Paulo Seabra

When I was a wee lad there were a couple of times when I heard a bunch of my family talking to my older cousins about them one day having kids. And my cousins all argued that not only did they not want to have kids, but they also didn't even want to settle down and live with the same person forever. They wanted to become independent, to spend their money on cool gadgets, to travel to exotic places, and to freely date many people without having to commit to a single one. It makes a whole lot of sense, it's something very simple and very appealing. After all, from a minimalistic and even stoic point of view, the fewer responsibilities you have in your life, the easier your life becomes. If we're talking about secondary things, as opposed to the very basic needs like food and shelter, the logic becomes that the best way to avoid mental distress about anything is to simply not have that thing in your life. It rather reminds me of an episode of Malcolm in the Middle when Lois, ...

Maybe things really were like that back in the eighties, I dunno, I wasn't there, but if this movie is anything to go by, I'm glad I wasn't... But maybe I should start off by mentioning some of the positive aspects of this movie though, such as its classic style, what with everyone's specific and characteristic wardrobe, as well as the classic cars they drive, the diners they go to, the detailed decoration in their rooms, and so on. Also, the soundtrack is amazing, featuring Led Zeppelin's Kashmir and Jackson Browne's Somebody's Baby, a great catchy song although its lyrics are made downright surreal due to the movie's story. And I might have to say story because I hesitate to say the movie has a message. I mean, every movie has some kind of message, it's just that in movies like this one that message may be somewhat indirect or even complete trash. Regardless of the original artist's intent, the truth of the matter is that a movie, especially ...

Colloquially speaking, the word “natural” is quite closely tied in with the word “good” to the point of the two almost being considered synonyms. Time and time again we find all sorts of products being advertised with aesthetic appeals to nature, what with constantly showing beautiful fields, flowing rivers, rocky mountains under an orange sunset, or even wild animals depicted in an almost spiritual sense. Then if you slap a sticker with the words “natural” or “organic” to pretty much any product you can count on someone out there buying it because they automatically think it's healthy for them or, for lack of a better word, good. Now let's say, for the sake of argument, that this is all correct, especially because, intuitively, it kinda seems to be. It's wholly preferable to look at pretty natural landscapes that are often presented to us in beautiful and almost dreamlike ways, as opposed to ugly urban sights, always gray and dull, and it appears to be way healthier to con...

I've been looking into veganism a lot lately, and though I remain unconvinced, I still find myself fascinated by it for one simple reason – the momentum it appears to be gaining within atheist circles, that is to say, it appears to be overwhelmingly seen as the next logical step in morality, even though among those same people, morality isn't defended as being objective. That is not to fall into the extremes that atheist or otherwise secular views of morality are therefore non-existent, or that atheists are categorically evil, but secular thinking does seem to presuppose a different paradigm of morality because under naturalistic or materialistic worldviews it's very difficult, or even impossible, to find a solid basis for it. Thus morality is more or less seen as being derived from any basic statements we can make about quality of life, namely the maximization of pleasure and minimization of suffering, preferably wherever it is found. In a way it makes a lot of sense becau...

In sequence with two other essays I've written, both of them surrounding the issue of individual responsibility within secular morality, one alluding to ideas such as atheists being delusional about morality, and the other being one in which I vented about the problems of secular humanism, I began to realize why the Joker is considered one of the best characters ever created, and one that immediately appeals to all of us, even across various mediums and interpretations. I have also previously written about Joaquin Phoenix's Joker, which I could use to make my point, but Heath Ledger's version fits a bit better here, and even still, I could instead mention the countless individuals in history who have taken on the Joker's philosophy, whether they realized it or not. But just what is that philosophy? It's simply to find your own meaning in life and to enjoy it to the fullest before you inevitably succumb to death, after which you will cease to exist. In other words...

This is something new I've been noticing... It might not be something that is likely to apply to a modern atheist with a fairly solid philosophical background, that is to say, it's not likely to apply to any kind of influential person who just so happens to not believe in God and to therefore build his or her work on that claim, or lack thereof if you will, although I'd have to put a little pin on that because I'm inclined to believe that some influential atheists were and are indeed delusional about morality, perhaps Christopher Hitchens being number one and maybe Ricky Gervais being number two. However, and trying to sort of avoid that confrontation, at least for now, I'm at this present time more interested in talking a little bit about the logic and general argumentation deployed by the everyday atheists who will more or less claim that they don't need a god telling them what's right and wrong, and that whoever does need it is stupid or even evil at hea...