conviction due to a technicality. Later in the 60’s due to more scrutiny and trials over the Butler Act, they were renounced. Later it was fought that “equal time” be given to alternative theories of evolution.

The battle between fundamentalist Christians and science have been raging on about this topic even today. There are still people that wish evolution not be taught in schools, and/or creationism taught as well. Of course the idea of teaching creationism proves to be quite a big problem to the scientific world.

Since the Russians launched Sputnik during the cold war, Americans felt that they were falling behind in the battle of science. For fear of becoming second to Russia, the United States turned it’s priorities to value teaching evolution and science in schools.

This reflects Nietzsche’s idea of morality and transvaluation of values. At one point religion was held in high regard, but when national security was on the line, religion took a backseat to science. The government changed the minds of the people to benefit from getting better scientists in their time of need.

Whether this situation could have been avoided is again debatable. It is possible that America could have stuck to its constitution in the first place and found the teaching of creationism to be only religiously supported and not scientifically supported. However, the zeitgeist of the era was a very protestant and Christian time in the United State’s history. This would have made it very difficult for the Supreme Court to uphold said trails when the members of the distinguished board themselves would most likely be religious as well.

In the end, science has found its place in public schools as it should. The fundamentalist creation theory is far dated. The only support for the creationism theory is through scripture. The scripture has no credibility in of itself.

The United States has set up its constitution to separate church and state. Yet it has a lot of trouble doing such. The Constitution is secular, and does support science’s teachings. However, the American citizens are vastly religious, and therefore elect religious leaders. These religious leaders in turn govern with religious minds which intentionally or unintentionally influence their decisions. Therefore, when evolution is pitted against creationism in public schools in heavily religious areas, it is not shocking to see a religiously influenced government supporting creationism.

With the internet and various other forms of informational access, evolution is becoming a very accepted theory. Even amongst the Catholic Church, creationism is seen as metaphoric and not literal idea. Evolution being taught in school is now the norm, and will continue to be the norm until further science can come up with something better. Sticking with the secular constitution, in theory, should lead end these types of church vs. state and science vs. religion clashes.

*http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Monkey_Trial

19. Ken Wilbur’s argument is that a mystical approach to religion is the only scientifically justifiable way of approaching religion. When looking at religion under a scientific scope, it is irrational and un-testable. A mystical approach to religion sets religion apart from science and therefore cannot be scrutinized by reason. Wilber gives the 3 eyed analogy. First eye is the physical worldly objects. The second eye is not for depth perception, but instead for inner thought and contemplation. Lastly, the third eye which is the mystical religious eye, searching out the trans-rational and beyond. Dawkins would argue that no form of religion would be scientifically justifiable, and there is nothing that any person can look at as an existential 3^rd eye that Wilbur refers to.

20. Stephan Wolfram would critique William Paley’s argument of intelligent design with his matchmaker analogy by describing how a series of simple processes can make up something much more complex. Using his computer cellular automon to illustrate his point, any complex system can be explained by a rudimentary logarithm math equation. Another example is a computer. A computer is simply a series of 1’s and 0’s which make up a very complex machine. A believer may critique this argument by saying that something created the simple beginning to it all.

21. I got to say, this entire class was interesting. I liked the subject matter a lot. I guess other than Language of God I enjoyed the reading as well. Inherit the Wind was pretty good.

22. None.

23. Did not do this one.

Science and Religion Midterm

2007-05-14T15:48:00.000-07:00

Lane Midterm – Science and Religion

1. Adam Raty

2. couldyoupleaesenot

3. http://attractiveadam.blogspot.com/

4. I have 4 excused absences… a trip to China and Italy. And I’ve consistently been a minute or two late to about every class.

5. The God Solution:

(http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2118)

Re: the video today in class (http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2058)

Re: Sexual Morality:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2052

Re: Morality:

(http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2043)

Does God Exist? On ABC

(http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencereligion/message/2200)

6. Coming Soon…

7. I started strong, reading every page with great comprehension The God Delusion. Then realizing how much reading I had ahead of me, I stooped to the level of skimming and chapter picking for the rest of the material.

8. Dawkins thinks that much of Collins’ arguments are “cop outs” to the scientific nature of seeking out answers. It is easy to just point to God and say, “God is the answer, discussion closed.” Dawkins believes that just because things are not explainable, doesn’t equate to a God. Dawkins would also argue that because of natural selection, animals want their genes to survive and have since developed morality from evolution. Dawkins wants answers derived from testable data. Nonsensical ideas that evade science give no authority or credibility for belief. Basically, Dawkins says that there are no reasons to believe in a God, thus use science to figure out all that we can. There is no merit for taking a leap of faith in Dawkins’ mind; in fact, it is unreasonable to do so.

*http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-9,00.html

9. Collins believes that God exists outside of nature, time, and space. Science cannot measure God because God is outside the realms of measurement. Collins also believes that since God is outside of nature, then it can explain miracles or resurrections because God can go beyond nature to make nonsensical incidents possible. Collins also believes that humankind’s morality is a sign of God’s existence. Why would humans counter biological survival tendencies for others? Why would humans have compassion? Collins’ answer is; because of God, and God’s generosity towards humankind. Collins also makes a point that Dawkins doesn’t know much about theology and can’t understand faith because of his lack of experience with such a topic. One who has experienced God can better identify with faith than a non-believer. Collins never really gives a good explanation for why God. How does one get to the conclusion that God started evolution, or God created the universe? Collins seems to reach this conclusion by the Anthropic Principle. You can trace things back so far until you come to a conclusion that something must have started the ball rolling, and Collins’ answer is God.

*http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-9,00.html

10. Littlewood’s theory of large numbers explains coincidences as a product of chance. Strange occurrences can seem so improbable at times that the only explanation seems like a divine force. Yet given enough time, the probability of freak coincidences is not only less probably, but expected. The classic example is, if monkeys were given enough time to type on typewriters, they would eventually produce Shakespeare. One could understand this amazing feat as a divine miracle, but Littlewood’s theory explains it with probability. According to Littlewood’s theory a one-out-of-a-million chance will occur roughly once a month. This is based on an event happening every second, statistically one out of every million of those events will be unique. So, if a person is aware of such coincidences and had a religious background, they could interpret the coincidence as something divine. Littlewood’s theory explains occurrences mathematically.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littlewood%27s_Law

11. Pseudosciences are unfounded science, or false science. They cannot hold up to the scrutiny of a testable hypothesis. Many pseudosciences can be identified and rationalized with the use of Ockham’s Razor. Ockham’s Razor states that the simplest answer is one that makes the fewest assumptions, and the simplest answer is usually the most correct.

One pseudoscience, mentioned in class, is the form of quackery medicine. I saw a television special where supposed doctor-type personal would reach into peoples’ bodies and pull out their cancer. There would be no pain, incisions, or scars when the “doctors” were done. When Ockham’s Razor is applied, one can rationally go about understanding this practice. In actuality, the “doctors” are palming fake blood and chicken fat. So the simplest answer turns out to be slight of hand trickery, as apposed to instant hand surgery. This is one example of pseudoscience, because to some people they really believe they have been cured, and see positive results. This too can be explained by the placebo effect.

Another example of pseudoscience is from Astrology. Astrology is the concept that the aligning of the planets will effect terrestrial affairs. Some people swear that Astrology works despite its lack of scientific testing. It is such a popular pseudoscience that one can look up their horoscope in any major newspaper.

Pseudosciences appeal to people because of the various satisfactions they provide. Some pseudosciences give answers to questions quick and easily. In the case of pseudo-medicine, many people like the hope that a fast cure is obtainable. Astrology, tarot readings, and other mystical pseudosciences provide people with comfort in dealing with the unknown. Pseudosciences often appeal to the imaginative side of believers, which can cloud the reasonable, Ockham’s razor mentality.

12. Darwinian evolution makes atheism both respectable and tenable because it gives atheists a basis to argue both intelligent design and theism in general. Evolution by natural selection explains how life came to be, as we know it today. Before science could support a theory for the complexities of life, theism could arguably be just as reasonable as atheism. The popular alternative belief to intelligent design was that life came through pure chance. The analogy, life came from chance is the equivalent of a tornado blowing the scraps of a plane junkyard into a complete Boeing 747, is used to illustrate just how absurd such a notion seems. However, with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, atheists can now look at scientific data to see that through small gradual changes life has slowly developed into what we see today. Darwinian evolution is a very sound theory that has been recognized worldwide, and is now taught in schools.

*The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins

13. Richard Dawkins believes that religion is a virus of the mind because of its infectious and harmful effects. Dawkins created Meme theory which helps illustrate religions infectious tendencies. A meme is a unit of cultural information, and in meme theory, a meme is passed on from one person to another. In the way a gene gets passed on, a meme also gets passed on. Some examples of meme’s could be a particular phrase, idea, fad, or belief. Religion can be spread from person to person by way of memes. And like a virus, religion infects people in a way that harms them. Dawkins believes that religion harms people by closing one’s mind from the scientific method of testing hypothesis and using data to obtain results. The religious meme has cultivated into such a popular theme that its popularity has fueled itself to a memeplex, cartels of mutually compatible memes. Certain revelatory faiths, like the Abrahamic faiths, started out as a meme, then grew into memeplexes by the religious founders, and were later developed into religions.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme_theory

14. A religious believer would respond to the parasite analogy by saying simply that God is incomprehensible, and therefore by attaching human words and analysis to an infinitely great being would not do God justice. Additionally, one could also argue that Dawkins’ atheistic propaganda is just as infectious as religion. One could also argue that religion is an experiential reality, and one must experience the higher consciousness of religion to fully grasp its reality.

15. There seem to be two popular different intelligent design theories out there. One view is the literalist understanding which dates the earth at around 6,000 years of age. While the other intelligent design understanding incorporates evolution and the scientific dating of the universe. This understanding believes that an intelligent designer put the evolutionary plan together and got the ball rolling. There, of course, is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a creator. Fighting the theory of evolution is quite a difficult task given the tremendous amount of scientific support. However, the second type of intelligent design can accommodate the scientific theories of evolution, yet there is a gigantic assumption, a creator. Any thought of a creator is indeed just that, an assumption. The creator belief is irrational, and un-testable. The greatest support for intelligent design comes from the Anthropic principle. The Anthropic idea is that the world is so complex and so fragile that the slightest change in its development would have meant no life on earth. The improbability that life as we know it exists, is so minute that it the only explanation is an intelligent designer.

The other explanation to how the world came to be lies in probability theory. With our current understanding of the universe it is unknown if there were multiple big bangs or if multiverses exist, but with enough chances it is inevitable that even the smallest probability will happen; i.e. life as we know it. If it is true, as some theories believe, that there are multiple big bangs, then it is very probable that chance accounts for the perfect arrangements of the universe to accommodate life. Along with Darwin’s theory of natural selection and evolution, the world seems extremely probable to have developed in such a way.

The scientifically supported probability theory is the better of the two theories, simply because it presents an argument. Religious non-sense isn’t really an argument, and definitely cannot be tested. It’s much more rational, to me, to side with the probability theory. Intelligent design gets its authority in its numbers and age, which quite frankly aren’t convincing in of itself.

16. Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of religion and science co-existing comes from his theory of NOMA. The idea of NOMA is that science exists on one realm of reality, and religion exists on another realm. It is questionable if they are exactly co-existing, because by establishing religion on a separate realm already puts it above scientific scrutiny. This is Dawkins’ criticism of Gould’s NOMA. Dawkins thinks Gould’s view is a weak attempt to get the middle of the road believers. Gould’s idea of religion also has roots in scripture. However, the interpretations of the holy scriptures are adapted to agree with modern science. This means that one has to differentiate the dated parts of the scriptures and then re-interpret the ideals or moral teachings of those excerpts. In the end, the scriptures aren’t providing readers with anything they can’t do already without the scriptures. This debate is a very interesting one. Gould is attempting to keep religion outside of scientific scrutiny, which it would most likely loose because of the lack of testability. He does this by making religion about moral law and thought. Dawkins, I believe, makes very reasonable arguments that morality is a question of science. By arguing morality to be an evolutionary obtained trait is Dawkins’ way of making morality a scientific issue. Gould, like Collins, are essentially finding a way around taking science head on. They both make a case that enables religion to transcend science by existing in an un-testable realm. I personally give the debate win to Dawkins.

* The God Delusion

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria#Non-

Overlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29

17. Neurology and ontology are two different things. Neurology is the study of neurons and the brain. Ontology is the study of actual beings and ultimate reality. Neurology is the scientific study of what a human’s brain does and how it acts. It is the observation and analysis of nerve responses and brain activity. This is a completely different topic than ontology, which is the philosophical study of the nature of being. Ontology asks if we know what we think we know. If there are other realms that exist beyond scientific study ontology would be the area to discuss such realms. Confusion arises because all neurology is based on senses that are perceived through human perception. Our understandings of many things come from a human hermeneutic. What is reality to us may be different to say a turtle or a fly. For instance, some insects can see into the light spectrum further than we can. Because of science, we don’t doubt the existence of ultraviolet light, yet what about the light bugs can’t even see, or our technology can’t pick up. Our reality can only go as far as our minds or technology can conjure.

*class lecture

18. Heisenberg’s principle of quantum mechanics states: “The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known.” This leads into the randomness/ chance/ chaotic nature of quantum mechanics. So how can such a world exist in a theological view that is purposeful and designed? Well a god’s plan may not be comprehendible to us humans. Perhaps there is a simple pattern to quantum physics that is unknown on our level of knowledge. People can rationalize a purpose to anything, and put the face of god into any place they wish to see it. Yes I believe one can reconcile an intelligent designer with the world of quantum mechanics, yet it will be far fetched. In fact, it seems like the only way you’ll find a creator is by looking for one.

* http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/

19. Faqir Chand explains religious visions as a product of their faith in relation to social influence. People of faith may have a religious experience or vision only because their faith and religious influence put the notion in their mind. A Christian will most likely have a vision of Jesus or Mary Magdalene, while a Hindu may have a vision of Shiva or a guru. Visions of Mohammad or Jesus don’t appear to Buddhists of Tibet because their culture wouldn’t facilitate such an experience. Yet experiences happen worldwide, but not of the same universal religion. The societal influence differentiates the visions or religious experiences. Faqir Chand came to this realization when people were attributing miracles or religious experiences to him. He knew he had done nothing, yet people were worshipping him as if he’d preformed a divine action. It is the inner emotions and struggles within a person that are projected in these religious episodes. Human biology explains why people have such visions and experiences, yet society has great influence over how the visions or experiences are projected.

20. Well perhaps one of the biggest strengths of C.S. Lewis arguments come from the credibility he establishes as a converted atheist. C.S. Lewis is an author who was once an atheist who converted to Christianity sometime in his 20s. In writing Mere Christianity, Lewis makes a prominent argument that a god exists because of human morality. The idea of ethics and compassion are a sign of something greater according to C.S. Lewis. Nearly all his arguments come from analogies, which are good for opening peoples’ minds, but not at all convincing enough (at least for me) for changing a belief system. Analogies have no substance or merit to them. I think C.S. Lewis is a terrific writer and has a great way with words, but his arguments can only be so good when supporting an improvable God.

*Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis

21. Nietzsche believes that Christianity was a creation of humans for a gain in power. The morality and practices of religion are developed through human quarrels, designed by people who can benefit. Morality is not a noble gift from god, but rather a manipulation to get more power, created by humans to suppress other humans for a power shift. Nietzsche believes that through evolution humans must survive by any means necessary. The creation of supernatural gods and religions are founded in the eternal power struggle of survival. Nietzsche finds Christianity to be unnatural because it alters natural selection. Believers are weak in his mind, and society should have rooted out the weak minded in accordance with survival of the fittest. Yet religion embraces the weak minded and follower types, so instead of suppressing these weak minded people, it empowers them.

22. Freeman Dyson and Owen Gingerich both have a religious background, and they would both argue Dawkins’ atheistic view. Owen Gingerich presents the Anthropic argument of the world’s complexity as a possible sign of a creator. His argument doesn’t necessarily make god the answer, but just a reasonable possibility when compared to other scientific theories. The idea of a multiverse or multiple big bangs is currently just as improvable as a god, so why not look to god as a possible answer. Dyson and Gingerich bring up the incredible phenomenon of mutation, the process that allows evolution. Perhaps another consciousness exists at a level incomprehensible to our minds that is causing falters in DNA replication. Both Dyson and Gingerich ultimately hit at the same point, science has limitations. Science is limited by our anatomy, we will only be able to test and hypothesis to the limits of our human capabilities. Science is given too much credit at times to what is actually known. Purpose of the universe cannot really be determined by science, any claims would be metaphysical which are not any more reasonable than a religious view. Science can’t go further than what we can test, and for those mysteries science is useless. Religion, however unsubstantiated, is not limited in what it can postulate.

* http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltvdyson.htm

* http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltelevisiontest4.htm

23. My favorite expert lecture was the first one by Stephen Hawkins. I’ve always been a fan of Hawkins and have already read A Brief History of Time going into this class. I was excited when I found out that we’d learn more from Hawkins in this course. I find his explanations to be easy to comprehend, even with my limited knowledge in physics. I found all the lectures pretty interesting, but this one stood out in my mind looking back.

24. I enjoyed The Antichrist by Friedrich Nietzsche a lot, although it was a pretty slow read for me. However, my favorite read would have to be Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion. I found it very interesting. It enlightened me to a new way of thinking about religion, and specifically religious scripture. Additionally, Dawkins was a very straightforward read, a lot easier than Nietzsche.

25. Science falls short on metaphysical explanations. Science is limited to technologies and human capabilities. Additionally, science is based in our perception of reality, whether this is the correct or only reality is unsure. What science cannot explain, gives religion no more credibility. Religion is no more apt in supplying answers than any philosophical metaphysical claims. Science cannot explain why humans are on this earth. Science tackles the how humans came to be on earth rather well, but as for the why aspect to humanity, science can’t really answer. But does it really matter? I’m on earth, and clearly the answer is not imperative enough that I have the answer tattooed on my body, so perhaps it is a meaningless question.

As for the “waking” reality that was brought up in lecture. How do we know this state of consciousness is real, and not like that of a dream? Again, I say it really doesn’t matter. When you are in a vivid dream and you believe that you are in the only reality, it matters not that you are in a dream. You go about your dream life like normal. There’s nothing you can do about dreaming when you are in a vivid dream but go on as usual until you wake up. If I am in a dreamlike state right now (I’m not sleeping) then it won’t matter what I do in this life, because I’ll eventually wake up. In dreams, you can murder, steal, win the lotto, or marry celebrities but in the end, those experiences only exist in your head. Therefore, any beliefs, success, etc. won’t carry over into the next tangible reality. Instead, I’ll come up with a new way of living from one reality to the next or until I cease to be.

26. Well, I have learned quite a bit. Be it vague quantum mechanics, various theories of god, various arguments against theism, or the amount of information available online. Learning implications of things and applying things I’ve learned is always the most satisfying to me. So maybe in my next debate about theistic and scientific matters I will be more competent in arguing any side. That could probably be my favorite thing that I’ve learned.

Buddhism's Flaw

2007-05-14T11:49:00.000-07:00

I am taking a Buddhism class this semester, and for the most part I'm really enjoying it. I find the philosophies of Buddhism to be extremely interesting. However, during a lecture at one point I found a logistical error in the foundations of Buddhism. Until somebody can give me a reasonable explanation to how Buddhism can cope with the following I will have a mental asterisk associated with this religion.

The Flaw:
Buddhism is based on the principle of reincarnation. Every being is caught up in the endless cycle of rebirth, samsara. Based on karma, a being lives out its life cycle only to be reborn at a higher or lower level of being. The only way one can escape samsara is through enlightenment or nirvana.
Unlike western religions, Buddhism doesn't see time in a linear way. Instead, as I understand it, Buddhism believes that time has always existed. From time-without-beginning beings have always existed. The cycle of rebirth has always been in effect.
Given that there has been an infinite amount of time, and that we have been reborn again and again an infinite amount of lives, by mere chance (probability of large numbers) any being would have lived in perfect accordance to Buddha Nature and obtained enlightenment if it were possible to do so. With an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will happen.
Thus if reincarnation is true, it wouldn't have been in existence an infinite amount of time. Or, it is just not possible to escape reincarnation. And finally the other option, reincarnation doesn't exist. Eternal time with reincarnation and escape from samsara both cannot be true.

I have brought this flaw to my professor's attention, and he could not come up with a legitimate response. He played with this notion in his head, and eventually gave up. Buddhism has been around for centuries, and I don't believe I am the first to come across this fallacy. I would hope that such a popular religion would have a comeback to this problem, and I will continue to seek out such an answer.