Out of respect...

My Review of BRINLEY PENNY

2011-03-23T16:51:00.001-04:00

Originally submitted at Johnston & Murphy

Combining classic styling with new advanced construction, our improved Signature line offers premium quality, increased flexibility and cushioning in a substantially lighter-weight design. Fine European calfskin provides a premium fit and feel. Full sheepskin lining and molded EVA and multi-layered...

Quality footwear

By DUBsays from Columbus, OH on 3/23/2011

Sizing: Feels true to size

Width: Feels true to width

Pros: Durable, Comfortable, Stylish

Cons: Need Break In

Best Uses: Wear To Work

Describe Yourself: Style Driven, Comfort Driven

My work requires that I be on my feet for extended periods of time. Aching feet at the end of the night had driven me to find a solution. I'd tried numerous inserts over the years but *knew* that I needed to try a good, quality pair of shoes. Research lead me to try Johnston & Murphy.

I was highly impressed with the material and build of the shoe, and the salesman's knowledge helped ease my price-driven anxiety about the purchase.

After the first day I honestly started to have some buyer's remorse. The shoes weren't quite as comfy as they had been in the store. But the salesman explained the breaking in process to me so I decided to be patient. It paid off. By the end of the week I realized I was no longer uncomfortable. Without inserts of any kind. The shoes fit well and feel great. Best of all? They are holding up spectacularly.

It is recommended that you have two pair to alternate, storing the off pair with good, cedar shoetrees and maintaining a polishing routine. J&M offers quality products for this maintenance and the salesman was also very helpful in clearly and fully explaining the process.

Overall I am quite satisfied with my purchase and experience, and I plan to buy a second pair soon.

(legalese)

Testing mobile Upload...

2009-08-21T19:05:00.002-04:00

On Kooks and Libertarians...

2009-08-18T22:15:00.005-04:00

Just in time for my previous post, we have more gun-toting dumbasses showing up to Obama events.

One particular cowboy receives special notice. Partly because he is Black, and partly because he chose to brandish two loaded firearms: a Glock 17 at his hip and an AR-15 strapped to his back. Now, admittedly, when I first saw this on the news, I couldn't hear the accompanying audio and didn't know whether he was just another nut case anti-Obama kook, or a somewhat overzealous Obama supporter attempting to make a point.

Turns out he's a Libertarian. And, oh, how I love me some Libertarians.

In a Youtube video they show him "reasoning" with other event attendees. In one of his early rants, he's accusing the government of thievery, making brilliant analogies through hypothetical sarcasm such as "Oh, I want education and I'm just going to take it from you", apparently unaware that public education already exists through taxation. Should I presume he has something against education? Or those paved roads he's walking around on? Or those publicly-funded police officers who are present protecting his right to open-carry, which was granted him by government officials who are also paid with tax money? Or the military industrial complex which provided the R&D that lead to the design of his beloved guns? Or the government-ran regulating bodies that ensured that the garments he's wearing were safe for consumption and presented him no eminent danger of bursting into flames, or that his motorcycle was safe for transportation, or that the money he used to pay for either held any value? He ends this particular tirade with "Taxation is theft...all taxation".

Now, while we're discussing theft, perhaps he's unaware that the capitalistic system that he depends on to earn the money he used to purchase those firearms is based upon theft in the form of profiting off of other's labor. Or that the very land he standing on was stolen, or that it's highly likely that the fact he's even standing there is due to the theft of his ancestors. I'll assume he's oblivious to the fact that he'd probably find it quite difficult to gather enough resources to pay for those weapons or that spiffy shirt and tie if, instead of living in a cooperative society of 312+ million people, he was a loner scrapping out an existence in the wilderness all by himself. Perhaps he would barter off some livestock or other fruits of his labor to the local gunsmith in return for a sleek semi-automatic military-style assault rifle, but, OOPS!, if it wasn't for a division of labor and the manual drudgery of other people in society, there would be no food surpluses to enable the idle time utilized to developing and manufacturing such material possessions.

He then parrots the insane and willfully deluded thought process that the world would be a safer place if everyone carried firearms. I'm sure he doesn't really mean "everybody"; that he has definite restrictions in mind. Now, I won't bother to attempt a debate about firearms, pro or con, but if anyone seriously thinks you can take a crowd full of people who honestly believe public option health care is socialism, government death panels will euthanize grandma, and Obama is comparable to Hitler, mix in some guns, and the end result will be an increase in safety...well, they have quite frankly lost their fucking mind.

He also thinks it would be "insane" NOT to constantly be armed, citing the "dangerous world" we live in as rationalization. Here's where I could—and probably should—cite a multitude of sources showing how ridiculous the "dangerous world" fairy tale is in our particular society, with a dash of stats showing that the one thing that actually is dangerous about our society versus comparable others is the prevalence of, what else, guns. But again, I won't. I'll just ask him when was the last time he had to fend off roves of raping and pillaging lunatic thugs.

At one point (3:13 into this video) he utters a rational thought and illuminates that merely having melanized skin tends to make people nervous. Although his tense ("at one time" and "made") is way off, I'm sure there's a reason he chose to dress in the manner he did. I'm somehow sure that, deep down, he realizes that people like our government officials—who are paid by taxes—and fellow tax-paying citizens—whom he doesn't feel any allegiance to in the form of assistance—made it possible for him to even be considered a full five-fifths human guaranteed the rights by our Constitution that he is speaking so in favor of. All while he hints at the better times of wise men when that Constitution was written: times when he would have most definitely had a very, very different perspective on things.

Welcome to Bizarro World...

2009-08-16T18:05:00.006-04:00

Quick hypothetical situation:

It's 2007. A Muslim (or Black or Latino man) comes to an event at which President Bush is speaking and stands along the route the President is expected to travel. He holds a sign which endorses violence against political leaders. On his thigh is a holstered firearm. What happens?

If you think for one second that the end result mimics what happened to William Kostric, the white man who did this Tuesday, you're simply delusional.

Now the reality. 2008: Mr. Kostric attended a New Hampshire event at which President Obama was speaking, openly displaying his loaded firearm whilst holding a sign that read "It's time to water the Tree of Liberty" (a reference to the Jefferson quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"...and I sincerely doubt Mr. Kostric considers President Obama the patriot in this equation).

Was he arrested, charged, prosecuted, imprisoned? None of the above. From footage and reports it's unclear whether or not he was even questioned or observed/followed.

He states that a firearm is a defensive tool (an odd belief in a country with nearly 10,000 homicides by firearm per year). He states that he feels the event would have been safer if everybody attending had a gun. This poppycock is too irrational to event attempt rebuttal.

Now, just in case one think me a tad hyperbolic, peaceful anti-Bush protesters were arrested in Tampa Bay, NYC, Crawford,TX, Charleston, WV, and Kennebunkport, ME (just from a quick Google search). Protestors were also arrested at the 2008 RNC.

And just in case I'm accused of playing the dreaded race card, I'll provide a reminder that although the avowed white supremacists who were captured with rifles in a plot to assassinate then Senator Obama at the 2008 DNC were arrested, no charges were brought against them. Although the very same prosecutor charged an inmate—who just happened to be black—who had mailed a threatening letter containing baby powder to John McCain, stating "we won't stand for threats of this kind in Colorado". Because we all know how much more threatening a black man who is locked down at a penitentiary is than a car full of Neo-Nazi tweakers with rifles roaming about free in public.

There are rather blatant double standards at play here. It sorta reminds me how a Black Harvard professor can be (falsely) arrested for "disturbing the peace" in his own home, while angry white mobs can violently attack a man at a townhall meeting in Florida with no fear of recourse from law enforcement officials. But it's probably just me and my crazy biases overreacting again.

"I Am A Conservative American Shitheel"

2009-08-16T13:04:00.003-04:00

A profound Whole Foods forum post by MB shopper, originally attributed to a Something Awful forum poster called randomnoise (who claims no previous knowledge of "Joe Average Conservative").

Replying to:

"You're an ignoramus. Look at the facts. Anything the government has involved itself in haS becomes less efficient and more expensive. That's not partisan it's reality. The CBO has twice now substantiated that this trend will only continue if the government gets involved. We need to address the cost of health care but the gov. is not the solution."—Posted by Stump

...

"Sigh.

Once again, for the benefit of the government-can't-get-anything-right flock:

I AM AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE SHITHEEL

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

----

And apparently, the Global Positioning Satellite system is POS, right?

The only reason government doesn't work is because conservative Republican administrations defunded and/or patronage staffed them with people with ties to special business interests: to wit the last FDA, Dept of Interior and Agriculture under Bush. No one seems to have a problem with pumping over $500Bil to the Defense Department which last I hear is a socialized entity."

The Racial Undercurrent in the Health Care Reform Brouhaha...

2009-08-15T18:52:00.006-04:00

It's so painfully obvious. Birthers. Teabaggers. The sudden flip in the Republican Party's key talking points, from same-sex marriage and abortion to Affirmative Action and gun control (a not so subliminal play to age-old race panic about black crime perpetrated against white chastity). Swelling membership of white-supremacist ranks, cries of "reverse-discrimination and Obama's alleged racism and comparisons to Hitler. They try to play it off as if it's not racism. Nowhere remotely near racism—after all, how can we be racist if we have a Black President? Indeed, they try to convince us that it's Socialism they're against (though the American tradition of anti-Socialism is itself spurned on by xenophobia). Never mind those signs comparing Obama to a monkey, or outright calling him "nigger". Forget that Beck is claiming Obama's attempt at reform is all about reparations. Nope, nothing at all to do with race here, move along, please.

I voice it to my immediate associates every time I see it dripping from the foaming mouths of the protesters in their worked up panics. But I don't see it addressed. Well, at least not with any degree of mainstream exposure, which I'm admittedly not too shocked over. Thus I was quite pleased to see NPR cover it recently.

Professor Harris-Lacewell hits the nail squarely on the head. "I want my America back" is coded language with racist undertones. Which America is it, exactly, that they want back? One with legislated segregation? One with rampant, overt institutionalized racism and sexism? What precisely do we need to repeal to get back to these beautiful glory days? Welfare? Social Security? Medicare? A national highway system? Child labor laws? Unions? Women's suffrage? Manumission? Whose America is it we so desperately need to return to? Exactly which freedoms have been so rampantly eroded, other than the freedom to openly discriminate and oppress entire chunks of the population with no regard to repercussion? The attrition of disparate privilege is not a loss of rights. Equality for all is not implicit with oppression of others.

"Individual responsibility" is classic political white supremacist lingo that is almost exclusively applied to those very same individuals they refuse to actually view as individuals, instead of representative embodiments of an entire population group and supposed "cultural pathology". When is this phrase injected into public discourse other than conversations on welfare, criminal punishment, or any other social issue which is immediately identified with black people in the eyes of the majority?

Who are they talking about when they say "real Americans"? Natives?

Race is most definitely an underlying factor, and anyone who thinks the protest against reform would be equally as rowdy if proposed by a white President is simply disingenuous.

But enough with vain attempts at reason or logic. At times we can just apply simple measures and see what conclusions can be drawn. So, I propose a quick test: Simply ask yourself, how many minorities are so up in arms about Health Care reform? I pretty much see only white faces protesting. Not too many black or brown faces in the affray (unless they're having their Rosa Parks posters ripped out of their hands). Isn't that odd? Yes, quite peculiar indeed.

Update: Tim Wise elucidates the issue in his article Racism, Right-Wing Rage and the Politics of White Nostalgia, which he penned after his CNN appearance discussing this matter:

Damn Liberals...

2009-08-13T19:46:00.001-04:00

A favorite of mine, which I feel needs reiterated:

"A Day in the Life of Joe Average Conservative

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards (*1).

With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised (*2).

All but $10 of his medications is paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too (*3).

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry (*4).

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained (*5).

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air (*6).

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his workday. He has a good job (*7) with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression(*8).

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage (*9!) and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads (*10).

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension(*11) because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: 'We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.'"

======================

Update:

The following annotations provided:

Sadly, the most striking thing about rereading this is the fact that it is now outdated. The ascendancy of the Selfish Right has undermined or made mockery of so many of the institutions described it is heartbreaking.

The asterisks indicate where these protections have been either seriously eroded or outright destroyed by RW governance, through lax enforcement or repeal:

1. "Healthy Forests", mountaintop removal

2. FDA medicine/ food contamination scandals

3. Employers dropping health care en masse

4. See #2

5. See #2

6. Pollution controls on all fronts weakened over last decade

7. Jobs lost = about 6-7 million over last 18 months

8. Current system no longer protects from banksters

9. Fannie Mae mortgage. LOL

10. That car better be safe, the roads and bridges sure aren't!

11. Union pensions vs polar bears. Who faces quicker extinction?".

Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater...

2009-07-28T01:25:00.004-04:00

Most of us on Facebook have probably seen the little poll about Universal Healthcare, which asks "Are you in favor of a Government run healthcare system?"

Aside from finding it blatantly misleading (using an image of Obama, who doesn't promote anything near a universal healthcare system), I rather enjoy this poll. Not solely because I'm a HUGE advocate of such a plan, but because it gives me a glimpse into other people's perspectives, and I'm a student of human behavior.

Case in point, someone on my friends list voted "No" and left the following comment:

"I don't think my tax $ should pay for someones 'choice' to kill a baby!!"

Now, I obviously respect her (one of the kindest people I've ever met), or she wouldn't be on my friends list...but I'm going to use this as a case point to make a couple of observations.

She has every right to be concerned about what her tax money pays for. I don't want my tax dollars paying for religious schools, supporting faith-based initiatives and the batshit insane bigots that run them, buying bombs to kill brown people for oil in a religious crusade, paying the salaries of racist officials, creating an oppressively brutal police force, or any other myriad elements of our reality. But I'm only one 320 millionth—0.000000003125%— of the population, and I realize how democracy works (or is supposed to).

But the main problem here seems to be the typical overzealousness and narrow-mindedness mixed with ignorance of the facts in the face of intentional misrepresentation. And I honestly mean nothing negative in that statement.

First, some of the facts as reported here:

"Abortion is not mentioned in the 1,018-page bill..."

"The Supreme Court has established a woman's right to abortion, but federal law prohibits government funds from being used to pay for the procedure in most cases. However, nearly 90 percent of employer-based private insurance plans routinely cover abortion."

OK. Pretty cut and dry.

Second, let's forget almost the entirety of my personal belief system, and attempt to deal with this just on the basis of these and a few other established facts (namely 1) there are a shitload of uninsured Americans, and 2) some pretty serious problems come along with being uninsured or not sufficiently insured in a society that has ridiculous healthcare costs).

So, she's saying that 46 MILLION uninsured Americans essentially should continue to suffer because the government MIGHT use tax dollars to fund abortions, most likely only in the event that it saves the mother's life (again, not even a definite option, but, if it is an option, a rarely used one)?

But in the meanwhile, the current private system covers almost all abortions, AND screws over 46 million American men, women (and their fetuses), and children. Not to mention, the dollars YOU pay into YOUR premiums are what the insurance companies use to pay for those abortions (!). So, in the current, private system you already ARE paying for abortions. For less debatable reasons. And there are still 46 MILLION people going without any health care or all, or substandard health care.

So, in a nutshell, the reasoning is "I don't want to help my fellow humans because it might lead to significantly lower levels of something that is already happening". I must say that doesn't make much sense at all.

It is worsened by the fact that the assumed reasoning is based on a religious affiliation with a faith that is supposedly defined by merciful dedication, sacrifice, and non-judgmental service to one's fellow humans according to the example set by a God/prophet that never once mentioned abortion but did prop up the poor, condemn the rich, and stress egalitarianism and beneficence.

Correction, we didn't evolve from monkeys...

2009-07-06T08:08:00.003-04:00

We are monkeys.

Well, we're still of the taxonomic parvorder Catarrhini. I suppose it's still more "accurate" to say we're apes, being of the superfamily Hominoidea, but the point remains.

This isn't about opinion or feelings. We're primates, plain and simple. This proves to be a very difficult FACT for some people to accept, and this is mainly due to a certain arrogance: people find it "dehumanizing" and somehow degrading to think of themselves as animals. This, of course, is ridiculous. These are technical terms. If you're a living, locomotive organism that digests other living organisms to survive, well, guess what? You're an animal. Lose the self-righteous indignation.

Okay, perhaps I simplified things with motile and heterotrophic. As AronRa puts it in his excellent video on cladistic phylogenetics, you ARE a primate as long as you are a:

"gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle."

If for any reason you feel the above passage doesn't describe you...

...well, I don't know what to say to that. Just watch out for those government agents, and good luck phoning home.

Mothers' Day Bible Study:

2009-05-10T13:53:00.003-04:00

"And Jesus said to her, 'O woman [Mary], what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.'" — John 2:4

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him...He replied to him, 'Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?'" — Matthew 12:46-48

Jesus loved his mama. He was sooooo respectful. But let's not forget his whole view on "family values":

"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."— Luke 14:26

"For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" — Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 12:51-53

And, of course, nothing drives it home as well as internal contradictions:

"For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.'" — Matt. 15:4

Where's that crackpot James Dobson at?

My Other Side of the Fence...

2009-05-09T22:53:00.002-04:00

Forbes let's us in on the Happiest Places on Earth.

No surprise at all that they're also ranked quite low in religiosity. It's a documented fact that the less religious nations rank higher in categories indicative of human happiness.

Bible Study: Geneis 32:23-34

2009-05-01T19:03:00.005-04:00

"After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, 'Let me go, for it is daybreak.'

But Jacob replied, 'I will not let you go unless you bless me.'

The man asked him, 'What is your name?'

'Jacob,' he answered.

Then the man said, 'Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.'

Jacob said, 'Please tell me your name.'

But he replied, 'Why do you ask my name?' Then he blessed him there.

So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, 'It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.'

The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob's hip was touched near the tendon." — Genesis 32:23-34

Jacob (a human, by the way) wrestles with God (you know, the ALL-POWERFUL Creator of the Universe), and God (who is Omnipotent AND Omniscient) has to pretty much beg Jacob to let him go. So Jacob makes a demand. Of GOD. And gets what he asks for.

I have to wonder...how would God do against, say, Randy Couture? I mean, sure, God's had 3,000 years or so to practice, but just think of the reward. Jacob's family became the most favoritest of ALL the people on Earth...EVER!! OK, so he essentially won a chunk of otherwise worthless land that has been the center of endless dissonance for eons, and those same people—although "God's chosen"—are going to burn in eternal hellfire when God's son comes back. But still, the prize has got to be pretty damn fabulous.

Bible Study: Judges 1:19

2009-04-29T17:18:00.005-04:00

"The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." — Judges 1:19

So, Judah had God on his side, which is pretty kick-ass, so he and his buddies do a lot of ass kicking. With the omnipotent, omniscient creator on their side, they were just whoopin' Canaanite and Perizzite tail. They killed 10,000 in Bezek alone, burnt Jerusalem, and cut off Adonibezek's thumbs and big-toes. NOBODY was left standing in their path...

...until they got to the valley. Because, after all, those people had iron chariots for, uh...God's sake.

Yeah. The most powerful entity in the universe can't fuck with iron chariots. Even though he made iron. And chariots. Flooding the planet? No problem. Pillars of fire and gaping holes in the earth? Easy. I mean, you'd think he could at least kill the horses, leaving the people trying to kick-push the chariots Flintstone or skateboard style. But no. God turns completely flaccid at the sight of iron chariots. Kinda like me and Star Jones.

I still think I could whoop Star's ass, though, and I can't even open those windows in the sky to let it rain.

But at least he gave them fair warning:

"but the forested hill country as well. Clear it, and its farthest limits will be yours; though the Canaanites have iron chariots and though they are strong, you can drive them out." — Joshua 17:18

Or that could just be one of those pesky contradictions. Or God lying. Or changing His omniscient mind. Or just the ancient ramblings of a superstitious Bronze-Age goat herder.

Well, waddaya know?...

2009-04-29T02:41:00.002-04:00

Salon.com posted an article that says the most by having to say anything at all. Newsflash: America is not a Christian nation!!

Could go MUCH more in depth, and provide LOADS more FACT, but it does nicely. But, then again, how can you mess up the truth?

Also in news, scientists and medical professionals suggest heavy intake of oxygen may be beneficial.

Tim Minchin's "Storm"

2009-04-28T21:37:00.002-04:00

"Science adjusts its views, based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."

The Unconditional Love of Reality

2009-04-28T21:36:00.000-04:00

A very rare and lovely piece of art by Dale McGowan:

A Christian friend once asked me what it is about religion that most irritates me. It was big of her to ask, and I did my best to answer. I said something about religion so often actively standing in the way of things that are important to me — knowledge of human origins, for example, important medical advances, effective contraception, women’s rights…the simple ability to think without fear. I gave a pragmatic answer — and the wrong one.

Not that those things aren’t important. They’re all crowded up near the top of my list of motivators. But in the years since I gave that answer, I’ve realized there’s something much deeper, much more fundamentally galling and outrageous that religion too often represents for me — something that constitutes one of the main reasons I hope my kids remain unseduced by any brand of theism that endorses it.

What I want them to reject, most of all, is the conditional love of reality.

I’ve talked to countless Christians about their religious faith over the years. I have often been moved and challenged by what their expressed faith has done for them. But the doctrine of conditional love of reality simply mystifies, offends, and frankly infuriates me.

Conditional love is at play whenever a healthy, well-fed, well-educated person looks me in the eye and says, Without God, life would be hopeless, pointless, devoid of meaning and beauty. Conditional love is present whenever a believer expresses “sadness” for me or my kids, or wonders how on Earth any given nonbeliever drags herself through the bothersome task of existing.

Whenever I hear someone say, “I am happy because…” or “Life is only bearable if…”, I want to take a white riding glove, strike them across the face, and challenge them to a duel in the name of reality.

The universe is an astonishing, thrilling place to be. There’s no adequate way to express the good fortune of being conscious, even for a brief moment, in the midst of it. My amazement at the universe and gratitude for being awake in it is unconditional. I’m thrilled if there is a god, and I’m thrilled if there isn’t.

Unconscious nonexistence is our natural condition. Through most of the history of the universe, that’s where we’ll be. THIS is the freak moment, right now, the moment you’d remember for the next several billion years — if you could. You’re a bunch of very lucky stuff, and so am I. That we each get to live at all is so mind-blowingly improbable that we should never stop laughing and dancing and singing about it.

Richard Dawkins expressed this gorgeously in my favorite passage from my favorite of his books, Unweaving the Rainbow:

After sleeping through a hundred million centuries, we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.

I want my kids to feel that same unconditional love of being alive, conscious, and wondering. Like the passionate love of anything, an unconditional love of reality breeds a voracious hunger to experience it directly, to embrace it, whatever form it may take. Children with that exciting combination of love and hunger will not stand for anything that gets in the way of that clarity. If religious ideas seem to illuminate reality, kids with that combination will embrace those ideas. If instead such ideas seem to obscure reality, kids with that love and hunger will bat the damn things aside.

And when people ask, as they often do, whether I will be “okay with it” if my kids eventually choose a religious identity, my glib answer is “99 and three-quarters percent guaranteed!” That unlikely 1/4 percent covers the scenario in which they come home from college one day with the news that they’ve embraced a worldview that says they are wretched sinners in need of continual forgiveness, that hatred pleases God, that reason is the tool of Satan, and/or that life without X is an intolerable drag — and that they’d be raising my grandkids to see the world through the same hateful, fearful lens.

Woohoo! is not, I’m afraid, quite a manageable response for me in that scenario. Yes, it would be their decision, yes, I would still love their socks off — and no, I wouldn’t be “okay with it.” More than anything, I’d weep for the loss of their unconditional joie de vivre.

But since we’re raising them to be thoughtful, ethical, and unconditionally smitten with their own conscious existence, I’ll bet you a dollar that whatever worldview they ultimately align themselves with — religious or otherwise — will be a thoughtful, ethical, and unconditionally joyful one. Check back with me in 20 years, and for the fastest possible service, please form a line on the left and have your dollars ready.

Bible Study: II Kings 2:23-24

2009-04-28T20:43:00.001-04:00

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. 'Go on up, you baldhead!' they said. 'Go on up, you baldhead!' He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths." — II Kings 2:23-24

42 children attacked and killed by bears.

For calling a man "bald".

God is good.

Upon having this verse brought to his attention, my cousin voiced that his position on Christianity might be worthy of reconsideration if it allows one the ability to have bears maul all who harass you. I do suppose that one of the fringe benefits of being JEWISH appears to be summoning "Power of Bear" whenever necessary. Of course you lose Resistance to Iron Chariot, but it's a fairly even trade off. Especially considering you also get the ability to live in fish bellies, Water Control, complete dominion over women, Pillar of Fire, and Gaping Hole in Earth. You do lose all sense of direction and occasionally spend a few decades wandering around aimlessly, but all in all it's one hell of a deal.

If you like having to constantly fawn over a fiercely jealous god who has a obsessive fascination with foreskins, menses, and burning meat, that is.

I Told Y'all I Love This Woman...

2009-04-28T19:42:00.000-04:00

Exactly how out of touch with reality are people who think wearing sleeves is the most important thing she can do?

While to many there is nothing Michelle Obama can do right, to many, many more she changes lives.

Bible Study: Ezekiel 23:19-20

2009-04-28T00:51:00.000-04:00

"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." — Ezekiel 23:19-20

Yes, this means exactly what you think it does.

I've often pondered the potential influence of this verse on Afrocentrists and their "Egyptians were black" claims, but quickly realized the negative effects it would have on the "Jesus was black" claim.

I mean, ya gotta pick which one "uplifts" your ego more: you have a HUGE penis or God looks like you?

Tough choice.

Did Sartre Write for Cracked Magazine?

2009-04-27T21:31:00.001-04:00

This is phenomenal. I've spent hours on Cracked.com wading through complete nonsense only to stumble upon this for enlightenment.

(But this was pretty damn cool, too.)

Well, At Least It's For a Good Cause...

2009-04-27T17:14:00.002-04:00

Proceeds will go to 'Faith based' teaching in public school.

That's FAITH-BASED Teaching. In PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

I see "In God We Trust" plates from Indiana almost daily, but this takes the cake.

The only thing more amazing than the ease at which they continually violate the Constitution is the complete lack of concern from the public.

Oh, yeah: "faith-based teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOL"!!

Can I get one with Frigga chucking a sprigg of mistletoe at Baldur? Or maybe Minerva springing forth from the head of Jupiter? Xenu hydrogen-bombing the volcanoes?

No? Well, then how about the signing of the Constitution?

Bible Study...

2009-04-26T14:40:00.003-04:00

Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up—2 Kings 15:16

Ripping open pregnant womens' bellies? In the Bible. Condemning slavery? Not in the Bible.

Oh, and what was that about God's love for little uinborn fetuses?

Bible Study: 2 Kings 15:16

2009-04-26T14:40:00.001-04:00

"At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women." — 2 Kings 15:16

Ripping open pregnant womens' bellies? In the Bible. Condemning slavery? Not in the Bible. It's the Good Book.

Oh, and God loves little unborn babies more than actual people and will send you to hell forever if you get an abortion.

What Does the Bible Say About Abortion?

2009-04-26T14:31:00.000-04:00

I could have very well left this post absolutely blank, but let's give an FFRF classic:

*Thought Sunday would be a good day to start a little bible study. Lucky it's not the real Sabbath, or I could be stoned to death for typing.*

What Does The Bible Say About Abortion?

Absolutely nothing! The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible!

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

When Does Life Begin?

According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

Desperate for a biblical basis for their beliefs, some antiabortionists cite obscure passages, usually metaphors or poetic phrasing, such as: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5 This is sexist, but does nothing other than to invoke original sin. It says nothing about abortion.

The Commandments, Moses, Jesus and Paul ignored every chance to condemn abortion. If abortion was an important concern, why didn't the bible say so?

Thou Shalt Not Kill?

Many antiabortionists quote the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13) as evidence that the bible is antiabortion. They fail to investigate the bible's definition of life (breath) or its deafening silence on abortion. Moreover, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25, directly following the Ten Commandments, makes it clear that an embryo or fetus is not a human being.

An honest reader must admit that the bible contradicts itself. "Thou shalt not kill" did not apply to many living, breathing human beings, including children, who are routinely massacred in the bible. The Mosaic law orders "Thou shalt kill" people for committing such "crimes" as cursing one's father or mother (Ex. 21:17), for being a "stubborn son" (Deut. 21:18-21), for being a homosexual (Lev. 20:13), or even for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-35)! Far from protecting the sanctity of life, the bible promotes capital punishment for conduct which no civilized person or nation would regard as criminal.

Mass killings were routinely ordered, committed or approved by the God of the bible. One typical example is Numbers 25:4-9, when the Lord casually orders Moses to massacre 24,000 Israelites: "Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun." Clearly, the bible is not pro-life!

Most scholars and translators agree that the injunction against killing forbade only the murder of (already born) Hebrews. It was open season on everyone else, including children, pregnant women and newborn babies.

Does God Kill Babies?

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."--Psalm 137:9

The bible is not pro-child. Why did God set a bear upon 42 children just for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Far from demonstrating a "pro-life" attitude, the bible decimates innocent babies and pregnant women in passage after gory passage, starting with the flood and the wanton destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, progressing to the murder of the firstborn child of every household in Egypt (Ex. 12:29), and the New Testament threats of annihilation.

Space permits only a small sampling of biblical commandments or threats to kill children:

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Then there are the dire warnings of Jesus in the New Testament:

"For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."--Luke 23:29

The teachings and contradictions of the bible show that antiabortionists do not have a "scriptural base" for their claim that their deity is "pro-life." Spontaneous abortions occur far more often than medical abortions. Gynecology textbooks conservatively cite a 15% miscarriage rate, with one medical study finding a spontaneous abortion rate of almost 90% in very early pregnancy. That would make a deity in charge of nature the greatest abortionist in history!

Are Bible Teachings Kind to Women?

The bible is neither antiabortion nor pro-life, but does provide a biblical basis for the real motivation behind the antiabortion religious crusade: hatred of women. The bible is anti-woman, blaming women for sin, demanding subservience, mandating a slave/master relationship to men, and demonstrating contempt and lack of compassion:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."--Genesis 3:16

What self-respecting woman today would submit willingly to such tyranny?

The antiabortion position does not demonstrate love for humanity, or compassion for real human beings. Worldwatch Institute statistics show that 50% of abortions worldwide are illegal, and that at least 200,000 women die every year--and thousands more are hurt and maimed--from illegal or self-induced abortions. Unwanted pregnancies and complications from multiple pregnancies are a leading killer of women. Why do antiabortionists want North American women to join these ghastly mortality statistics? Every day around the world more than 40,000 people, mostly children, die from starvation or malnutrition. We must protect and cherish the right to life of the already-born.

Do Churches Support Abortion Rights?

Numerous Christian denominations and religious groups agree that the bible does not condemn abortion and that abortion should continue to be legal. These include:

American Baptist Churches-USA
American Ethical Union
American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee
American Jewish Congress
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Episcopal Church
Lutheran Women's Caucus
Moravian Church in America-Northern Province
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church
United Synagogue of America
Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren
YWCA
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Catholics for Free Choice
Evangelicals for Choice

Belief that "a human being exists at conception" is a matter of faith, not fact. Legislating antiabortion faith would be as immoral and unAmerican as passing a law that all citizens must attend Catholic mass!

The bible does not condemn abortion; but even if it did, we live under a secular constitution, not in a theocracy. The separation of church and state, the right to privacy, and women's rights all demand freedom of choice.

-------------------------------------------------------------...

Nontract No. 7. © 2007 Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., PO Box 750, Madison WI 53701. This nontract may also be purchased here.

You may email this page, but please do not distribute printed copies of this document in this form.

For your convenience, FFRF publishes these nontracts in a format which is small, attractive, easy-to-read, and easy-to-carry. Nontracts are available in packs of 12, or in bulk. There is also a "mixed" sample back of all 13 FFRF nontracts. Please take advantage of these prices, which simply cover FFRF's costs in printing, postage, & handling.

Freedom From Religion Foundation • PO Box 750 • Madison, WI 53701 • (608) 256-8900 • contact us
© Freedom From Religion Foundation

When Zombies Attack...

2009-04-20T13:28:00.002-04:00

Top Five Things to Have:

1) Toilet paper. Because, let's be real, zombies just attacked, and you shit yourself.

2) An Ann Coulter book. Everyone knows zombies just want brains, and well, if you have a book by Ann Coulter they'll just assume they won't find any and keep moving.

3) But in the case they don't, having the actual Ann Coulter around can't hurt. Her uncanny resemblance to a Thiller extra might help you blend in.

4) Air freshener. You're surrounded by rotting flesh (and Ann Coulter's junkbox), and that's got to smell really, really bad. Plus, you just shit yourself.

5) Sniper rifle. Because sooner or later Ann's going to say something extremely stupid.

Funny how it seems so silly to us...

2009-04-13T15:37:00.001-04:00

Where? When? Hunh?

2009-04-11T18:49:00.000-04:00

Quite wonderful source of information for any interested in a visual representation of World History.

Henceforth I Am Rangachari Chanathara Nguyen Thu Oanh Anantharaman Subbaraman Chakrabongse Pibulsonggram

2009-04-11T15:12:00.000-04:00

The lovely Ms. Betty Brown—Republican State Rep from, of all places, Texas—seems to think Asian-Americans should change their names. To make it easier for us regular Americans to deal with.

Yeah.

Self-righteous Indignation...

2009-04-10T21:08:00.000-04:00

There is a very popular moral system, that teaches both culpability and forgiveness via proxy. Indirect guilt and substitutional justice.

It teaches that if somebody you’ve never met does something bad thousands of years before you are born, you are personally responsible for it and will be severely punished.

It teaches that if somebody commits a heinous act against you, they’ve already been forgiven by someone else, who wasn’t offended, or remotely directly--or even indirectly--affected by it.

It teaches that if your neighbors great-great-great-great grandfather stole something, you can go to jail for it.

It teaches that if somebody rapes and murders your children, somebody else can go to jail for it as surrogate justice. And you should thank them for doing so.

It teaches that you must forgive, or be eternally punished.

It teaches that you can do pretty much whatever you want, as nefarious and heinous as possible, but it’s OK if you don’t think too much or question what someone else says despite a complete lack of evidence.

It teaches that you can be a model citizen who is altruistic, empathetic, benevolent, eleemosynary, and compassionate, but be the worst kind of criminal miscreant, deserving of the ultimate punishment and torture if you use your mind and think for yourself.

It is the de facto prerequisite for being a considered a decent, moral human being in our society.

And you don’t have to believe it. You don’t have to follow it. You don’t have to exemplify it. All you have to do is claim you support it, and you will be instantaneously considered a better person.

Stop Asking Me Why I Find Religion Deplorable...

2009-04-10T18:57:00.000-04:00

11-year old boy hangs himself due to taunts about his suspected sexuality.

Is it worth it because you think there's an invisible sky faerie that sees EVERYTHING, finds certain behavior ABOMINABLE, and punishes EVERYONE for INDIVIDUAL "crimes"?

Oh, the Tyranny...

2009-04-09T03:37:00.001-04:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Baracknophobia - Obey

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Spinal Tap Performance

But what if I like licking it better than vagEYEnal sex?

2009-04-06T23:13:00.000-04:00

Watch in awe as this genius explains all that is sex, from a biblical perspective. What a ladies' man.

Liberty...

2009-04-06T21:27:00.000-04:00

What do you do when the system not only doesn't support you, but conspires against you?

Outkast Erykah Badu Cee - Liberation
Uploaded by oublierleracismeskyblog. - See the latest featured music videos.

Sam Harris at Idea CIty '05

2009-04-02T21:07:00.000-04:00

Fantastic video. Also functions as a synopsis of his first book.

I'm Not a Bigot; I'm Just Tired...

2009-04-02T17:46:00.000-04:00

Apparently, racism among cops is merely a sign of being overworked.

Burn out? Really? So, being "overworked" is an acceptable excuse for being irrational and throwing critical thought to the wayside? I wonder what its effects are on holding tremendous amounts of power over other human beings lives in your hands?

I Did Not Know That...

2009-04-01T23:29:00.000-04:00

Quite intriguing.

What's That Keyboard Shortcut Again?

2009-04-01T18:55:00.001-04:00

"I'll buy almost anything if it's shiny and made by Apple"

"Everything is just a few hundred clicks away."

"It remains to be seen if the Wheel will catch on in the business world where people use computers for actual work an not just dicking around."

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

I'll Take the Placebo, Please...

2009-03-27T01:35:00.000-04:00

Salon reports on one of the most fascinating phenomena I can think of...

A Barrel Chock Full'o Pork Earmarks...

2009-03-15T01:35:00.001-04:00

Ooooooh, the pork and earmarks!! What? $173 BILLION to AIG...no, that's not pork...

Media Matters discussed "The Media's Deliberate Stupidity"

On a related note, we give them $173 billion.

Fourth quarter '08, their profits were NEGATIVE $61.7 billion.

So, what's their solution? Give out $165 million in bonuses!!.

(Ha, I linked to Faux News)

I Love This Woman...

2009-03-14T14:45:00.000-04:00

...and would adore being on the receiving end.

Over at Huffington they have a slide show of Michelle Obama hugs.

The Atheists Are Coming!! Hide the Virgins and Kittens!!

2009-03-10T22:36:00.001-04:00

USA Today reports that the "'Nones' now 15% of population".

By the way, 15% = ~45,573,696 people.

To put this in perspective, the population of the United Kingdom = ~61,000,000.

They also have a nifty set of interactive state-by-state charts.

Apparently 34% claim "none" in Vermont, which went 68% to Obama, but 53% for it's Republican governor. It's also 98% white. It was also voted the "smartest state".

I love New England, but I'm not sure I could live in VT.

Amer-I-Can't....

2009-03-10T12:45:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post on America's "virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations."

Not a big shock, but well worded.

Laissez's Not Fair and the Market's Never Been Free...

2009-03-10T11:17:00.000-04:00

I'm laughing at these silly Dandys and their naïve belief that we actually have a free-market, laissez-faire system of capitalism.

In a nut shell: I keep hearing more and more whining about Obama and liberals and socialism. But the people complaining don't know what socialism is. We don't have anything near socialism. They seem to think that ANY government intervention in the economy equals socialism. What they fail to realize is that our government has ALWAYS intervened in the economy, and to the benefit of the RICH. We've never had a "free market" economy.

In other words, it's just more complaining by the privileged that they're losing their privileges. Since regular (read: "not filthy rich") people have pipe dreams about also being rich SOMEDAY, they go along with it.

Exposing the current brickbat invocation of the Right's "favorite rhetorical ogre".

2009-03-09T23:39:00.000-04:00

The New York Times did a piece entitled "'Socialism!' Boo, Hiss, Repeat" discussing the Right's obsession with mislableing other's political positions.

Is it really analogue to the Liberal use of "facist"? Well, the mere fact that Conservatives admit them as antipodal—with "socialist" more deserving of scorn—is particularly illuminating.

I WISH we were all Socialists...

2009-03-09T23:28:00.000-04:00

The lack of journalistic integrity is shocking. And I'm shocked that I'm shocked. We seemingly cherish mediocrity and relish in our collective complacency and underachieving.

Newsweek, a major media news outlet, continues the blatant misuse of the term "socialism" in the name of sensationalism.

How any editor can sit back and deem such arrant misinformation and accessory to mass obfuscation worthy of print is simultaneously befuddling and execrable.

Luckily, intelligence still exists and was demonstrated as a sigh of relief in the form of a response pointing out just how silly all this Socialist talk is.

Let the Face-palming Commence...

2009-03-09T18:58:00.000-04:00

Just one brief example of the kind of doltism so rampant in the online discussion forum/groups that I subject myself to due to some strange sense of duty.

In this installment we have the ever-entertaining-yet-creepy, supernatural/mysticism-loving, batshit crazy, kook Shiva starting (and spamming) a thread expressing his views on the great Islamic threat.

Now, this is actually something I can can confer with and offer discourse about (for quite different reasons, of course), but let's see how incredibly misinformed our Nutjob of the day is...

After he stated that atheism is a religion and Buddhism and Hinduism are Abrahamic faith systems (yeah, he really did), he spouted the following:

tom friedman said that like 40 % of the population in Iran is teenage boys too rich and stuck up to do menial labor so they go to the mosques and are indoctrinated into hatred of israel and america.

To which I replied:

"So, exactly how much "anti-US", Islamic terrorism is perpetrated by Shias?

We can’t count that whole hostage crisis in the ’70’s due to our implicit role in overthrowing their democratically-elected government and all. And that whole thing about us supplying Iraq with WMD’s and what not to go to war with them might have also left a bad taste in their mouth, too. Oh, yeah...but we were supplying Iran with weapons too...covertly. Maybe that thing about us shooting down their civilian airliner?

Damn those Mooslims and their completely unfounded hatred of our freedoms!!

Also...40% rich, teenage boys? Really? In a country that has a median age of 26.4, 1.02:1 male/female ratio, $13, 100 per capita annual GDP, and 12% unemployment rate?

I don’t know...maybe my math is off, but that doesn’t seem very feasible."

Knowing (what the fuck you're talking about) is half the battle.

Bible Study:

2009-03-08T20:46:00.000-04:00

Today we have a two-fer. Congregation, open your buybulls to Psalms and Matthew.

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" — Psalm 14:1 & Psalm 53:1

"...anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell" — Matthew 5:22

Yes, I've already covered this, but it's worth repeating.

A Step in the Right Direction...

2009-03-06T19:26:00.000-05:00

Headline reads: Obama to Skip Prayer Event.

And by "right", I mean legal. Constitutional. Stuff like that.

Video Shows Deputy Punching Teen Girl

2009-03-02T03:33:00.001-05:00

Grown-ass male officer punching, kicking, and slamming a 15 year-old girl. Why? He feels she assaulted him when she kicked her shoe off, so he had to prevent a further assault.

This officer has been investigated twice in the past for shootings, one which lead to a death.

Seattle's King County Sheriff's Deputy Paul Schene Physically As - Watch more

In my personal life experience, as seen through my OWN eyes and felt with my OWN flesh, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of cops are, indeed, bad—whether they start off that way or not. I'm tempted to say this is true of the vast majority. VERY few are good, upstanding men and women of integrity. I've seen decent human beings turned into bigoted, power-hungry, crooked monsters once on the force. The whole system is drowned in a system of corruption that takes over once you're part of it.

And you can tell how deeply infected it is when the other cops don't blink twice when their partners are beating and murdering people.

In this particular video, the second officer acts like it's normal, everyday procedure to beat up a 15 year-old girl. Likewise, in videos of Officer Johannes Mehserle cowardly shooting Oscar Grant in the back in Oakland, there were multiple other officers who didn't seem surprised in the least that their buddy had just murdered an unarmed man who posed no threat.

That is very telling.

That Would Be Abiogenesis, Not Evolution...

2009-03-01T19:10:00.000-05:00

For those who insist on continually making ridiculous statements about how evolution can't explain how life began, they have nice colorful videos.

For those of us who aren't scratching our heads at the fact that there are still chimpanzee, the site is scientifically sound and well-presented. Definitely worth further perusal (and, yes, that's the PROPER definition of "perusal").

Running on Hope

2009-02-19T04:21:00.000-05:00

Running on Hope from Douglas Sarine on Vimeo.

It wasn't your overdue mortgage...

2009-02-19T03:34:00.000-05:00

What Cooked the World's Economy?

Impressive...

2009-02-19T01:49:00.000-05:00

An honest challenge for all my Christian friends...

2009-02-16T00:14:00.000-05:00

I read the Bible. Daily. Read it front to back numerous times.

I've seen the televangelists and mega-ministers. Robertson, Hickey, Hagee, Parsley, Falwell, Graham, Osteen, Swaggert, Bakker, Dodd, Haggard, Hinn, Bynum, Jakes, van Impe, Schuller, Meyer, Roberts, Copeland, Crouches, Whites, Dollar, Long, Thomas, Popoff, Tilton, Warren.

I'm versed in all of the philosophical arguments for the existence of god (Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological, Moral, Transcendental).

I'm familiar with Pascal's Wager, Lewis' Christian Trilemma, Kierkegaard's Leap of Faith, Ray Comfort's "Atheist Nightmare" banana.

I know the apologists. From Augustine and Aquinas to Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian. C.S. Lewis and Geisler to presuppositionalists like van Til and Bahnsen. McDowell and Strobel.

I live in a society that is fully and completely awash with Christian dogma and theology. But I also live in a society where the alternatives are sequestered and silenced.

So, I ask, honestly, have you EVER investigated an alternative position? Seriously?

You would attempt to get a second opinion from a medical professional, contractor, auto mechanic...but on the one thing you base your entire life on, you shun dissent in any form.

So, I ask that you simply take a little time, a whole lot of honesty, and watch/read these two sites. Even one.

God is Imaginary (chock full o' simple text and more simple videos)

Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

Can you do it? I know you won't, but you're the one who is left having to answer why you won't. My children are just the ones who have to grow up in the world you help make.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the WHITE republic for which it stands...

2009-02-15T02:00:00.000-05:00

Rant & Reason posted an entry: Bishop Jackson offended by inclusiveness in Obama address

The majority of Americans are white and our founders expressed white European values, so we must be a white nation, right?

It's incredible how clarifying analogies can be. Anti-Secularists who are conveniently situated in the privileged category so often attempt to hide their bigotry and selfishness with majority claims and appeals to numbers. This is a Christian nation!! Aside from that being a complete fallacy, it's not how democracy works. You can talk until you're blue in the face, or just give them a quick analogy.

Now you just have to make them understand how one bigotry is analogous to another.

John Stuart Mill on Liberty

2009-02-15T00:31:00.000-05:00

140 years old and still profoundly poignant.

The subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the ...power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.

Legislative Prayer and the Secret Costs of Religious Endorsements

2009-02-15T00:22:00.000-05:00

56-page .pdf article discussing the harms of violating the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Religious Freedom Restoration Act through such unconstitutional acts as legislative prayer.

Because some people just don't get it.

A...government whose legislative prayers are acceptable to one religious group but not another makes the latter group feel unwelcome, and it ends up exerting pressure on the disfavored group to change their religious ways.

Is the stimulus anti-Christian?

2009-02-15T00:13:00.000-05:00

New article on Salon.com.

They see no issue whatsoever with sectarian prayer and vows to God at the inauguration, but they managed to dig up some complaints here.

I Only Do This Because Jeebus Loves You...

2009-02-12T01:47:00.000-05:00

Stumbled upon quite the interesting website today: Christian Domestic Discipline.com

Never Heard of Such a Thing?

Think wife spanking went out with the straight razor or unsliced bread?

Think again.

Domestic Discipline has been practiced throughout history and continues to be practiced today by an ever-growing community who see the wisdom in our ancestors' methods of maintaining marital bliss.

Complete with testimonials!!

This is a lovely website. Thank you. My wife has emotional problems and sometimes she snaps without any reason at all. We used to fight constantly and my life was a chaos. Until the day I came to this website and things changed for me. Occasional spanking keeps her in line and being a devout christian I am glad that it is permitted in the Holy Bible. Now our relationship is as strong as it used to be when we first started the courtship. I just can't thank you enough!

I'm sure it's only because they prayed to Jeebus extra hard...

2009-02-11T15:28:00.001-05:00

Sarah Palin's $159,050 Conflict of Interest

Evolution is a Fact AND a Theory

2009-02-03T21:51:00.000-05:00

Enough with the petty semantic arguments. There exists the seemingly unfortunate reality that there is in this universe right and wrong. And you are wrong.

Evolution is a fact. The theory part relates to how it works. Sorta like gravity. That it happens is known; how it happens is what we're after.

Exactly who should be offended?

2009-01-26T08:52:00.006-05:00

"Warning: This Message Contains Blocked ContentSome content in this message has been reported as abusive by Facebook users."

Over at Facebook, I tried to post a link to a site I feel is of great value, but was unable to do so, as it seems some Facebookians have apparently reported the site as "offensive".

Wonderful. Also painfully typical. Apparently the folks over at Facebook investigate such claims as thoroughly as they believe breastfeeding is natural. Shame they aren't equally vigilant about those racist frat parties.

The site is called The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptics Guide to Christianity. Ooo, watch out for those scary ideas!! Wouldn't want people to...*gulp*...think!!

For those who aren't familiar, Pascal's Wager is that "clever" little bit of pseudo-logic that theists chuck around wantonly, whilst patting themselves on the backs and beaming with supercilious ostentation, that goes a little something like "wouldn't you rather BELIEVE and be wrong than NOT believe and be wrong?" This was suggested by Blaise Pascal in 1657, and had respective variants by Muslim Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni and Hindu Vararuci.

Problem is it's myopic, unbelievably arrogant, and a blatant example of a false dichotomy. Anybody who's ever thought this was intellectual checkmate—or even a philosophical stumbling block—for more than a brief second...well, let me be kind.

The immediate response should be to ask "which god/s?" Obviously the one/s with the most severe punishment (start facing Mecca). Shortly thereafter we should question the validity of the assumption that believing does no harm. I for one feel that limiting my mind and living in guilt and fear are bad things, but that's just me.

Anyway, I wonder if I'm going to to be marked as offensive? Even more so, I wonder if they'd listen if I found certain sites offensive?

Oh, well. Just a small taste of the rampant Christian privilege that's out there—benefiting the very same folk who are claiming they're the ones who are oppressed.

Chris Martenson's Crash Course

2009-01-24T10:45:00.000-05:00

I cannot begin to express exactly how valuable this information is.

Also of note is the short doc "Money As Debt".

Liberalism Resurgent

2009-01-24T10:44:00.002-05:00

Huge amount of information. I wandered the site for over a week.

The Greatest of Days...

2009-01-18T22:56:00.006-05:00

OK. Yes, I'm disappointed that he'll be continuing the 22 President trend of violating the very document he's pledging to uphold.

Yes, I'm discouraged that he's having ANY inaugural invocation whatsoever, and further disheartened that he's invited a bigoted, heterosexist to do so...and belittling two legitimate outcries by adding another—gay—clergyperson for good measure.

Of course I'm brokenhearted that the man I so thoroughly supported and worked for is failing to support me.

But I'm also rational and determined to be lead by reason over emotion. And just as I know evolution works through cumulative steps, I'm aware that at times revolutions must lose that initial "r". And I'm humble enough to acquiesce to my emotion over my reason and still be brought to tears at this incredible achievement and the knowledge that I can now tell my daughters they truly can do anything their ambitions and aspirations have them strive for—and not feel as though I'm lying.

Yes, we did.

America the Christian Nation Part 6: The Pledge of Allegiance...

2009-01-13T09:42:00.010-05:00

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

This is the original Pledge, as written by Francis Bellamy—a Baptist minister—in August of 1892.

Notice anything? Something conspicuously missing?

Bellamy considered adding "equality" along with "liberty" and "justice," but due to the overwhelming intolerance toward women and black folk amongst his contemporaries he relented.

But, even though "equality" should have been included, that's not what's missing here, is it?

In October 1892, two months after its inception, "to" was added before "the Republic".

In 1923, against Bellamy's protest, "the Flag of the United States of America" replaced "my flag".

So, it's getting closer to what we would find familiar, but it's still not quite the same.

June 3, 1940. With an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Minersville School District v. Gobitis that public school students could be compelled to recite the Pledge. The hearing came as a result of the—Christian group—Jehovah's Witness claim to religious freedom and refusal to recite the Pledge as an act of idolatry in accordance with Exodus 20:4-6, John 5:21, and Matthew 22:21. Minersville was 90% Roman Catholic. After the ruling, nationwide, 1,500 JW's were physically assaulted. Witnesses were arrested, tarred and feathered, beaten, driven from their homes and communities, and their churches burned. This clear violation of the First Amendment was overturned by the Supreme Court three years later—on Flag Day—in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

But our Pledge still doesn't have that familiar ring.

(Interesting that two God-fearing, God-loving, Christian groups were in the middle of a rather brutal skirmish over the Pledge before there was even a mention to God in that Pledge.)

1954. The era of the Cold War and Red Scare. In an act of cognitive dissonance and attempt to further distinguish and separate ourselves from those our government told us were our "enemies", yet another change was made. The Catholic group Knights of Columbus took advantage of the situation and pressured Congress. "Under God" was added to the Pledge, officially making it a prayer. Officially excluding any United States citizen who doesn't happen to claim the Judeo Christian faith and conveniently accepts idolatry. Officially violating the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 178 years after the Declaration of Independence.

So, why is the fact that the Pledge (illegally) includes two words, added sixty-two years after it was originally written, used as "proof" that the United States of America is, and has always been intended to be, a Christian nation, founded upon Christian principals, its laws based firmly upon the Ten Commandments?

Why the uproar and demand that we "keep" God in the Pledge? Why not an uproar that we keep the Bellamy salute instead of placing our hands over our hearts? Oh, what's that? How exactly did we say recite the Pledge prior to June 22, 1942, the year Congress officially recognized it as the official national pledge (two years after SCOTUS ruled its recitation compulsory and during our war with Germany)?

America the Christian Nation Part 5: Other US Presidents

2009-01-10T23:17:00.004-05:00

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated." — George Washington

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." — Abraham Lincoln

"Keep the church and state forever separate" — Ulysses S. Grant

"I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe." — William Howard Taft

"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools." — Theodore Roosevelt

"The public schools shall be free from sectarian influences and, above all, free from any attitude of hostility to the adherents of any particular creed." — Franklin D. Roosevelt

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute...where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him." — John F. Kennedy

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity..." — Rev. Bird Wilson, 1831

Ask yourself, what can you believe from someone who openly decieves you?

America the Christian Nation Part 4: Benjamin Franklin Quotes

2009-01-10T21:39:00.004-05:00

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

"He [the Rev Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard."

"...I soon became a thorough Deist."

Benjamin Franklin. Founding Father. Signer of the Constitution. Delegate to the Second Continental Congress. Deist.

If their message is one of truth, why do they feel such a need to lie?

America the Christian Nation Part 3: John Adams Quotes

2009-01-10T21:19:00.002-05:00

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

"When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it."

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."

John Adams. Founding Father. 2nd President of the United States. Deist.

If your foundation is built upon lies your "truth" will crumble.

America the Christian Nation Part 2: James Madison Quotes...

2009-01-10T21:18:00.003-05:00

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect."

"Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government."

"Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience."

James Madison. Founding Father. 4th President of the United States. "Father of the Constitution." Deist.

Arguments based on lies are arguments against your position.

America the Christian Nation Part 1: Thomas Jefferson Quotes...

2009-01-10T21:17:00.002-05:00

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

"If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it.'"

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”

Thomas Jefferson. Founding Father. Author of the Declaration of Independence. 3rd President of the United States of America. Heavy influence on the US Constitution. Deist.

Stop the lies.

Take notice...

2009-01-07T02:22:00.001-05:00

I consider myself a rather humble individual. No inherently acerbic or vitriolic tendencies. I am no stranger to charges of condescension and obnoxiousness, but—to risk sounding ironically bombastic—I suspect such allegations reveal more of the plaintiff than defendant. Inevitably, my humility relentlessly acquiesces to my integrity, and the urgency of conscience perpetually prevails. I suppose the overarching message is one of actual content over perceived intent.

That said, I plan to use these notes as proxy to telepathic glimpses into my thoughts. Of course I will stray toward agenda, but proportionate to the weight and consequence I put on such topics.

Curiosity, cynicism, or misanthropy may have already risen a red flag toward my opening, suspecting it a disclaimer of sorts. And I concede. One thing I value greatly is an egalitarian respect for others. But I don't view respect as the pusillanimous and unilateral manifestation it seems is most commonly demanded. My respect is active. Engaged. Reciprocal. I believe in ultimate truths, but also of inexhaustible nuance and the gravity of context which compliment a negated hierarchy of truth. I've steadfast insistence upon (critically and vertically) thinking for oneself in pursuit of said truth, but also in modestly assenting upon arrival. I see calamitous folly, obstinacy, and cowardice in "agreeing to disagree". I hope to challenge and possess no aversion to expostulation. "Sensibilities" are trite and disingenuous. The vitality of unadulterated receptivity is requisite.

In short, one need not be offensive for others to be offended, and offense taken is typically a facade of self-righteous indignation or lethargic distraction; a defense mechanism brought about by recognition of inadequacy when faced with opposition.

Isms...

2007-07-21T11:37:00.001-04:00

OK. This one is going to a be a bit...dry. It is also sorta by request. In a discussion concerning religion I was asked to provide more thorough descriptions of certain positions. I somehow managed to be short-winded, and although I am quite displeased with the results, I will publish it here unedited, before the OCD takes over and I end up with another forty pages of digitized Nyquil.

Overall, the common, colloquial use of the terms is:

Atheist: "God does NOT exist"

Theist: "God DOES exist"

Agnostic: "I'm not too sure if God does or doesn't exist"

However, these are incorrect (as are many technical terms in popular usage--e.g. "caucasian" and "racism").

The core of the issue is the difference between belief and knowledge (I frequently refer to it as an ontological vs. an epistemic approach). Because of this, agnostic doesn't even address the same issue as a/theism, and therefore isn't a viable option.

As with many topics in philosophy, there are issues with subtlties and nuances that most people would pay no attention to, but can have quite serious ramifications which need to be considered.

I have created a list of positions related to the belief in and/or knowledge of god/s, and provided an extremely simplified statement of each one:

Atheist: "I have no belief in god/s"

Theist: "I believe that god/s exist/s"

Monotheist: "I believe that only one God exists"

Polytheist: "I believe that gods exist"

Henotheist: "There are other gods, but this is MY God"

Kathenotheist: "There are god/s, but only one God at a time"

Pantheist: "Everything is God" (the totality of the universe is god)

Hylotheist: "God is everything" (matter is god)

Cosmotheist: "The eventual totality of everything is/will be God"

Panentheist: "God created everything and everything is God" (God is still transcendental)

Transtheist: "I know what god isn't, but not what god is" (I believe in god but god doesn't exist; god is completely separate from creation, and didn't even create it)

Deist: "God created everything and left it to be"

Polydeist: "Gods created everything and left it to be"

Apatheist: "god may (or may not) exist, but it doesn't matter"

Agnostic: "I don't KNOW of god/s" (knowledge of god/s is impossible, or at least unknown by the individual)

Ignostic: "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God." (The question of god's existence is meaningless because it is unverifiable)

Theological nocognitivist: "the idea of 'God' is empty and has no meaning"

The following don't really fit with the others, but are interesting to note in the face of religion (both are theistic stances):

Allognostic: "OTHER people can directly experience God, not me"

Indifferentism: "All religions are equally valid"

There are others (e.g. pandeism, monolatrism), but they get somewhat more complicated and rather redundant. Also relevant are the ideas of monoism, dualism, and pluralism.

America the Grayt...

2007-03-09T03:59:00.001-05:00

Due to Myspace's wonderful practice of blocking certain domains from being hyperlinked, I have to post some information here as a proxy to be linked to. It is quite useful anyway, and I will perhaps expand on this later.

International Comparison of Math, Reading, and Science Skills Among 15-Year-Olds

More than 250,000 15-year old students from 41 countries participated in the assessment. The countries included all major industrialized nations (results for Britain were not available) and 11 other nations that chose to participate. The test scores are from 2003.

Mean Performance on Mathematics Scale

	Range of ranks¹
Country	Upper rank²	Lower rank³
Hong Kong (China)	1	3
Finland	1	4
South Korea	1	5
Netherlands	2	7
Liechtenstein	2	9
Japan	3	10
Canada	5	9
Belgium	5	10
Macao (China)	6	12
Switzerland	6	12
Australia	9	12
New Zealand	9	13
Czech Republic	12	17
Iceland	13	16
Denmark	13	17
France	14	18
Sweden	15	19
Austria	16	20
Germany	17	21
Ireland	17	21
Slovak Republic	19	24
Norway	21	24
Luxembourg	22	24
Poland	22	26
Hungary	22	27
Spain	25	28
Latvia	25	28
United States	25	28
Russian Federation	29	31
Portugal	29	31
Italy	29	31
Greece	32	33
Serbia	32	34
Turkey	33	36
Uruguay	34	36
Thailand	34	36
Mexico	37	37
Indonesia	38	40
Tunisia	38	40
Brazil	38	40

1. Because data are based on samples, it is not possible to report exact rank order positions for countries. However, it is possible to report the range of rank order positions within which the country mean lies with 95% likelihood.
2. Rank based on top two levels of proficiency (out of six) on mean scale of mathematical performance.
3. Rank based on lowest two levels of proficiency (out of six) on mean scale of mathematical performance.
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD PISA (Program for Student Assessment) 2003 database.

Mean Performance on Reading Scale

	Range of ranks¹
Country	Upper rank²	Lower rank³
Finland	1	1
South Korea	2	3
Canada	2	5
Australia	3	6
Liechtenstein	2	6
New Zealand	4	7
Ireland	6	10
Sweden	7	10
Netherlands	7	11
Hong Kong (China)	7	12
Belgium	9	12
Norway	11	18
Switzerland	12	20
Japan	12	22
Macao (China)	12	19
Poland	12	21
France	12	22
United States	12	23
Denmark	15	24
Iceland	17	24
Germany	15	24
Austria	14	25
Latvia	14	25
Czech Republic	17	25
Hungary	24	28
Spain	24	29
Luxembourg	25	29
Portugal	25	30
Italy	26	31
Greece	27	31
Slovak Republic	29	31
Russian Federation	32	34
Turkey	32	34
Uruguay	33	34
Thailand	35	36
Serbia	35	37
Brazil	36	38
Mexico	37	38
Indonesia	39	40
Tunisia	39	40

1. Because data are based on samples, it is not possible to report exact rank order positions for countries. However, it is possible to report the range of rank order positions within which the country mean lies with 95% likelihood.
2. Rank based on top two levels of proficiency (out of six) on mean scale of reading performance.
3. Rank based on lowest two levels of proficiency (out of six) on mean scale of reading performance.
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD PISA (Program for Student Assessment) 2003 database.

Mean Performance on Science Scale

	Range of ranks¹
Country	Upper rank²	Lower rank³
Finland	1	3
Japan	1	3
Hong Kong (China)	2	4
South Korea	2	4
Liechtenstein	5	11
Australia	5	10
Macao (China)	5	10
Netherlands	5	11
Czech Republic	5	11
New Zealand	6	11
Canada	8	12
Switzerland	10	15
France	12	16
Belgium	12	16
Sweden	13	18
Ireland	13	18
Hungary	14	19
Germany	14	21
Poland	17	22
Slovak Republic	18	25
Iceland	19	23
United States	20	27
Austria	19	28
Russian Federation	20	30
Latvia	20	29
Spain	22	29
Italy	22	30
Norway	24	30
Luxembourg	26	30
Greece	25	31
Denmark	30	32
Portugal	31	32
Uruguay	33	35
Serbia	33	36
Turkey	33	36
Thailand	34	36
Mexico	37	37
Indonesia	38	39
Brazil	38	40
Tunisia	39	40

1. Because data are based on samples, it is not possible to report exact rank order positions for countries. However, it is possible to report the range of rank order positions within which the country mean lies with 95% likelihood.
2. Rank based on top two levels of proficiency (out of six) on mean scale of science performance.
3. Rank based on lowest two levels of proficiency (out of six) on mean scale of science performance.
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD PISA (Program for Student Assessment) 2003 database.

Information Please® Database, © 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

[SOURCE]

Just Curious...

2006-06-05T05:43:00.004-04:00

How many of you have poked my eye with the cursor? I mean, a little hand with its finger out--just ready for poking--pops right up on my profile pic.

I don't know how anyone could not give in to the temptation.

But, if you do...well, you're just a cruel-hearted bastard.

Thinking of Nothing...

2006-02-09T03:30:00.003-05:00

What are you thinking about?

Oh, nothing.

Nothing? Really?

Actually, yeah. Nothing. Which is precisely the problem.

See, I was never one of those pretentious asses who just had to be "deep." Nor was I one of those who, under the influence of one substance or another, stumbled upon some mind-boggling topic of newly discovered profound depth.

But I always was a thinker; always inquisitive by nature. Not to the point of annoyance—at least I think not—but just naturally curious. After years of human interaction, reading, and general living experience, I’ve realized that this apparently comes with the territory of having a high level of intelligence.

I’ve always had limits though. Well, actually I have A.D.D., and, if I didn’t just get bored out of my skull thinking about something, I’d eventually forget what it was I was thinking about. Or at least replace it with something else, usually ridiculously mundane: Hey—what was that? Ooo, something shiny….

Now, what was I talking about? Oh, yeah.

Interesting thing about life in America in the late 20th and early 21st centuries: you don’t really have to think much (well, not until you start to think why you don’t have to think much—which is pretty much why I take every stance on every issue I do, but that’s another topic).

Then I saw The Matrix. Yeah, I was one of those cats who saw past the action, special effects, and cinematography. Sure, I got a little caught up in the intricacy of the story, and admired the amount of detail the Wachowski brothers put into it, but what I really got into was the "oh, snap" factor. It made me think. And, although I was familiar with some of the topics, this was my introduction to metaphysics. Perception. Reality. Free choice or predestination? What is? What is "is"?

Then I realized the infinite regress and constant one-stepping that comes with philosophy, and pretty much got annoyed, ad nauseam. I’m not very idealistic and have a thing about practicality. Also, along with my short attention span I have a short temper and shorter patience level. So I distanced myself from metaphysics and philosophy, but not before making a brief stop at Epictetus to work on that little problem I admitted to a sentence ago.

This is also where my atheism matured. My father was an atheist, and, although (somehow) "Christian," my mother was never a Bible-Thumper—she was actually kinda New-Agey. I’m not going to get into details, but I progressed in my disbelief, until I realized—and admitted—that I am indeed an atheist: An explicit, strong atheist. With a penchant for polemics. Not an arrogant, antagonistic, belligerent asshole, but I wouldn’t exactly pass up a chance to talk about it. Preferably with someone at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Now, you’re probably thinking, "Damn, I thought you said you were thinking about nothing!" Well, yeah, I’m getting to that. See, funny thing about active atheism, you eventually get around to topics that lead to infinite regress again.

So, my big mind-fuck was the concept of eternity and infinity. Wow. I just couldn’t imagine no limits. Forever. Until I stepped outside of the limits I was trying to not impose on the concept. Then I got into what was, for me, a whole new ballgame of mind-fuckery. A topic so cognitively intangible I just couldn’t wrap my brain around it, and the more I thought about it the worse it got:

Nothingness.

What is nothing? Well, let’s see. There wouldn’t be anything to stand on, so the floor’s gotta go—and the ground beneath that. Pretty much means you gotta get rid of the ceiling and walls too. And, oh yeah, me. Ditch the whole Earth and solar system. Toss out the galaxy. Can’t be any oxygen—no elements of any kind. No dust, no protons, electrons, quarks. No matter. No "antimatter". No light. So you have this big, dark…no, wait…that’s something.

Which is the problem with nothing: As soon as you try to define it, you’ve got something. The moment anything comes in the picture—even the very concept of nothingness, because after all, that’s something—your "nothing" collapses into "something."

I’m not just being semantic.

Being a creature that lives in three (and a half) dimensions, I have a hard time shedding them. For some reason I get Star Trek in mind (and I never came close to being a Trekkie—don’t even really care for science fiction), and picture deep, deep space (which is something already). Nothing. Can’t be a vacuum though, because that’s something. But there you are, flying your space ship for miles through absolute "nothing." But it has to be something, because you have a measure for it—you just traveled through miles of it.

Nothing has no measure, no qualities, no attributes, no conditions. It is outside of and beyond dimension and time. Nothingness can not be anything—even nothing. No beginning, no end. No past, no future, no now. No boundaries, no edge, no center. No start, no finish. No emptiness, no space. No matter to fill up and become that lack of space. No nothing.

Think about that.

Nothing has no potential to be anything. Nor can it have a past—it couldn’t have once been something.

Which is where the mind fucking really starts, and quite unfortunately where the topic usually begins. The idea of nothingness is usually introduced with the discussion of a Creator or impetus to creation. What was there before? Or, consequently, what will there be after? This is where neither side of the a/theism debate has an answer. At least not a sufficient answer. I myself like to go a step ahead of nothingness, and get to the something involved. Once this is achieved I quickly apply Occam’s razor and take a "W" on luck that the supposition I subscribe to is easier and more simple. But it isn’t fair or intellectually honest to just "step over" nothingness.

Oh well. I’m certain this is probably some Philosophy 101 shit that I was just never fortunate enough to be exposed to by someone who’d thought it through and in turn learned it from others who’d thought it through, and there’s maybe even some damned good theories to "solve" it. But this is my thing. My great obstacle to full comprehension (not that I’m so delusional as to think such is attainable).

Socrates was brilliant, but this isn’t exactly what he had in mind when he said he knows nothing. I definitely can’t say, "I know nothing." I know a lot of shit (and I know I hate double negatives), but I just don’t know nothing.

Good and Bad News...

2006-02-02T00:05:00.001-05:00

Appeals Court Upholds FFRF's Right to Sue over Bush's Faith-based Office

Caught you by surprise, didn't it.

Today I opened my mailbox, pulled out an issue of Freethought Weekly, and read this headline.

Then I checked up on IHPR and read this:

federal funding to Pat Robertson's charities has gone from $108,000 annually to $14,400,000 annually under President Bush.

Then I remembered the scandals involving Robertson's "faith-based" Operation Blessing. (Basically, the planes that were supposed to be delivering aid were spending more time surveying Robertson's diamond and gold mines than delivering aid. And when the aid was delivered, rather than food or medical and educational supplies, it was typically in the form of bibles. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the people could dress a wound with some pages, it's just the nutritional content that concerns me.)

Then I remembered a nifty little table I saw considering the "global priorities in spending in 1998":

Global priorities in spending in 1998
Global Priority	$U.S. Billions
Basic education for everyone in the world	6
Cosmetics in the United States	8
Water and sanitation for everyone in the world	9
Ice cream in Europe	11
Reproductive health for all women in the world	12
Perfumes in Europe and the United States	12
Basic health and nutrition for everyone in the world	13
Pet foods in Europe and the United States	17
Business entertainment in Japan	35
Cigarettes in Europe	50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe	105
Narcotics drugs in the world	400
Military spending in the world	780

^{source 25}

Then I took a quick glance at the Cost of the War in Iraq, which, as of the time I sit to write this, is at $237,976,856,748.

So, since somebody's piorities are all fucked up (pardon the English), I'm pretty damned excited about the first headline. Please properly appropriate my tax dollars (and while your at it, do something which is both Constitutional and useful).

Bad news? If and when Alito is confirmed, there will be five--out of nine--radical, right wing, Roman Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court.

So, how are the prospects for this case looking in this light? I think a millionaire's virginity has a better chance at a strip club.

Dumbing Down Religious Skepticism...

2006-01-27T02:01:00.001-05:00

In the spirit of "evangelical" or active atheism, and also in taking a break from the regular atheist circles and debate with outright theists, I have recently began attempting to expose the ideas of religious skepticism to people who may not have ever really had it presented to them. As crazy as it sounds, our society is so overwhelmingly dominated by theism that any message to the contrary not only somehow "manages" to slip between the cracks, but is completely (and falsely) demonized. With this in mind I've been simply presenting some (extremely basic) information in places where the conversation would be very unlikely to arise unintentionally.

I provided an example here recently, which was criticized by a fundy, which in turn prompted me to respond. The fundy never followed up. Imagine that. Well, elsewhere on the web I'd posted a couple more pieces and, once again, recieved a response that I felt merited further comment -- especially since the response was from someone who is currently questioning religion. The individual expressed some curiosity about atheists which was really just rooted in and based on the typical garbage that's peddled to the masses.

Below, I will first post my original pieces, comlete with her comment, followed by my two-part response (y'all know damn well I'm long-winded). I apologize ahead of time for the quality of my first two pieces, with a reminder that my purpose is a very elementary introduction to some very basic concepts.

See:
Post One
Post Two (and Comment)
Response Part One
Response Part Two

Thank you, and enjoy. Please.

Think For Yourself...

2006-01-27T01:57:00.001-05:00

The first of two introductory posts (see back story):

"Most of what we currently hold sacred is not sacred for any reason other than that it was thought sacred yesterday." - Sam Harris

The bible is an internally flawed, contradicting collection of anonymous writings that claims the earth is flat, upheld by pillars, and covered by a dome in which windows are located for god to open when it rains. It says the sun revolves around the earth. It says the sun and moon are lights and the stars are small enough to crush beneath your feet or fit in a pocket. It says light and dark, night and day were created before the sun and stars existed to distinguish the difference. It talks of unicorns, dragons, behemoths, leviathans, and giants. It fully supports slavery and says women are not allowed to talk in church, teach, or hold positions of authority. It has god ordering people to commit genocide, slay children, and rip open pregnant women's stomachs.

If you can't believe one thing the bible says, how can you believe anything it says? The claims in the bible are not found anywhere else but in the bible. In the future, will humans worship Bilbo Baggins just because a book -- and ONLY that book -- claims him to be a great individual?

Just because I am an atheist does NOT make me a horrible person. I have morals. In fact, when I do good, I do it for no other reason than simply to be good. I do not do good deeds just so I can be rewarded for eternity. I don't avoid doing bad things just because I don't want to be punished and burn forever.

As an atheist I believe in no god/s. Do you believe in Allah? Do you believe in Zeus? What about Isis, Thor, Mithra, or Quatzelcoatl? There are millions of gods and I believe in just one less than you.

When you pray for something, are you asking god to change destiny? How can fate be changed? If answered, wasn't it already destined to be? If so, why pray for it? If you ask for something that only one person can have, why didn't god answer the other people's prayers for the same thing? Why can't you pray for something impossible (e.g. to teleport or travel through time)? Jesus says anything you pray for you will receive.

Think for yourself. Don't be a puppet. Search for answers to the questions in your mind instead of pushing them away -- and if the answers don't fit what you've been told, then accept what that obviously means.

Some Common Misconceptions About Atheists and Religion in America...

2006-01-27T01:25:00.001-05:00

The second* of two introductory posts (see back story):

Atheists do NOT make the absolute claim that there is NO god. Atheists do not believe in a god or gods. This is quite a significant difference. To be more precise, atheists do not see a sufficient amount of empirical, objective evidence to support a belief in god. Most atheists I know would gladly worship any god which was proven -- with great certainity -- to exist.

Atheists do not hate, nor have a vendetta against, god. How can one hate what s/he doesn't believe exists?

Atheists do not worship the devil. This is ridiculous. We do not believe in that concept either.

Atheists do not "not believe in anything". This is just silly. Are your religious believes the ONLY believes you have? Or are they just one set of many?

Atheists are not incapable of having morals. Morals, much like language and laws, are a set of rules upon which humans have agreed (in general) to accept in order to facillitate living together in societies. Not one moral value put forth in the bible was original -- they could all be found in many cultures, from many geographic regions, throughout time (and were documented well before the existence of the bible). Also, faith adherents base their actions on the notion that they will be rewarded for good deeds and punished for bad deeds. This is a selfish motivation to which atheists can not possibly subscribe. Atheists are moral for the simple fact that we are humans capable of empathy.

Atheists do not "turn to atheism" just because they've had some tragic event (or series thereof) occur in their lives. So much is made of tragedies simply because certain religions make claim to a perfect, loving god.

Atheists are not "stupid".

As an atheist who has a penchant for polemics, I've realized I need to have at least a working knowledge of religion (and many of them), theology, apologetics, history, biology, genetics, chemistry, physics, astrology, mathematics, linguistics, philology, logic, philosophy, ethics, law, politics, and be up on current events. This is a dizzying array of disciplines.

This leads to another common misconception: Atheists are not arrogant, elitist assholes. Many are in fact quite educated, though. On the flip side: a friend of mine has said -- "Not all theists are stupid; but most stupid people are theists." From this we can also deduce, not all atheists are brilliant, but many brilliant people are atheists. How many Nobel Laureates (Peace Prize excluded) are theists (i.e. believe in god)?

America is NOT a nation built on Christian values. America is a nation built on Enlightenment ideals and humanism. The Enlightenment era came about as a direct result of people questioning religious authority and putting value on HUMAN lives, rights, and liberties (hence humanism).

(Of interest may be the Treaty With Tripoli, signed into Law by President John Adams on June 10, 1797, which says, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" -- it doesn't get any clearer than that.

Also, during his two terms as President Jefferson never issued a Thanksgiving proclamation. Why?

"I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution of the United States from meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises...But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and praying. That is, I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from...Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercise of his constituents.")

Strong evidence exists suggesting the first 16 Presidents of the United States were NOT Christian.

The Constitution of the United States of America (the supreme law of the land) does NOT mention god one single time.

"In God We Trust" was not made the US motto until 1956 , and did not appear on cash money until 1957 (it didn't appear on any coinage until the late 1800's).

"Under God" was not in the original Pledge of Allegience, and did was not included until the 1954. These changes were made during the Cold War as a result of the "Red Scare" in direct opposition to Communism.

The Ten Commandments are NOT the moral basis of law in America. Look at a list of the (commonly accepted) Decalogue -- three of them are only pertinent to Judeo-Christian belief; one involves graven images, one adultery, one honoring your parents, one lying, and two coveting -- none of which are illegal in America. In fact, only two out of ten (stealing and murder) regard issues about which laws have been made in America.

Very few -- if any -- people have died for secular humanist atheist beliefs (especially not at the hands of the atheists themselves). MILLIONS of people throughout history have died in the name of god/s.

Hitler was a Christian. In fact, Nazi troops wore belt buckles proclaiming that God was with them (Gott Mit Uns). Hitler announced that he was carrying out God's plan and doing his duty as a Christian, and the extermination of the Jews was, in fact, a continuation of offical Church policy over the previous thousand years.

The KKK, neo-Nazi's, and most other white supremacists are Christians and most of their ideology is based on Scripture.

Most modern-day Christians are not quite truly familiar with the Bible and what it actually says. Nor are they familiar with the history of the religion. A little bit of research would go a long way.

The comment, which prompted a two-part response:

"this blog was very interesting to me, especially with what is going on in my life right now. it was well written but i do not understand some things. it seems like a round about to me. you say atheists say that there isn't enough evidence to support the fact that god exists, then doesn't that mean you don't believe he exists and there is no god? is it that atheists just focus on what they believe but do not touch on the fact as to whether they know for sure what is there and whether they can prove it? if in fact you believe in all the reasons you claim why there cannot be a god, then how can you say you don't claim there isn't a god? is it that most atheists take god to be just a theory? if so, seems to me they take a less scientific approach. As karl popper said, falsification, and i think atheists have yet to do that. i'm not trying to cause an argument, cause i myself am trying to find some answers when it comes to god and religion, but it seems to me that atheists have taken a halfway stand while torturing the believers of god, just my opinion ...."

*See here for first post.

In Response to a Curious Reader (Part One)...

2006-01-27T01:13:00.001-05:00

Part one (see back story and original post and comment):

I received a comment on my last post which I have decided to answer in post form:

"this blog was very interesting to me, especially with what is going on in my life right now."

I hope you, and all closest to you, are well. Whatever your situation, if you are in need of a silver lining, at least it is prompting critical thought and facilitation of reason, which can never be a negative thing.

"it was well written but i do not understand some things. it seems like a round about to me."

Thank you. This post is not meant to be even a very, very basic intro to atheism. Its purpose is -- in the most simplistic way possible -- mainly addressing the essential misconceptions related to the philosophical position of atheism. I am glad that it sparked some deeper curiosity. I will attempt to provide answers for your (very broad) questions, but unfortunately, the constraints imposed by both time and space do not allow for me to delve into the specifics (for more serious, in depth discussions, may I refer you to my regular blog).

"you say atheists say that there isn't enough evidence to support the fact that god exists, then doesn't that mean you don't believe he exists and there is no god? "

This may seem semantic, but the problem here lies in the distinction between "don't believe he exists" and "there is no god". Many theists attack atheism from exactly this angle, and in doing so build strawmen to beat up in the name of logical discourse, claim victory based on refutation of false assumptions, and ultimately get absolutely nowhere in the process. If I was to claim the (absolute) non-existence of god/s I would be committing the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam.

"is it that atheists just focus on what they believe but do not touch on the fact as to whether they know for sure what is there and whether they can prove it?"

First and foremost, atheism is only relevant when dealing with religion/faith. Its etymology is a- "without" + theos "a god". As clearly stated in my original post, religiosity is merely one of potentially innumerable sets of beliefs a person can have. In relation to god/s, atheists cannot "focus on what they believe" because THEY DON'T BELIEVE. Atheists focus on the reasons they don't believe, which pertains to the second half of your question...

Now, (generally speaking) one cannot "prove" a negative. In order to "prove" something doesn't exist -- beyond a shadow of a doubt (we're speaking in absolutes here) -- you'd have to test everything, universally. One would have to witness everything, everywhere, throughout time, all simultaneously, to conclusively observe NO occurrence of the phenomena in question. This, of course, is impossible, and is why we rely on the scientific method to aid us in accumulating testable evidence, and then based on that evidence we try to draw some probabilities (damn good ones, at that). Some people (theists) like to hang onto this aspect when dealing with science -- that nothing is certain -- but refuse to acknowledge that absolutely NO repeatable, testable, empirical, objective evidence has ever been brought forth supporting the existence of a god. Ever. This is something people have to -- absolutely MUST -- accept, and is why FAITH plays such a HUGE role in religion. Remember: faith is defined as belief in that for which there is no evidence or in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. By definition, faith is irrational and thus can play no role in logical discussion. This, of course, falls on deaf ears to apologists.

Luckily (for atheists) "god" isn't exactly an intangible concept. Every religion has assigned definite attributes to its god/s (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence are quite common) and made very specific claims of actions (revealed infallible scripture, creation stories, cosmological design, great floods, stopping the Earth's rotation, etc.) taken by its deity/ies. Atheists attempt to disprove these -- and have been doing quite an impressive job to great success over the millennia (this isn't anything new: Averroës presented the omnipotence paradox in the 12th century). THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER.

Now, another thing to note is that the burden of proof lies with those asserting something. See, we start with a blank slate, and anything which is added is new to the picture and must be proven by those claiming its existence. (I'll provide an example -- albeit a weak one: we awake in a single room -- just four walls, a floor, and a ceiling. I announce that I know what is outside of the room: that the room is merely one of many in a research facility, or on a spaceship hurtling through wormholes toward other dimensions, for instance. Is it up to you to prove or disprove my assumption? No, it is up to me.)

None of us are born believing in god; a fact that is demonstrated by the existence of multiple strains of theists (i.e. different religions) as well as agnostics, apatheists, atheists, etc. Somewhere along the line we are introduced to the god concept. This usually happens through someone in a position of authority, in whom we place a great amount of trust, at a very young age -- all ingredients for instant acceptance. The problem here is that not much evidence is ever needed, and thus little, if any, is ever provided. Add to this the condition of "sacredness" -- and a long history of exterminating those who do -- and not much (open) questioning is about to happen.

That said, yes, I personally -- and all atheists, by definition -- do not believe in god (I clearly said so in the second line of my post). Of course we don't, but remember: "Believing" and "knowing" are two completely different things. Atheists simply haven't seen enough evidence supporting the existence of a god and, until we do, we choose not to believe. May I point out that no one KNOWS the existence of god either way. They can claim to; they can "feel" it all they want, but no one can provide evidence in the same manner as, say, we can provide evidence that you or I or the moons of Jupiter exist (let's not enter the realm of metaphysics and question perception and existence).

What other things do we know of that there is absolutely NO proof for? Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, elves, fairies, unicorns, giants, dragons, talking animals (the last four are all mentioned in the bible, btw). Notice a trend? So you see, nobody -- not just atheists – can "touch on the fact as to whether they know for sure what there is and whether they can prove it" in the realm of the supernatural -- as is inherent in the definition of the word super (i.e. "outside of") NATURAL (i.e. "nature").

"is it that most atheists take god to be just a theory?"

No, most atheists take god to be a mythical, superstitious belief created by ancient humans to accommodate for their extremely narrow understanding of the world around them. I think you may be inappropriately using the word "theory":

"theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

as opposed to the more popular, but nevertheless incorrect (in this context) connotation:

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

See, for a theory you have to start with some observable facts/occurrences, and explain why they are occurring, using testable, repeatable experiments. In other words, you start with something tangible and attempt to determine WHY it is so. A religion tends to do the exact opposite and assert "Here is the reason, now let's find something that fits with it."

"if so, seems to me they take a less scientific approach."

No offense, but LOL. ROTFLMAO. As opposed to what? Theists? Are you implying religiosity is equitable to -- or even friendly with -- science? Throughout history, and indeed still today, science and religion have been looked at as near polar opposites. Nearly the entire body of scientific knowledge has been vehemently opposed by organized religion at one point or another. Look up Edward Jenner, Copernicus, Galileo, even Socrates. Why did Christians burn the library at Alexandria? Ever hear of the "Dark Ages"? They were called that because there was essentially no "illumination" of knowledge (this is why smart people are called "bright"). The overwhelming majority of the population was "in the dark", and this is a direct result of the prominence of religion during those times. This is NOT debatable. The church recognizes that inquiry leads to discoveries that aren't exactly compatible with church doctrine, and, naturally, opposes critical thought and reason. I briefly touched on this in one of my previous posts.

Many people consider atheism and science near synonyms! For god’s sake (yes, that’s intentional) theists are quick to criticize atheists by claiming that we actually worship science as a religion!

Only 7.0% of polled members of the National Academy of Sciences expressed a "Belief in a Personal God".

"As karl popper said, falsification, and i think atheists have yet to do that."

I apologize, but this statement makes absolutely no sense. Your mention of Popper would seem to imply that you have at least a precursory understanding of the philosophy of science, and if so, most of what I've stated to this point should be self-evident.

(For those unfamiliar, Popper stated that in order to declare a statement scientific -- mind you, this has NO bearing on validity -- it must be able to be falsified. This does not mean "be proven false"; just have the potential to be so.)

Allow me to direct you to the Wikipedia entry on the Popperian criterion of demarcation aka falsificationism, which says something quite interesting and especially pertinent to our conversation:

"theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation...It is quite consistent for a theist to agree that the existence of God is unfalsifiable, and that the proposition is not scientific...However, arguments relating to alleged actions, rather than the existence, of God may be falsifiable" [emphasis mine]

Does that last line sound familiar?

The article also points out:

"Falsifiability was one of the criteria used by Judge William Overton to determine that 'creation science' was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools."

Also interesting is Popper’s inclusion on the Big List of Atheist Quotes, but perhaps I digress.

"i'm not trying to cause an argument, cause i myself am trying to find some answers when it comes to god and religion"

This is a wonderful thing. Always challenge popular opinion. Always question everything you are told. Think for yourself. Remember that tradition makes absolutely nothing valid or right: slavery and women’s oppression were traditional. Remember that popularity means nothing: the majority thought the world was flat (says so in the bible too) at one time. So what there are two billion Christians; there are four billion non-Christians.

"but it seems to me that atheists have taken a halfway stand while torturing the believers of god, just my opinion"

I have a huge problem with this statement – so much so that it warrants an entire post of its own. In the least, I hope that you see that atheists take anything but a "half-way stand" (something more commonly ascribed to agnostics).

I encourage you to investigate atheism further. For a logical approach, may I suggest familiarizing yourself with both arguments for and against the existence of god (see, this is an age old, very well established position). I also highly recommend "Why Does God Hate Amputees" for beginners to religious skepticism (it’s an amazingly simple read).

*See here for part two.

In Response to a Curious Reader (Part Two)...

2006-01-27T00:46:00.001-05:00

Part two* (see back story and original post and comment):

My previous post was actually a response to a reader who had commented on yet another post. I've taken interest in this particular comment for two reasons:

First, the young lady (a representative of a particularly excluded demographic in areas concerned) admitted to some internal interrogation of faith, and, while her mind is open, I hope to possibly provide answers to any questions -- and dispel any myths -- she may have.

Second, the post which has proven itself to be a catalyst of sorts was one in a series I have embarked on with a goal of presenting religious skepticism to individuals who, for one reason or another, have not been exposed to it. The particular installment dealt with common misconceptions about atheism, and my commentor made a statement that I feel expressed the ugliest of all fallacies about atheists. This post will focus on that particular statement:

"but it seems to me that atheists have taken a halfway stand while torturing the believers of god, just my opinion"

Although I respect the freedom we all have to formulate and hold our own opinions and beliefs, this in no way implies that all opinions are of equal validity and merit, and this particular opinion of yours is horribly misled. Any honest portrayal of history is ripe with atrocities committed in the name of God. Religion, by its very nature, regardless of PR campaigns and sugar-coating, is completely incompatible with, and antithetical to, tolerance of any sort. This comes with the territory of being in possession of the absolute truth in matters of eternal life and ultimate authority. Studies in the defense of atheism typically include examples of theistic immorality. Many critics of atheism (and therefore defenders of theism) attack its "apologetics" for placing heavy emphasis on such acts, but it is theism's own self-proclaimed monopoly on values and decency -- and consequential demonizing of unbelievers as hopelessly incapable of morality -- which makes it necessary to do so.

My immediate thought when reading this declaration was, "How, when, and where have atheists ever 'tortured' the 'believers of god'?!" The only wide-spread atrocities that can even speculatively be attributed to atheists are those of communists in the USSR and China (and to some extent Cambodia and Vietnam). What people tend to overlook is that the communists weren’t necessarily atheists (especially of the secular humanist strain): communist and atheist are not the synonyms theists so eagerly wish them to be. Communism is a socio-economic and political system, and as so is outside of the philosophic territory of a/theism. The impetus of Communism (big "C") is not atheism, and its champions simply used atheism as tool to help replace religious worship of a god with government worship of a system (and its dictators). Even then, they weren’t attacking those of faith specifically because of their faith; they were attacking "enemies of state". In other words they were communists first, and atheists by circumstance. What we have here is coincidence, as opposed to myriad examples of incidents done IN THE NAME OF GOD.

But what about the religious? Particularly Christians, the great preachers of love and morality (also the vast majority of Western -- and especially American -- theists):

Need I mention the multiple Mass Killings Ordered, Committed, Or Approved By God? In fairness, since the Holy Bible is so widely accepted as an instruction booklet on good living, it deserves the distinction of first investigation. But, since my premise is that the bible is almost completely false, we can look at events which are historically documented (and chronicled by contemporary Christians).

The number of human lives lost to Christian violence is impossible to calculate, and it probably starts even before Christian persecution and murder of Pagans in the 4th century. Dependable overviews of such atrocities are difficult to come by, and exact numbers are fiercely debated, but what is known is that they did happen. The unreliable methods of collecting data in those days can be used to explain the overly exaggerated as well as grossly underestimated body counts (the latter is further helped along by denial, the former for emphasis).

Let’s attempt a death toll (this is by no means an exhaustive representation):

Inquisitions; -- estimates range between 600,000 and 9,000,000 between 1209 and 1843.

Millions claimed, but hundreds of thousands more likely, due to the witch hunts.

The "Wars of Religion" between Catholics and Protestants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries bring an estimated death toll upward of 14 million. Residents of Ireland should be quite familiar with the bad blood between these Christians.

Including Christian deaths, estimates upward of 20 million, but some as "low" as 1.5 million, in the Crusades (which targeted Muslims and Jews).

Speaking of Jews: Between the 4th and 17th centuries, over a quarter million (at the very least) Jews killed (look up the history of the word "ghetto") in church sponsored pogroms. In 1942-1943, Catholic-run extermination camps in Croatia murdered "between 300,000 and 600,000" Jews. These were NOT Nazis...

...but while we’re speaking of the Nazis, as I noted in the post you commented on, Hitler WAS a Christian and the Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles declaring "Gott Mit Uns" ("God is With Us"). The Holocaust wasn’t a new idea; it was merely the continuation of Christian policy toward the Jews for almost two thousand years. The Church supported the Holocaust in numerous ways, including providing birth records to aid the Nazis in discovering exactly who was and wasn’t Jewish. Also, the Church never excommunicated one single perpetrator of Nazi crimes (as quick as it is to banish "heretics"). And it wasn’t just Catholics: Hitler used a book written in 1543 entitled "On the Jews and their Lies" which was written by a certain Martin Luther, with whom all Protestants should be quite familiar. Hitler’s Nazis also exterminated Gypsies, homosexuals, the handicapped, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Communists (all of which have been targeted by the church.) If that’s not enough, take this quote from Hitler himself:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by only a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they are and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love, as a Christian and as a man, I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord rose at last in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was the fight for the world against the Jewish poison." [emphasis mine] - Adolf Hitler, 1920

Christoper Columbus (who, by the way, is no different than Hitler):

The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out."…that’s around 4 million dead. [source]

When Columbus landed on an island, he erected a cross and declared the requerimiento , which states:

"I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them...take away your goods...and shall do you all mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him...we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours." [emphasis mine]

Had these natives understood Latin, they may have at least had a head's up.

"When the 16th century ended...probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead."

Hell of a feat accomplished in one hundred years without the aid of modern technology.

"A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery." [emphasis mine]

That’s 210,000,000 in four hundred years. Count the zeros. Some argue the numbers in front of the zeros, but when you're talking about human lives, any figure with that many zeros is apallingly unacceptable.

Don’t let the disease part fool you, noting both Sir Jeffery Amherst’s act of biological warfare and this quote:

"In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of ‘the marvelous goodness and providence of God’ to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as ‘for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess.’" [emphasis mine]

Need I remind you that the official British transatlantic slave trade started with a ship named Jesus, slaves were forcefully converted to Christianity, and the Bible was used in opposition of abolition and manumission to justify slavery...and segregation...and anti-miscegenation laws...and is still used by white supremacists? (See my post.)

Left out of Hotel Rwanda was the part Catholics played in the genocide of the Tutsis (although apparently on an individual, not organizational basis).

Are you aware of how many serial killers have extremely devout religious backgrounds? It seems to be as much a prerequisite as "white".

Speaking of nutcases, stories of mothers killing their children seem to disproportionately have religious motivation.

Most of these are cases of Christians butchering other theists. Imagine how they treat atheists.

But alas, it’s not Christians alone. As Sam Harris points out in his Atheist Manifesto:

"Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities--Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.--and these divisions have become a continuous source of human conflict…The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews versus Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians versus Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians versus Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants versus Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims versus Hindus), Sudan (Muslims versus Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims versus Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims versus Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists versus Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims versus Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite versus Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians versus Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis versus Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. In these places religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last 10 years."

And don’t forget 9/11. That too was done in the name of god: Sure, there are definite political and economic implications -- rich, white, Christian men and the idea that their way is the best way, yada, yada, imperialism, colonialism, using the disenfranchised as step ladders, etc. But, the whole "War on Terror" can be reduced to purported Christian "values" vs. Islam. Plain and simple. If not our raping of the environment, religion will be the self-induced cause of ultimate human destruction.

Somehow, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, theism has become synonymous with values and morality. Logic -- though faulty -- concludes that a-theists -- those without belief -- must therefore be the exact opposite, and heaps of undue negative stigma has been attached to atheism. We still live in a human society. Despite all of our technological advancements, people are still pretty damned ignorant and stubborn, and morals are still seen as dependant on a higher, absolute power.

Religion is misanthropic. One of the central tenets of Christianity is the total depravity of man, which asserts that humans are intrinsically evil ("original sin") and unworthy of God, except through the intercession and grace of an intermediary. Islam is no better. The human rights records of most all religions (can't find many strikes against Jainism) are not exactly exemplary. Humanism shifted the focus from god to man, and brought with it sweeping reforms in social life toward the betterment of the human condition. While atheism does not directly imply humanism (or vice versa), they do, more often than not, go hand in hand, and a combination of the two is the prescription for a successful, peaceful, equitable society.

*See here for part one.

Biblical Foolishness...

2006-01-19T02:35:00.001-05:00

I'm sure that nearly all atheists who've discussed religion with xians have been hit with:

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. (Psalm 14:1)

Or is it Psalm 53:1?

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.

I can definitely see the temptation to throw this in a non-believer's face -- afterall it MUST be important, they wrote it down twice (god really should have hired a better proofreader).

But, being absolutely sick and tired of hearing this particular verse, I got curious and went to a bible site and did a search on the word "fool". Honestly, I was looking for Matthew 5:22 in particular:

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

(HA! Take that beyotch! Straight out the mouth of Jeez-us-uh!)

What I found were 180+ instances of "fool". I always knew the bible was fool of it (that's so, soo bad).

Of particular interest to me are:

You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? (Matthew 23:17)

See, this is Jesus speaking again. Yeah, the same guy who, according to his own words just 18 chapters ago, is now "in danger of the fire of hell".

Even better, the Big Guy Himself says (actually this is Jesus quoting his pops, so YHWH might have a case for slander, or at least a hearsay defense):

But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?' (Luke 12:20)

Some political prophesying:

Arrogant (or Eloquent) lips are unsuited to a fool —- how much worse lying lips to a ruler! (Proverbs 17:7)

All I have to say is Dubya.

A new biblical record (actually, there very well might be other instances of immediate contradiction:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes (Proverbs 26:4-5)

Hold up. But, I thought you just said.... Ok, wait - I'm confused.

Fanciful, yes; in denial, not always:

For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. (1 Corinthians 1:25)

I don't know about that: god's foolishness can be pretty darned foolish sometimes.

And the future motto of this site and my new personla mantra:

Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. (2 Timothy 2:23)

So, what's my point? Stop quoting Psalm 14/53 to me, pretty much. Other than that I just wanted to heap a lil' bit more on the contradiction pile. I was going to list all 183 incidents, but I'm still trying to shorten up my posts so people will actually read them.

Slavery Lite (now with Splenda™!)…

2006-01-16T04:28:00.000-05:00

*Being fully aware that this is long post, I have presented it in two sections, providing a “way out” for those with time restraints (or Disorderly Attention spans) after the basics are presented - in other words, stick around and give (at least part of) it a read*

In response to a recent post of mine, Brain Fry (BF from here on out) provided some sites that he felt could explain some of the issues I’d taken against certain biblical content.

I will begin with a site which BF seems to think clarifies controversial verses regarding slavery (e.g. Ephesians 6:5, Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:20-21).

As expected, the source is a Christian – as opposed to a neutral, purely academic – based site. While the author does indeed present his piece to be vigorously researched, it is nothing more than an exhaustively spewed belittling of human suffering from the vantage point of a privileged spectator who is grasping at straws and playing games of semantics to defend his religion. The gist of the piece is that there are different types of “slavery” – the “real” slavery being what we Americans are most familiar with – and anything that isn’t essentially identical to the most extreme sort is not actually “slavery”.

’Slavery’ is a very relative word in our time period, and we have to be very carefully in no [sic] auto-associating it with more 'vivid' New World examples.” [emphasis original]

Now, before I go more in depth, I feel we should look at some of the verses I featured and consider their appropriate context in hopes of ascertaining their proper meaning.

I hope that all can see what convenient and strategic advantage a verse such as the following could have served – even in the case of New World Transatlantic “real” slavery:

Tell slaves always to please their owners by obeying them in everything. Slaves must not talk back to their owners or steal from them. They must be completely honest and trustworthy. Then everyone will show great respect for what is taught about God our Savior. (Tit 2:9-10 CEV)

This is pretty straightforward (no matter the bible version chosen). As I said in my original piece, Christianity is the religion ~~given to~~ forced upon slaves to behave.

The word translated here as “slave” is the Greek δοῦλος (doulos; Strong’s G1401), which does indeed have both literal and figurative connotations; although I feel it safe to deduce the tense used is quite literal.

The word translated here as “owner” is the Greek δεσπότης (despotēs; Strong’s G1203) – from which “despot” is derived – meaning “master” or “Lord”. Once again the intended meaning here is clear.

Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves. However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property.
(Exo 21:20-21 CEV)

Wow, what a shining example of morality (the author of BF’s source describes this passage as “unparalleled in its humanitarian considerations”. I’m not making this stuff up.)! Notice the time restraint of “a few days”, implying death thereafter. (This verse will be dealt with more thoroughly toward the end of this post.)

The word translated as “slave” here is עבד (‛ebed; Strong’s H5650), meaning “slave”, “servant”, “subject”. An instruction this vile really can’t be defended, regardless of word choice, but it is clear that slavery is implied, as is demonstrated by the parallel with “property”.

To be absolutely sure we a clear in our understanding that the bible is describing situations in which human beings own their fellow humans:

If you want slaves, buy them from other nations or from the foreigners who live in your own country, and make them your property. You can own them, and even leave them to your children when you die, but do not make slaves of your own people or be cruel to them. (Lev 25:44-46 CEV)

Buying humans as property that can be inherited? Sounds like slavery to me. (The page BF referenced actually stoops to measures as pitiful as highlighting that the term “buy” was used as opposed to “take”. Seriously. But I’ll address that page later.) This segment is of greater importance because it differentiates between “foreigners” and Hebrew people, and paid servants and slaves (dealt with in the previous five verses).

The translations used are:

“Slaves” – עבד (‛ebed; Strong’s H5650), see above, and אמה ('âmâh; Strong’s H519) meaning “maid-servant”, “female slave”, “concubine” (the original distinguishes between the sexes in this particular verse) as opposed to שׂכיר (śâkîyr; Strong’s H7916), meaning “hired laborer”.

“Property” – אחזּה ('ăchûzzâh; Strong’s H272), meaning “something seized, that is, a possession”. (This – with the inclusion of “seized” – is especially interesting in light of the “buy not take” defense. In fact, the word translated as “buy” is היה (hâyâh; Strong’s H1961), meaning “come to pass”, which is rather neutral in its precision of method.)

Now I will proceed with the site prescribed by our Christian apologist friend (in other words, y’all impatient folk can go now).

First, since it is such a “fuzzy” term (yup, that’s his too):

slave n. 1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household. [Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition]

Second, my argument is mainly aimed at fundamentalist (literalist) Christians who believe the bible to be Holy Scriptures which are inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed – a God who is perfect, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.

Now, with that out of the way…

The page starts with a quote from an email the author, Glenn M. Miller (henceforth GMM) received, which suggests we look at the bible “as an accommodated and historical revelation” and states:

“Paul danced around the topic of manumission but never made it an explicit directive”

Now, for those who aren’t up to date, Paul had (supposedly) received a vision of Jesus and was delivering messages that were directly revealed to him from God. A god who wanted to be absolutely positive that we knew, beyond a doubt, how exactly to construct the Tabernacle (spent roughly FOUR CHAPTERS on these instructions) and made sure we were well aware that we shouldn’t wear clothing made of mixed fabrics (Deu 22:11), but who – oops! – forgot to mention that owning other human beings was not really a good thing to do (must have slipped his – omniscient – mind).

It then posits that Paul may not have done so for “a number of reasons” including not wanting the “the gospel (to) appear too radical”. Radical? This being a book that tells us that, along with God, a guy named Jesus is wandering around in Heaven after he was crucified for all of mankind’s sins. Too radical?!

From here GMM goes into his spiel about there being different sorts of slavery:

Scholars do not agree on a definition of “slavery.” The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of “slavery” shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point.

So, which of these “slaveries” would YOU prefer, BF (and GMM)? Keeping in mind that, as made clear further along in the piece, by:

“bride-price marriage” GMM alludes to the practice of fathers selling their brides to a husband – with no regard whatsoever of the daughter’s wishes.
“child adoption for payment” involves selling your child to pay off debt, the end result being that your child is an owned servant (i.e. SLAVE); NOT another addition to a happy family
“paid-for surrogate motherhood” explains the practice of those who, like Abraham, purchased women – concubines – for the sole purpose of bearing children (but I’m sure that the men had absolutely NO pleasure whatsoever in the actual act. Sex slaves don’t have it bad at all.)
What the hell, exactly, is “’semivoluntary’ prostitution”?!

GMM then lays out a framework of what should actually be referred to as “slavery”:

Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite

Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders

Treatment: Slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards, and punishments were extreme

Treatment: As a matter of course, slaves lived in radical separation from their owners and did not participate in many of the ‘benefits’ of the owners’ fortunes.

Legal Status: Slaves were considered ‘property’ in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners’ as to how they treated their ‘property’. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.

Legal Status: Slaves could not have their own property – all they had belonged to their ‘owner’.

Exit : Slavery was forever. There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a ‘bare bones’ release – no property went with the freedman.

(I should note that these strict guidelines) did not apply in whole to most cases of slavery here in the West.)

GMM then uses approximately fifty pages to essentially say that if it didn’t meet these precise standards, we really shouldn’t call – or even think of it as – slavery.

So, if you bought a human being, had him/her as your property forever, maintained ownership of his/her spouse and/or children, passed these humans along as inheritance, and beat (“disciplined”) them to the point of death – as long as that death was not immediate – BUT this individual, say, owned property or lived in your house…then, well, gosh, that’s not slavery!!

May I note here, for BF, that, as another Christian site quotes from the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (under “slavery”):

The one thing which is alike…is that it is ‘the ownership of one man by another man so that the former was viewed in most respects as property rather than as a person. It was a deeply rooted part of the economy of the ancient near east’

That, sir, is slavery.

May I also bring to your attention that in Lev 25:42 we are reminded that the Hebrews were once enslaved in Egypt, and because of this, they are not allowed to be enslaved by fellow Israelites. If this ANE (Ancient Near East) slavery is so wonderful, the why was the Lord demanding “Let my people go” (Exodus 5:1; 8:1; 9:1,13; 10:3,4)? (As an aside, good luck finding evidence supporting the fact that Israelites were even in Egypt, much less as slaves in the great numbers purported in Exodus.)

One of the main sources GMM uses to build his “case” is a two volume work entitled History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Throughout his quotes from this work, reference is made to many ANE nations, including the Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia, Emar, Canaan, Neo-Sumerian, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite, Persian, and “other Oriental rulers,” but curiously missing from the great bulk of these quotes is, you guessed it, the Hebrews. To make up for this, GMM himself follows up with “The same, of course, can be said of Israel”. Of course it can.

GMM expends quite a bit of effort trying to explain that a portion of the slavery in these times was voluntary – in that, to pay a debt or avoid poverty, a person would offer one’s self for sale – and places much emphasis on differentiating voluntary – for the economic purpose of the one sold – from involuntary – for the economic purpose of the purchaser – slavery.

Now, while I will concede that this does indeed constitute a difference, I am awaiting an argument for the morality of such a situation. GMM asserts that such indentured servants were actually protected by their masters from poverty and other dangers (this isn’t the only time he enlists the aid of the despicable “slaves should be gracious to their masters” argument), but I fail to see humanitarian aid coming in the form of “congratulations, you get to be my unpaid servant and property!” Ultimately this matters not, as this exact form of servitude also existed in the New World along side “proper” slavery (he actually calls it proper), JUST AS IT DID IN OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL.

(On a side note, during this segment we find this gem:

But God is a realist (Deut 15.11!); hence He made a wide range of provisions in the Law for the poor.

God? A realist? This is too hilarious to bother explaining why.)

He also heavily stresses the fact that servants were set free after six years and all of the other bountiful, wonderful examples of the Israelites “liberal attitudes” toward slavery. Let us not forget that, although these aren’t exactly perfect examples of philanthropy, most only applied to fellow Hebrews!

I predict that many Christians will play the trusty old “the Law was harsh and strict before the grace of the salvation of Jesus” card, so I am ready to trump it with the “Paul – the great champion of antinomianism (faith over law or works) – fully supports and promotes slavery in the New Testament!” card. As does Jesus! Go fish.

The bottom line is that amongst all the illustrations that many forms of servitude existed that can be “slavery-like” (again, his terminology), none of them are morally acceptable if one has the least bit of empathy or compassion for his/her fellow humans, and there still exist quotes such as:

“…war/violence was NOT a major source of ‘real’ slaves in the ANE (nor OT).”

and

“Even chattel slaves appear to have benefited to some extent from this protection”

So, apparently there were, in fact, “real” chattel slaves! So, what exactly was your point?

From here I tire of this redundant, jumbling, meandering, putrid, disgusting article, and I will now highlight some of the more repugnant attempts at an argument that are made (before finally focusing on Exodus 21:20-21)…

GMM reminds us that he himself is “called to be a ‘slave to Christ’”; “the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prophets, David, Solomon and other kings are regularly called slaves of Yahweh”; when “addressing Moses and prophets, the Israelites called themselves their slaves”; and that “kings, emperors, and commoners alike were ‘slaves’ of the gods”.

Come on now. Is he honestly going somewhere with this, or is it a cloud of chaff intended to mislead us? It is blatantly clear that the particular verses I invoke in my criticism of the bible on the basis of slavery are NOT utilizing the term in this manner. This is a pitiful display of misdirection.

GMM argues the “relativity” of the words “slavery” and “freedom”.

GMM tries weaseling the way out of Lev 25:44 “in which the verbs are of ‘acquisition’ and not ‘take’ or ‘conquer’ etc.” This, as I showed earlier, is not only revolting, but also flat out fallacious.

“(T)he Israelites were…allowed to ‘buy’ (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them…”
Oh, goody – although, this would also excuse most all those “real” slave-owners in the New World.

More fun with semantics – of Lev 25:46 (“You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life…”) he clarifies:

…it should be noted that the passage says that they “can” make them slaves for life - not that they “were automatically” slaves for life. [emphasis original]

What a guy.

In a truly repugnant, vile display of desperation (and another attempt at sleight of hand), GMM endeavors to emphasize the horrors of the Islamic trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades vs. the New World transatlantic [read: CHRISTIAN] trade by citing Britannica :

“African slave owners demanded primarily women and children for labour and lineage incorporation and tended to kill males because they were troublesome and likely to flee. The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been slaughtered outright by their African captors.” [emphasis mine]

Well, thank goodness for those white, European, Christian slave traders! If it wasn’t for them, instead of nefariously and violently being forced completely against their will into an inhumanly demeaning, abhorrently reprehensible servitude (IF they survived the horrors of the Middle Passage), those West Africans may have been killed by the (colored) Islamic slave traders. In East Africa. Several_thousand_miles_away.

This is as sickening as it is ludicrous.

In another frantic grasp for straws, GMM blesses us with these bits of complete impertinence:

We have already noted that in New World slavery at least two-thirds of plantation slaves would have lived in barracks (field-slaves), and not in intimacy with owners (domestics), whereas in the ANE/OT, the vast majority of the slaves were domestics under the same roof. In the ANE/OT, we don’t have the ‘gangs’ of agricultural workers… [emphasis original]

He then provides the quotes:

“there is no indication, for example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big estates” [emphasis original]

and

“Both types (Hebrew, foreign slaves) were domestic slaves living in their owners’ homes, not members of slave gangs working on plantations.

Oh, sure - they were property, but heck, they lived in the house!

Now, was either the geography OR economy of ancient Israel conducive to the formation of plantations for agricultural work? He has plummeted to the level of resurrecting the old “field nigger/house nigger” debate (let’s not sugarcoat this; and while speaking of language, I personally find it quite interesting that, even when referring to slaves, the imagery and word association of “gangs” and groups of black people is still prevalent – here from three different sources).

One of the many references to indentured servants:

“…many slaves in ancient societies...were more secure and economically better off than the mass of the free poor…It was not unknown for free men to sell themselves into slavery to escape poverty and debt…”

So why weren’t all of these free poor selling themselves? Why, then, were there any free poor, if slavery was such a better option and improved condition? Were they not hip to this hustle?

“ALL servants were required to take the Sabbath day off – just like the masters.”

YIPEE!!! That makes it allllll better!! What was I thinking? Why, this isn’t slavery at all!

GMM decides to tackle Exodus 21:7-11:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her...

He attempts to explain this away as the customary practice of fathers charging a dowry for their daughters (as if this practice is at all defensible):

This mohar was once thought of…as a ‘bride price’, but more recently it is understood as a ‘bride-present’ (since sometimes the bride got to keep it herself…

Oh, how good for her! I'm sure that, once ~~married~~ owned, she certainly had rights to it. This is a laughable, predictably misogynistic, patriarchal statement.

He then adds:

this ‘selling’ isn’t real slavery – it’s very, very different from ‘regular’ slavery transactions [emphasis original]

Especially since:

Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class [emphasis original]

Wonder if anybody asked the daughters.

He then sets his brilliant grasp of Christian ethics around Exodus 21:2-4:

When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone. [emphasis mine]

He tries, I’ll assume with a straight face, to explain away this “Single in, Married during, Single out” clause thusly:

“The wife is obviously a servant too; This means that the owner paid for the servant girl himself; Now, normally, this male servant would have to pay the…bride-price…for the wife, but he obviously doesn’t have such resources in his circumstances. This means one of two things: (1) the bride-price must be paid after his release; or (2) the marriage is not a ‘real’ one but a siring (like concubines sometimes functioned) to help populate the household”

“We know the latter (#2, ‘siring only’) situations occurred, and typically did NOT generate the emotional/commitment attachments of a real marriage [probably difficult to generate in a relationship whose average duration would have been 36 months (half of 6 years), most months of which would have been spent in pregnancy/nursing (‘children’)]:”

“‘no matrimonial or emotional bond was necessarily involved’…So, this should not be a serious issue for us.”
[emphasis original]

WTF?! How very, very sad. Need I remind you this is all mere speculation. Nevertheless, if I believed in souls, I’d swear this man has none.

But don’t be depressed!

And if the servant shall plainly say, 'I love my master, my wife, and my sons. I do not want to go out free,' his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door or to the door-post. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. (Exo 21:5-6 MKJV) [emphasis mine]

Captain Cold-Hearted Bastard to the rescue:

But, in case emotional bonds WERE created with the wife/kids…“he could invoke the clause of ‘permanent servitude’ and stay forever in that situation (with security, familiarity, family)” [emphasis original]

Finally, we will deal with the issue of Exodus 21:20-21, starting with verse 20:

“If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished” (Ex 21.20, NIV)

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged” (JPS Tanach translation)

“If a man shall strike his slave or his maidservant with the rod and he shall die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged.” (Stone Edition Tanach translation) [emphasis original]

GMM comments that "If a master beat a slave and the slave died, the master was held accountable under the 'life for life' clause", and invokes this as proof of the Hebrew's uncanny regard for the right's of slaves, adding that:

It no more 'authorizes' a master to abuse a slave, than it 'authorizes' a Hebrew to bash his fellow's head with a rock, knocking him unconscious for a day or so!

Using his poetic license to full advantage, GMM takes quite a liberty here: there are many levels of abuse leading up to bludgeoning skulls, that, while possibly not quite as severe, are nonetheless abuse. Also, being KO'd for "a day or so" belittles the obviously stated fate of the slave, as seen in Exodus 21:21:

but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property" [emphasis original]

(Here we go with the "property" again - which completely ends the whole "is slavery allowed by God" debate, by the way. Here, GMM attempts to make light of even this, stating that "property" here is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew כּסף (keseph: Strong's H3701), meaning - literally - "silver"; money (although the "normal" word for "property" is, in fact, used as a biblical description for humans in other instances). I'll assume his argument here is that money implies value - as if property doesn't. The truth is even more bestial, since this means that not only is the slave property, s/he is an investment - a cash cow, if you will.)

This clearly implies that if the slave "lingers" BEFORE finally "succumbing", as in dying. Permanet death, or temporary loss of conciousness?...hmmm. Nope, not the same.

How does eventual death merit less severe punishment than immediate death?

"under his hand," in contrast to "a day or two" in verse 21. The direct, immediate, causal relationship between the master's act and the death of the slave is undisputed. The master has unlawfully used deadly force, and homicidal intent is assumed.

"Should the beaten slave linger more than a day before succumbing, certain new and mitigating circumstances arise. The direct, causal relationship between the master's conduct and the slave's death is now in doubt, for there may have been some unknown intermediate cause. The intent of the master appears less likely to have been homicidal and more likely to have been disciplinary. He is given the benefit of the doubt, especially since he is losing his financial investment, the price of the slave." [emphasis mine]

"Since the slave did not die immediately as a result of this act of using the rod...but tarried for "a day or two"...the master was given the benefit of the doubt; he was judged to have struck the slave with disciplinary and not homicidal intentions. [emphasis original]

Maybe the slave got really sick after the flogging. Perhaps s/he had a stroke. God may have reached down and smote the slave. Who knows? Give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Hmpf. I have a sneaking suspicion that the slaves weren't given such benefits.

To futher illustrate exactly how "absolutely anti-abuse" (he really said that) these instructions are, GMM offers up Exodus 21:26-27...

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

True, this does seem, as he ironically notes, "oddly humanitarian", and he ensures us it demonstrates that:

…in the OT, there was a huge 'disincentive' to strike one's slave in the face!...Facial blows were considered culpable.”

So all of those images of slaves whose backs were ravished with the keloidal roadmap of "discipline's" course aren't so bad afterall! Rather your flesh ripped from muscle (foot amputated, skin branded, etc.) than your tooth get knocked out!

Never ceasing to exceed the limits of mercilessness, GMM adds insult to injury, remorselessly joking:

And the above prescription is also instructive, in comparison to today: whereas typical insurance programs will pay 50% of maximum disability for 'loss of a single eye', they pay nothing for the loss of a tooth…(smile).

That's right: fuck the Emancipation Proclamation, give us better dental!

Ultimately, GMM requests we go back a few verses, to Exodus 21:18-19, to get a proper context so we can see this proclamation for what it trully is:

If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. [emphasis original]

This, GMM posits, plainly shows that:

If two people fight but no one dies, the aggressor is punished by having to 'retributively' pay...for the victim's lost economic time and medical expenses. If it is a person's slave and this occurs, there is no (additional) economic payment -- the lost productivity and medical expenses of the wounded servant are (punitive economic) loss alone. There was no other punishment for the actual damage done to the free-person in 18-19, and the slave seems to be treated in the same fashion. Thus, the 'property' attribute doesn't seem to suggest any real difference in ethical treatment of injury against a servant. [emphasis original]

He then provides a nifty little graph and concludes:

It should be obvious that the 'slave' in this case is raised to at least as high a level as is the Free-brew!

Yes, he said "Freebrew". And then implied that the slave gets better treatment (early claims of reverse discrimination?).

Now, it may be me, but our author really seems to be missing something here -- the point. The victim in the first situation was recompensed, but what of the slave? This is being looked at solely from the perspective of the transgressor! Seriously, what he is saying is that if you beat the shit out of a free man, you have to pay - out of your pocket - for medical bills and lost wages, and if you kick your slaves ass, while not out of pocket costs, you still also have to pay - in terms of the slave's lost productivity. Either way, you, the aggressor, are (financially) punished! As he himself highlights in a quote:

"When this law (20-21) is considered alongside the law in vv. 26-27, which acted to control brutality against slaves at the point where it hurt the master, viz., his pocketbook"

There - we're even. All fair and square: the aggressors is punished and pays up, the free victim gets retribution, and the slave...hmmm...the slave got a beat down.

Where's the slave's compensation? This is precisely the point of my original post: due to the rewarded emphasis on rejection of reason, and conditioned result of closed-mindedness recieved from religion - slavery is in fact biblically defended (OT and NT), and was abolitionists were most vehementally opposed by Christians using scripture as their weapon of justification - we live in a society that accepted, practiced, and justified ownership of human beings. Due to this religiously inspired irrationality, coupled with all of the other biblical examples of inhumane activity and revealed sense of entitlement, a horrendously barbaric practice was deemed socially acceptable and a group of our fellow wo/men was dehumanized. This allowed for continued oppression even after manumission. The legacy of this continuous brainfucking gives us a society in which a seemingly educated man (both BF and GMM) can have a ridiculously blind sense of true morality. As a direct result of religious faith - and as further demonstrated in GMM's "defense" - in the Western, modern world, “slave” and “black” are synonymous. Just as was so vividly demonstrated during the Hurricane Katrina disater, white man (master)’s property is worth more than black (slave) life.

Crybabies...

2006-01-14T01:00:00.000-05:00

Allow me to vent. I am not going to provide links, footnotes, or any other "evidence" to back up my belief here -- I've just got something to get off my chest.

In light of recent news headlines such as "Attacks on Alito Unfair" and "Democrats Dumb to Make Alito's Wife Cry" (which, by the way, is a wonderful example of conservative maturity), it appears some people just don't get the importance of confirmation hearings.

So what some uber-privileged out-of-touch rich, white woman was crying (have her life on minimum wage for a year to put things in perspective - shit, have her live on day as a black woman in America)? Who really cares? There are millions of people crying out of pure desparation around the globe due to the abhorent conditions they live in. People who make less in a year than it takes to fill up the gas tank in a Suburban. People who have to provide for their families with less money than Mrs. Alito spends on an appointment at the hairstylist. Less money than Mr. Alito pays for a blowjob. Oops, my bad, he probably goes to common crack whores for discount head. (I realize the last comment was out of line, unfounded, a shot to my credibility, and about as mature as the conservativenews.org headline quoted above.)

The fact that some Republicans are crying claims of "unfair" is ludicrous. The end result of these confirmation hearings is to appoint a judge to the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States of America for LIFE! How can you fail to see the importace of this?! Millions of lives will be directly affected by this one event. So, if some tough questions are asked during the process of ascertaining if this individual is up to the monumental position of responsibility at hand, good!

Unfair would be the line of questioning endured by the detainees being illegally held at Guantanamo Bay (how long have they been there? And in this time, exactly how many high level arrests and/or foiled terrorist plots have resulted as the direct result of such? Oh, yeah -- NONE!)

Unfair are the interrogations black people in America have to undergo every time they go shopping, drive a car "out of their price range," or take a walk/drive through an "exclusive" neighborhood.

For some reason, I have a sneaking suspicion that this is a ploy designed to distract the attention from where it needs to be directed. I thought this as soon as I saw Mrs. Alito's pitiful mug plastered on the cover of Friday's USA Today.

Dying to Get to Paradise...

2006-01-13T23:55:00.000-05:00

An estimated 244 to "at least 345" people senslessly died in yet another tragedy in the name of god.

As one of the Five Pillars of Islam, it is the religious duty of all Muslims who are able to take a pilgramage (Hajj) to Makkah (Mecca) at least once in their life. One of the nine ritual acts that are part of this grand event is the Stoning of the Devil in which pilgrims pelt the Jamaraat -- pillars symbolically representing the Devil or temptation -- with stones (actually pebbles) in a reenactment of an ordeal Ibrihim (Abraham) went through while trying to sacrifice his son Ishmael (those familiar with Judeo-Christian belief may see the similarities with Abraham and Issac). This stoning "represents the repudiation of man's self...and the act of casting aside one's low desires and wishes" and serves as a "symbolic purging of their sins."

As one Muslim explains:

This ritual is particularly emotional for many pilgrims. The pillars actually become the Devil for many pilgrims, and people can be heard screaming, "Because of you, I did..."

This emotion is where things can get dangerous. The most recent example happened when "some 600,000 pilgrims were squeezed in at the main eastern entrance ramp to the platform when about a dozen people stumbled over baggage, tripping others behind them" leading to a stampede resulting in the death toll listed above.

This is not the first time tragedy has stricken the faithful during Hajj, and a quick glance at a table illustrating the most major of such in recent years shows that almost 1,100 people have been killed in stampedes near Jamarat Bridge since 1994.

The tragedy is that each of these people are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, lovers. For we non-believers, the sad irony is that thousands of human beings are dying in vain, trying to purge themselves of imaginary sins committed against a god that doesn't exist to ensure themselves a spot in an afterlife that isn't there.

An Exercise In Critical Thought...

2006-01-13T01:27:00.004-05:00

I recently resurrected my Black Planet page(untouched since 2001) with the intentions of getting in a little evangelizing. While readers of this blog should be familiar with the very basic presentation I put forth (and recognize some of the arguments from a recent post) , I present it here in its entirety:

If the police accused you of committing a crime, you'd insist on evidence.

If somebody accused your significant other of infidelity, you'd insist on evidence.

If a doctor diagnosed you with a disease requiring thousands of dollars in medical bills—or giving you limited time to live—you'd insist on evidence.

If the school system expelled your child, you'd insist on evidence.

If the mechanic gave you a lengthy list of repairs complete with an exceedingly steep bill, you'd insist on evidence.

But somebody can tell you that an invisible, all powerful being lives in the sky, wrote a book thousands of years ago, and wants you to follow his every word...and you require not one shred of evidence?

He fathered himself and came to Earth so he could have himself killed, to save you from himself? All of which he knew would have had to happen since the beginning of time...and this requires no explanation?

For hundreds of years, science has been providing overwhelming evidence showing the Bible to be incorrect, but Christians refuse to even investigate its claims.

Yet...

...a Christian will rely on the exact same science to heal him/her when ill.

...a Christian will rely on the exact same science to deliver justice during a criminal investigation.

...a Christian will rely on the exact same science to drive, fly, or sail in his/her travels.

...a Christian will rely on the exact same science to provide heat, water, and electricity in his/her home.

What's wrong with this picture?

After Hurricane Katrina, Kanye West spoke out and proclaimed the obvious truth for all to hear:

"GEORGE BUSH DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE."

But think just one step further:

Dubya did not create the hurricane and direct it toward the Gulf

Dubya did not create the laws of physics which limited the amount of damage the levees could withstand

Dubya did not create the extreme institutional racism so deeply embedded in the American system which led to the abject poverty that prevented these poor humans from being able to evacuate (although he is doing his best to contribute to and maintain it)

If you are a Christian, your god did all of this. Even more, according to your Bible, God planned all of this. Every man, woman, and child's death. Every lost home. Every suffering human tragedy is part of god's plan. Dubya was nothing but an instrument of god — George was merely doing God's work.

Additionally, look back even further throughout the horribly oppressed legacy Black people have had in the Americas, and continue to have here, in Africa (genocide, slavery, disease, famine, poverty, etc), and throughout the world. If you believe in god...

GOD DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE.

What the Bible says about Slavery

*NOTE: Don't be mislead by words like "servant", "bondsman", or "maid" - these situations all imply slavery, as in chattel.

Exodus 21:7
If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant...

Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

[So, you can beat your slave with a stick, and if s/he dies right then or even later that day, you're in trouble. BUT, if s/he lingers and lives for a "day or two" before dying, well, then, that's cool, since s/he's your money (read: PROPERTY) afterall.]

Leviticus 25:44-46
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.

Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

Colossians 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Titus 2:9-10
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward

CHRISTIANITY IS THE RELIGION EUROPEANS GAVE AFRICAN SLAVES TO PACIFY THEM AND TEACH THEM TO BEHAVE. SCRIPTURE WAS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL DEFENSES FOR SLAVERY IN ANTEBELLUM AMERICA.

What the Bible says about Women's Rights

Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

[Good Christian women keeping silent in church?]

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

[In case you missed it, this says that women are not allowed to teach, nor are they allowed to be in any position of authority over men.]

SUPRISE! A BOOK WRITTEN BY IGNORANT, MISOGYNISTIC GOAT HERDERS ROAMING AROUND THE DESERT THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO REFLECTS THE MINDSTATE OF IGNORANT, MISOGYNISTIC GOAT HERDERS ROAMING AROUND THE DESERT THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.

What the Bible Says About Abortion

Life does not begin until the first breath is taken:

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Ezekiel 37:5-10
Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone.
And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them.
Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.
So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life:

Exodus 21:22-23
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."

[For those who have trouble with the King James Version: If two men are fighting, and they injure a pregnant woman bystander, causing her to miscarry (terminating the fetus) BUT the woman isn't hurt, then it's all good. BUT if the woman (actual living human) is hurt, we've got problems. This plainly illustrates the view of a fetus not being as important as a living human.]

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old:

Leviticus 27:6
"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons:

Numbers 3:15-16
"Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD."

God approves of killing fetuses:

Hosea 9:14
"Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts."

Hosea 9:16
"Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."

Hosea 13:16
"Samaria shall become desolate;for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

[God is telling them to commit genocide, including an order to cut open pregnant women's stomachs.]

God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents:

2 Samuel 12:14
"Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die."

God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women:

Genesis 38:24
"Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt."

[Of further interest, in the particular story, Judah is going to have his pregnant daughter-in-law BURNT alive because she got pregnant through an act that was paid for...by him, Judah, her father in law. Yes, it's his baby. Good family values. Great moral character.]

PERHAPS CHRISTIANS SHOULD READ THE BIBLE AS MUCH AS THEY INTERFERE IN OTHER PEOPLE'S AFFAIRS.

*Most bible quotes obtained at The Skeptics' Annotated Bible (doubters can feel free to cross-reference: it's good to read the book you stake your life—and eternal afterlife—on.)

A Moment of Silence for Good Music...

2006-01-09T05:05:00.000-05:00

*Please allow me this opportunity to take a break from our regularly scheduled program to vent...*

Every once in a while a song comes out that truly is special. A composition of steaming feces that completely surpasses every and any previous attempt to completely redefine musical levels of utter stupidity, entering unexplored realms of a whole new category of retarded. Adjectives such as "bootycake" and "hot garbage" fail to fully describe the complete wackness of these crimes against humanity; falling short at adequately describing just how thoroughly it sucks 'taint. Songs that make you want to bathe in gravy, strap on steak-boxers, and hurl yourself into a pit of rabid hyena. You know, songs like "Cha Cha Slide" and "My Neck, My Back".

Enter "My Humps" by Fergie N'nym -- I mean, Black Eyed Peas. I thought "Laffy Taffy" was the newly-crowned champ, with it's Fisher Price My First Keyboard, Down's Syndrome Chimpanze banging on a drum machine beat (dum-dum-dum). But, ah -- how short its reign would be.

Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps, in my cultural myopia, I fail to recognize the genius conveyed through lyrics such as:

"You don't want no drama/ No no drama/ no no no no drama."

Or this gem:

"I'ma get get get get you drunk/ Get you love drunk off my hump/ My hump my hump my hump/ my hump my hump my hump /my hump my hump my lovely lady lumps/"

Yeah.

My bad. I didn't realize that attaining anything beyond a kindergarten reading level was a bad career choice for aspiring songsmiths. Why does this sound like it was witten by a drunken, Alzheimers-ridden baboon with tourettes? Maybe it's just me.

And what the fuck are these "lovely lady lumps"?! Is this some type of disease? Should I be scared? Because, from where I'm sitting, Fergie provides the perfect example of an absolute complete lack of ass on a human being. At first I felt sorry for her. Honestly, I thought she'd been in some horrible accident involving heavy farming equipment or wild beasts. Then I realized, nope, this bitch just has no discernable ass whatsoever (or any other feminine curves). Her lower back just sorta oozes into her thighs. You get the feeling that if she tried to sit down something would crack. Even worse, she became the role-model for assless chicks all across America, and on any given Saturday night across the country you could walk into a club and be a witness to boney-ass, six-o'clock chicks shaking the hell out of their pockets and popping their spines (because, in all honesty, that's all that's being accomplished). The type of chicks that seem not to notice that their tail bone is not supposed to be visible through their jeans (in case you're a young lady wondering if this applies to you: if you have any shorts, sweats, etc. which have something written on the ass - we're not supposed to be able to read what it says. On a good, proper ass, at least two of the letters will completely disappear -- right smack dab in the middle. The same goes for a thong -- you're not supposed to see the string. If it's visible, yes, I'm talking to, and about, you.)

So, what are these "humps"? Looking at the manly-ass chick singin' the song, my best guess would have to be an Adam's Apple, which is just truly terrifying. You're right, I don't want no drama. Fuck me bein' the guy who gets stomped out by the transvestite, I just can't afford that type of loss in cool points.

I really shouldn't be suprised, coming from Black Eyed Peas, though. I was never a fan, but at one time they actually were hip hop. They were b-boys who put on a hell of a show, and Will came out and ciphered with some of us afterwards once. But every since they ran up on the Disney chick, it's just been downhill. Can't say they didn't warn us, though: What was that song called? Oh, yeah -- "Let's Get Retarded". At least they were keepin' it real.

Pat It Again...

2006-01-07T04:59:00.000-05:00

My personal favorite bat-shit crazy fundamentalist hypocrit Pat Robertson is once again providing a shining example of xian love and compassion.

Through Pat we have been made aware that 9/11 was punishment for the rampant homosexuality, feminism, and whatever other pet peeves of his (Pat's or Gods - you choose). He also let us in on Hurricane Katrina being a protest against Ellen Degeneres hosting the Emmys. And then there's that whole business about the call for the execution of a publically elected offical.

Now, Pat brings us up to date on God's extreme benevolence with the anouncement that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's recent stroke was punishment meted out by God for Israel's withdrawl from Gaza.

"God says, 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone,'" he said.

While I've yet to find that exact verse in the Bible, it does make me wonder about a chunk of a few hundred years or so when the "Promised Land" wasn't exactly controlled by "God's chosen people." How many aneurisms was God sending out for that divison?

I'm also led to wonder about God's omnipotence. Here's a guy who can seriously kick some ass - one would think - but, this smiting isn't all that impressive, now is it? I mean, Sharon isn't, well, dead, and isn't that what smiting is all about? But, in this situation, mere humans have managed to keep the smoted alive. Doesn't say too much about the power of the hand of God, now does it?

Oh, yeah:

Robertson spokeswoman Angell Watts said of people who criticized the comments: "What they're basically saying is, 'How dare Pat Robertson quote the Bible?'"

"This is what the word of God says," Watts told the AP. "This is nothing new to the Christian community."

And Pat being absolutely out of his friggin mind is nothing new to the rational segment of the community.

Digging for a Reason...

2006-01-05T05:20:00.000-05:00

When the news of the mining accident in Tallmansville, WV reached the families of the miners and other town residents, the people did what you'd expect West Virginians to do: go to church and pray (those of you who immediately thought "incest" should be ashamed).

That they're praying to the same god who allowed - if not outright caused - the mine explosion in the first place obviously didn't cross their minds.

A televised report on the 700 Club (hey - I spent a few days at my brother's house, and his mother forced it on me) focused on the "faith" of the community and showed many of the residents praying and mentioning prayer as the only chance they had.

The next day's episode (it was torture), when bringing news that 12 of 13 had died, had a soundbite of a young man saying that prayer is all he can do to cope.

So, let me get this straight...prayer was supposed to save your grandfather, failed miserably, and yet, in learning absolutely nothing from this incident, you're still going to depend on prayer to help you with something? What was that definition of "insanity" that I'd heard in the past? Oh yeah: Insanity is when you continuously try the same thing and expect different results (or something along those lines).

This story, although horribly tragic, is a wonderful example of the delusions of the religious masses, and as we follow its progression we see an all too typical pattern unfold.

As the families awaited news and rescue teams busted their asses and risked their lives, we read that:

Family members...retreated to the nearby Sago Baptist Church.

and

Gov. Joe Manchin said West Virginians "believe in miracles."

"We still pray for miracles in West Virginia," Manchin said.
"There is still a chance and there's hope and we have that."

Manchin, who's uncle was one of 78 men who died in a mining accident in 1968, should have a little more insight to go on than miracles and prayer, and as a public official should be putting more emphasis on fact - such as details of the rescue effort - than dwelling on beliefs.

Eventually news came that one man had died but twelve survived. A cover story in the January 4 edition of USA Today shows a picture of celebrating family members taken outside of a church. The accompanying stories tell of church bells ringing, people holding vigil and singing "wonderful hymns" such as How Great Thou Art, I'll Fly Away and Amazing Grace, and community Donato's Pizza signs which read "Pray for the miners and their families." The over all message is that "faith...(is) sustaining the miner's [sic] families."

"Miracles happen in West Virginia, and today we got one," said Charlotte
Weaver.

Helen Winans...said she believes there was divine intervention. "The Lord
takes care of them," she said.

Unfortunately, that first bit of news wasn't quite correct, and the survival rate of twelve out of thirteen missed the mark by about eleven or so.

When the real news finally arrived, the families realized no miracles had happened and that their prayers, hymn singing, vigils, and pizza parlor signs were nothing more than a waste of time, and finally stopped being ungrateful asses and thanked the (human) rescue workers for their efforts, although unfruitful...right? Wrong.

A CBN story tells us that before the news:

"The families gathered at the local Baptist church to wait and pray for the best"

Then, upon hearing the original, false report:

Someone said, "They're alive, all of them." People cheered, some saying, "It's a miracle, it's a miracle!"

But once the truth was revealed:

Angry family members spilled out of the church, tears of joy turning to tears of anger. Fist fights broke out and mine officials had to be escorted out by police.

Yet another story reports more of the same:

When the bad news was delivered to the families...chaos broke out in the church and a fight started. About a dozen state troopers and a SWAT team were positioned along the road near the church because police were concerned about violence. Witnesses said one man had to be wrestled to the ground when he lunged for mining officials.

Good ol' Christian values. Can't say I didn't see that one coming.

But, irregardless of violence, the presence of pure, in-your-face, evidence that miracles just don't happen and prayer is worthless manages to set in, right? Well...

(Gov. Joe) Manchin, who had earlier said that the state believed in miracles, tried to focus on the news that one had survived. "We're clinging to one miracle when we were hoping for 13," he said.

I love how miracles work. A mine explodes and twelve men die so that one can miraculously live. Hallelujahh! Puh-raise Jeez-us-uh!

I really don't mean to sound insensitive, but maybe they should leave them in there, roll a rock in front of the entrance, and wait for three days for some resurrections. These people just don't get the point.

Maybe I'm biased. Maybe I'm just blind to the facts. I mean, afterall, Randal McCloy (the one survivor)'s wife told reporters how:

her husband would leave for work early every day, saying goodbye with the same reminder, "God's always with you."

Ah, yes. He is the lone survivor because his faith was so much stronger than the other twelve (take that dead miner-guys!).

Maybe he's the embodiment of Jesus and this is the second coming - after all, the thirteenth survived and twelve died (the whole twelve apostles thing).

Or maybe, just maybe, he survived because, as another story illustrates:

At 27, McCloy was one of the youngest in the group

The next 700 Club report I saw mentioned the mounting anger felt by residents and families of the victims toward the authorities and whoever was responsible for the "false hope." This is further highlighted:

Ann Merideth, the daughter of one of the dead miners...said, "I call this
injustice, and I will tell you all right here and right now, I plan on suing."

Hmmm. They seem to be angry that somebody delivered a message that gave them hope but was ultimately shown to be untrue. Now, why does this seem familiar? Are they planning on suing their church? What about the publishers of their Bibles? How about a civil suit against God? Earlier they had no use for humans, and acknowledged that their sole source of hope was their faith and prayer, and now that reality has set in, humans, it seems, actually did have some sort of role. One of culpability.

God was going to protect them. If they survived, it would have been due to, and proof of, God. The families survived the period of time with no news with God's help. The dead miners are now with God, and only God will help the families cope.

But God is not responsible for the accident in the first place (unless the miners of Tallmansville were planning a Gay Pride March or something), nor is he responsible for "false hope," which is such a horrible, horrible thing that it merits a lawsuit.

Once again we are shown that if something goes well, chalk one up to God; something goes horribly wrong? Penalize man. We saw the same when Kanye West spoke out (rightfully so) and declared what millions knew and millions more wanted to pretend didn't exist: President Bush doesn't care about black people.

Well, no shit, but let's look a bit deeper, Mr. West. What was one of Kanye's biggest hits? A little tune called Jesus Walks. As Reggie (aka the Infidel Guy) points out: if, and as clearly as, the tragedy of Katrina demonstrates the government's complete and total reckless disregard for poor people - and especially those of color - then what does it say about God? Apparently, God doesn't care about black people, and there's quite a larger body of evidence against HIM than Bush - which is itself overwhelming.

But what more can be expected of a god whose religion has absolutely no concept of culpability, justice, or equitable treatment?

Wake up and think, people...it's really not all that complicated.

Don't Get Too Close to That Conbine...

2005-12-26T06:52:00.001-05:00

*I realize this isn't exactly breaking news*

Marshall Brain, of How Stuff Works fame, has written a piece called "Why Does God Hate Amputees?"

Recognizing it as a piece on atheism - or agnosticism at the least - I quickly absorbed it. From the title, I'd expected the traditional Bible critique with a focus on passages setting forth the prerequisites for entrance into YHWH's "congregation" (the Judeo/xian god didn't really like handicapped/deformed individuals very much - see Leviticus 21:17-21 ; Deuteronomy 23:1 ).

My assumption was half correct: while he does offer some verses for critique, there is no mention of the aforementioned topics. This takes nothing away from the book though (it definitely would have been an appropriate inclusion), and I was quite happily impressed with it as a whole.

Marshall presents this work as a "proof" against the existence of god - the God of xianity in particular - and mainly approaches the topic through the age old issue of theodicy.

While there may be some liberties taken with his logic, Marshall presents a very strong argument. Nothing new is presented, but it's his delivery that impresses me most. This book is perfect as an introduction to religious skepticism. The reading is very easy and quick and the overall feel is one that is aimed at teenagers or young adults, or simply those who are still closed-minded toward questioning their "faith" - so long as they're open-minded enough to be honest with themselves, acknowledge the doubts and questions they have in moments of introspection, and willing to give the message an "ear."

He opens by quickly demonstrating the obvious inefficacy of prayer, moves on to presenting some complications with the bible (offering, again, merely an starter's course of sorts - nothing approaching complete or exhaustive), then moves in on a course of Jesus examination before finally sumising and analyzing the conclusions that should be drawn from the evidence presented. He then defends the morality of atheism and drops some whoppers (although admiral) in the suggestion box for society.

Reiteration is relied on heavily, and quite effectively as Brain builds his case. He also employs hypothetical conversations between a xian (Chris for Christian) and skeptic (Norm for Normal - although atheist secular humanist skeptics are far from "normal" in this society), and offers forth some predictable theistic rebuttals which he quickly refutes.

Some of the issues I had are the liberties he takes with labeling we atheists/agnostics with terms like "normal": "any normal person would...". I understand his reasoning here, and ultimately this may be an issue of semantics, but when dealing with topics a serious (and sensitive) as religion we need to be realistic in our approach. "Sensible" - or even "realistic" or "honest" - would have been a much better word choice. I'm not at all suggesting we water down our approach, just that we maintain integrity and not fall into some of the questionable methods employed by those across the debate table. He also puts "devout xians" in hypothetical situations that, well, a devout xian wouldn't be in (e.g. a casino).

All in all, I think the piece is an absolutely wonderful introduction to skepticism. I've printed it out (yep, all 170+ pages) and I have full intentions of passing it along to those I want to get the message to, but whom may not be quite ready for works as extensive (or academic) as, say, Earl Doherty or Michael Martin.

There is no need for an intrinsic or encyclopedic understanding of philosophy, theology, philology, linguistics, biology, physics or any other of the tools usually employed in such endeavors, just a realistic view of the world, a slightly open mind, and some sense of logic (no syllogisms or illustrations of error here).

In the past I would usually offer Thomas Paine's classic "Age of Reason" or works of Ingersoll for this purpose, but unfortunately, since the advent of radio and television, written language is much less eloquently presented, and thus reading comprehension has been severely affected (in other words, today's average reader runs into comprehensive issues when reading most anything written a century or more ago). As a deist, Paine is still a very viable option, followed by Ingersoll (agnostic) as one works their way toward full-blown atheism, but Marshall's work presents a pleasantly refreshing alternative - let's face it, with a topic this "heavy," light reading is quite welcome.

PS - On the topic of easy(er)-to-approach atheism, I will be ordering both "Natural Atheism" by David Eller and "Atheist Universe" by David Mills (which also has a companion audio CD which can be ordered). Yeah, I know Mr. Mills has hair issues, but he comes across as an amazingly nice individual in his interview on the Infidel Guy Show .

I Want to Conform to Labels...

2005-11-20T23:06:00.002-05:00

I would like to categorize my posts. Although Blogger doesn't offer this functionality, I am aware that there are ways to do it, but since I'm essentially sneaking online from work (shhhhh...), until I have internet access from home I really don't have time to sufficiently research the subject myself.

Soooo...if somebody could help me set such a system up, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you ahead of time.

*Update: Nobody offered their assistance, but Blogger did eventually catch up.

Say Your Prayers...

2005-11-18T04:43:00.002-05:00

I got robbed tonight.

OK, well I didn't get robbed, but the hotel where I work as a night auditor got robbed (although they did take all of my money too).

The details are insignificant. I am very angry right now, but that too is not important.

So why am I writing this? I don't want sympathy, and it's not a very good catharsis. But what do I write about, and how is this related?

My coworker is from Somalia, and, as one could probably easily guess, he is a Muslim. Actually, as the robbers approached us, my coworker and I were discussing religion - why he has so much faith and why I have none. After the ordeal, after the police and manager had left, and Aziz and I were once again alone and left to discuss our experience, he brought up his god. Allah had saved us. Do I now have faith? Do I now believe in this benevelent god who so graciously spared my life?

My answer is simple: I look at this in a completely different way...

...a god who loves me wouldn't have allowed this to happen.

My jaw might be broken. Hell, my nose may be broken. My reason however, is stronger than ever.

I'm Baaaaack...

2005-11-03T06:05:00.002-05:00

Well, not completely, but I will be posting again soon.

I apologize for my absence (for anyone who may actually care). I recently relocated and have very limited access to the internet. I now have my PC at my new home, but still do not have internet usage. This is essentially an issue of time and money. Now that I am settling, the time aspect is being overcome. Finances aren't so quickly rectified.

Bottom line? I have far too large an ego, an equally large pool of opinions, and an even larger mouth to spew them with, so the blog is a sort of therapy in a cathartic way. Besides, my friends and family get kinda sick of my preachin'.

Thank you for reading, and for my inclusion in the COTCG a few carnivals back.

A Case for Public Schooling...

2005-10-02T22:40:00.002-04:00

My daughters’ mother is “saved”. She received Christian schooling as a youth and even attended a Christian college. She now insists that my children follow in her footsteps. The idea of this horrifies me on many levels. I downloaded a copy of the Student Handbook to see if my fears were justified. Let’s see what I found:

The handbook starts out with the schools “Philosophy Of Education”:

Christian education directs the student toward a life goal of walking humbly before God. Students are challenged to fulfill his will by performing that which is good, acceptable and perfect. Only Christ-centered education gives true wisdom and understanding. At Delaware Christian School, the Bible is considered the inerrant Word of God and is integrated into every subject. Our faculty prepares students for more than academics. DCS students are taught character qualities and morals that will equip them to meet the challenges they will face in the world and influence others for Christ

Not a very good start. Where is the education part of this philosophy? I don’t see my children passing standardized tests, being accepted to college, or gaining employment based solely on “character qualities” and “morals”. Exactly which definitions of education, academics, and even school are they referring to?

The handbook then goes on to a rather lengthy Statement of Faith which includes this interesting tidbit (remember, they’re teaching this to children):

5. The Total Depravity of Man
We believe that the man was created in the image and likeness of God, but that in Adam’s sin the race fell, inherited a sinful nature, and became alienated from God; and, that man is totally depraved, and of himself utterly unable to remedy his lost condition.

That’s it – make them feel good about themselves. And this:

c. We believe that the souls of unbelievers remain, after death, in conscious misery until the second resurrection, when with soul and body are reunited they shall appear at the Great White Throne Judgment and shall be case into the Lake of Fire, not to be annihilated, but to suffer everlasting conscious punishment.

So now my children know that Daddy is going to hell, and the seed of fear has been planted to ensure they never think rationally, critically, or on their own. Great. Aside from the fact that this is pure gobbledygook, and nothing a child should be exposed to, notice the grammatically incorrect presentation. From an institution of “education” (typo or not, this is not good).

We are then fed more statements of faith, but this time they’re called by names like “purpose” and yet another “Philosophy” which includes this very telling gem:

We believe that God's purpose in the creation of man was to glorify Himself.

What an egotistical bastard.

We then move on to objectives. Oh, boy…

1. h. To stress individual responsibility of Christians for world missions.

History tells us how successful a venture this is. Those damn heathen savages. Good thing God’s watching over our brave soldiers while they slaughter them. Once we’ve forced our personal choice of government and economy on them, we can shove our religion down their throats too!

1. j. To promote good citizenship through developing and understanding an appreciation of our Christian and American heritage of freedom and human dignity.

Christianity and America have a heritage of freedom and human dignity? Oh, that explains the Inquisition, Crusades, pogroms, genocides, misogyny, slavery, immense stockpile of nuclear arms, and Patriot Act, among countless other fine examples.

2. b. To foster wholesome personal relationships through development of social skills based on the Christian concept of love.

Is that the same Christian love that tells us to hate our father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters (Luke 14:26)?

2. c. To teach a realistic and Biblical view of life and work and provide skills for future endeavors in college and an occupation.

Aren’t the “realistic” and “Biblical” views of life completely contradictory? Nevertheless, a view of life populated with white, conservative, upper middle class Christians is hardly a realistic view of the world. My main issue with this statement is that it is the first with any mention whatsoever about skills, college, or occupation – and it is a full 22 lines of text into the schools objectives.

Ten lines later we finally arrive at the schools academic endeavors, which include:

3. b. To develop creative and critical thinking and the proper use of Biblical criteria for evaluation.

At the mention of “critical thinking”, my fear momentarily subsides and I crack a rib laughing. The humor is short lived, and the fear quickly returns:

3. d. To teach the basic concepts of scientific investigation and to show that all scientific facts are in agreement with God's Word.

(I’d say very basic.) Ah, yes, the flat Earth, geocentric universe, miscalculated pi, bat-birds, cud-chewing rabbits, and creation debacle of “God’s Word” are indeed scientific facts. Biblical anatomy, with its thinking based in the heart (never mentions the brain – SURPRISE!) and emotions based in the kidneys, was also centuries ahead of its time.

To my relief, I see that the school is accredited:

ACCREDITATION
Grades K-12 are chartered by the Ohio Board of Education.

But after a second thought, that relief turns into bitter disappointment: obviously, standards for accreditation aren’t exactly set very high.

Further on we get into discipline. Surprisingly, they have left the Biblical standards and the children aren’t going to be put to death if they are unruly and disobedient (Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9). This is good. They do, predictably, incorporate corporal punishment. I adamantly believe in discipline, received numerous spankings in school, and see no problem with this. But what exactly does this discipline entail?

(3) Teachers will be certain that the student understands what he has done is wrong and why it is sin.
(4) Teachers will pray with the student and help him understand God's forgiveness and the teacher's forgiveness.

Not only did you piss off the teacher, but God’s pretty damned upset with you too, little Timmy. Dirty sinner.

In case you’re wondering what kind of offenses are serious enough to warrant paddling:

b. Irreverence
k. Failure to fit into the spirit of the school
l. Immorality or compromising activity and pregnancy
m. Any action which may tarnish the student's testimony for Christ.

These are rather vague. For context, tobacco, drugs, and alcohol were h, i, and j, and possession of weapons is n. But the extremely subjective and broad-sweeping category of “irreverence” made number two on the list. Better to tote a pistol and pocket full of crack rocks to school in a drunken stupor than be “irreverent”.

Looking for more emphasis on actual education, I look to the section entitled “High School Graduation Requirements”:

3 units of Math
2 units of Science
4 units of English
3 units of Social Studies
4 units of Bible

Clearly, Bible is extremely important, especially when compared to something as inconsequential to academic achievement as science. Though, I guess it would be rather hard to teach a Biblically-correct science class for more than two years, since its pretty much all contained in the first two chapters of Genesis. I personally want to see the text book diagrams of God opening up the windows in the “firmament” so it can rain.

By now I see that the quality of my children’s education is pretty much on par with, oh, I don’t know – obedience school for dogs. Add to it an extremely limited representation of social diversity, a promise of naivety, and a thorough mind-fucking misanthropic guilt trip complete with promises of everlasting torture in a fiery pit, and a pretty clear picture is forming.

Yeah, horror was an appropriate response.

It gets even more interesting. In the section describing Health Policies, we see this rather vague entry:

AIDS POLICY
The Delaware Christian School has adopted a policy on aids based largely on the guidelines and recommendations of the Association of Christian Schools International. A copy of this policy may be attained by contacting the school office.

I wonder exactly what that policy is, and why they don’t just come out and say it.

A bit of humor follows in the Communicable Diseases section:

2. A student may be exempted from immunization upon the presentation of the written religious or moral objection of his parent or guardian…
3. A child will be excluded from school if the principal suspects the child has a communicable or nuisance disease...

Don’t rely on modern medicine to keep your child healthy when all you really have to do is pray, but also don’t expect your kid to be welcome in school in the event s/he does get sick.

Last but not least, we come to the school dress code. As expected, the school enforces uniforms. I’m on the fence with this one. It is much cheaper for me (or it would be thought until one sees the cost of school uniforms), and it removes one of the more obvious signs of class, and thus indicators for potential harassment, but it takes away some personal identity, more firmly cementing the perception of school as a factory of conformity. Whether yay or nay, I am both entertained and uncomfortable with this statement:

The purpose of requiring girls of all ages to wear skirts is to instill in young ladies an appreciation of their femininity and their unique role in God's plan for society.

As long as it isn’t the Principal’s “appreciation” of their femininity.

This is a nightmare. To add to the mess, their mother is requesting more child support to help cover tuition. I have seriously considered seeking legal resolve for this issue, but, besides being broke, I don’t see many courts, much less one in a blue state, siding with an atheist father (race traitor at that).

I constantly remind them to think for themselves though. During Columbus Day and Thanksgiving celebrations, my daughters spoke out in class about the European treatment of the indigenous Americans. The teacher insisted they were mistaken (she also told her students that their parents should vote for Bush because Kerry isn’t a Christian), which shows the strong ethical standards the school screens for in its hiring process.

I suppose it won’t be too long before they make me exceedingly proud and raise a little hell in “science class”.

Why My space dot com Sucks Tain't...

2005-10-01T16:01:00.002-04:00

Today I will take a break from my usual mindless variety of posting to reflect and contemplate on one of the more profound things in life...

Do people actually look at their page? Must they put 27 flashing (thanks for the seizure!), scrolling .gifs of tacky-ass sparkly script and roses and angels and fairies and unicorns and rainbows and other various vomit-and-insulin-shock-inducing sugary-sweetness? Why, yes, they must. And let's not forget those cute lil' urban avatar thingies - I love those! I think I'm going to load my page full of cheesy strobe light animations of your skull getting bludgeoned with a claw hammer. Because that's what I want to do to myself when I see your page.

And white was the perfect choice for a font color on that bright-ass background! If only you could - oh, I don't know - make your pictures translucent to the point of transparency. What's that? Oh, you did! That's great.

But that's not enough.

They also have to put three videos AND a song!! Why not?! I actually prefer my music all chopped up into two second chunks. None of that continuous-song shit for me, thank you.

And their half-retarded friends just gotta comment 13 times a day to show them the latest corny-ass annoying shit that they've found.

But, at least they thought ahead: while you're waiting for 25 minutes for the page to load, they've included three or so 47 question surveys so you can know what color socks they're wearing, how many times they've gone to the store this week, and whether or not they like (enter food/TV show/sexual position/serial killer here).

Thanks! I've always wondered which Fraggle you would be. Maybe I should go check out that quiz myself!! Here's one for you: Which antipsychotic do I have to take after even short-term exposure to this steaming pile of bootycake that you call a webpage?

And thanks for the chain letter! I'm sure glad you "love" me. Now, let me get on to sending it to 69 (wow - clever double entendre) other poor unfortunate saps. God forbid I have 10 years of un-love!

Now, pardon me while I take a bat to my monitor...

I Have Found God...

2005-09-30T05:30:00.002-04:00

...and in doing so, found proof there is none.

Today was my first day at the new job.

Now, under normal circumstances, after four months of unemployment, this could very well make me proclaim, "Thank God."

But the new job is at a factory.

In the little blue-collar, Midwest town I live in, this is making it. This is the big deal. And that is infinitely depressing. I do not want to seem smug and arrogant or elitist, but I am not one of these people. If I was, I'd relish in my long-gone moments of personal achievement (i.e. high school athletics and prom), still approach social relationships with all the dysfunctional ineptness of (well) high school, feel threatened by my town's suddenly visible Mexican population, relish in the fact that I now have the job "paw and pa-paw" had, and live to go home and drink the introspective realization of my inadequacies away in a case of Bud. Oh, yeah - I'd also have two varieties of "Support Our Troops" ribbons and at least one NASCAR insignia on my pickup. And possibly a mullet. We both have a socially engineered place in society, but I have certain distinguishing characteristics that alienate me from them.

I am fully aware of the necessity of a manufacturing and labor force. They are vital to modern civilization. Some people are quite well suited for this type of work, and should feel some sense of pride in their participation with and contribution to society.

BUT.

The confinement of a mind (and heart) like mine to menial labor is a crime to humanity. I have, by the safest estimations, about 160 or so reasons (and sixteen years of formal education) to not be working here. But my IQ doesn't matter. I do not live in a meritocracy, and I have acknowledged my place in this oligarchic plutocracy. I just don't want to accept and acquiesce to it.

As I write this, I ache in some pretty strange places (all over), can barely breath (nose solidly congested and bleeding, and lungs aching), have myriad small cuts on my hands, my eyes are severely bloodshot and burning, and the skin on my face looks and feels as if I had a chemical peel. Welcome to day number one.

It was still dark, wet, and chilly before sunrise, and as I apprehensively approached the massive ~~slaughterhouse~~ labor mill, I was struck by the frenzy of movement of the worker ants building the colony. Who knew catatonia could be so...active? Then, in near-epiphany, I realized: I had become a lemming. The nightmarish fear that had plagued the fantasying of a child coming of age in small town America, had reached fruition.

For training purposes, here is no simulation environment; you are simply thrown to the lions. Before I could fully grasp the finality of the situation, I was caught up in a blur of mechanized conformity, hurling bits of steel about, connecting other bits to those bits, shooting screws, searching in vain for some sort of ordo ab chao*, all at a pace only suitable for metastasizing to automaton. Once a break in the action came along, and I could manage to wrap my mind around something other than my frantically adopted sense of urgency, I envisaged a glimpse at the bigger picture.

All those bits and pieces – and the screws and bolts I was shooting to hold it all together – were made by someone just like me (or at least in my same immediate position). As were the tools I was using. And the metal they were all fabricated with. All to create some finished product destined to be warehoused, shipped, stored again, and eventually hocked off by a continuing chain of proletariats to a consumer who is, statistically, most likely just another working-class zombie, induced into a commercial feeding-frenzy by a increasingly lethargic and apathetic, superficial, materialistic society which has idealized free market enterprise above human dignity and championed the ridiculous (and alliterated) practice of conspicuous consumption for competition and conformity. All perpetuated by an aristocracy, which includes those sitting at the board of the corporation that directs this cattle drive in which I find myself, through their propagandist partners in advertising.

The almighty dollar is the dues ex machina.

I wonder if when man first invented tools, they could have possibly fathomed that one day their descendants would be using them to build essentially unnecessary items that their fellow humans would almost voluntarily slave their life away to own. In some cases this is done in the name of leisure, efficiency, and the simplification of life. No one seems to notice that they’ll be sacrificing any leisure or quality of life to work hard enough to make the money to acquire these items.

I am a cog in a cog-making machine. I am leaning away from the ant colony and beehive analogies, past the slaughterhouse, and firmly into the den of vampires.

What exactly is the opposite of anthropomorphic? Because this truly is dehumanizing: a methodic, slow, certain, (intentional) disintegration of any perceived nobility from our species. Furthermore, I got the job through the modern-day equivalent of legal pandering: the industrial pimp known as a temp agency (the only way to gain employment with this particular entity). While I am purely a commodity for the factory, I am merely product for the agency, who is almost certainly making half of my wage per hour of my labor so its corporate client can forgo treating its drones humanely without such annoyances as benefits and union obligations. Oh, and did I mention I’m making a whopping $8.50 an hour?

Tomorrow I’ll take a packed lunch and jug of Vaseline, because if I can have one part that doesn’t sorely ache, I would like it to be my rectum. It is too late for my heart.

* both literally and in the Hegelian Dialect, Orwellian sense

On Paul Manata and Aversive Racism...

2005-09-27T18:25:00.002-04:00

WARNING: This post contains language some may deem inappropriate and, as so, viewable by only a mature audience. Maturity being a highly subjective term and arguable state, you make the call.

As a disclaimer, I am not calling Paul Manata an outright racist. I am illustrating a potential example of aversive racism. That it involves Paul, is merely coincidental, though I will openly admit that his involvement is conveniently beneficial for me, as his notoriety may attract more people to the message. Indeed, in order to argue a case for aversive racism, it is essential that the subject NOT be overtly racist.

That it involves Paul adds yet another layer: providing example of aversive racism truly is the ultimate point of my post, though I will also use it as a means of addressing allegations brought against and attacks attempted on me. Honestly, I had every intention of letting these go unchallenged. I was going to eat it. Brush it off. Not sweat it. I’m not stuttin’ him (there’s more “gangsta” talk for ya, Paul *wink*).

In a comment over at Goosing the Antithesis, regarding my post involving Paul, I had this to say to Paul:

A response is expected and appreciated. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Maybe you can provide clarification. But I highly suggest you avoid popping shit about me. If that is all you're capable of, then please, by all means, keep my name out'cha mouth unless I autograph my dick. Thank you. [emphasis added]

I fully admit my choice of language and approach unnecessary. Improper? Arguable. Those familiar with Mr. Manata’s diatribes should be aware that, in this context, my approach is not at all out of line. This is not exemplar of a purely academic environment. I simply wished to cut to the point and fully convey my total lack of interest in personal attacks in an arena of debate. I intentionally eschewed formality, general social niceties, and etiquette, to stress this. This is not quite as hypocritical as it may first initially appear: Paul incorporates argumentum ad hominem to the point of excess. I have not attacked Paul personally – I have made judgments on his arguments (“borders on asinine inanity, if not fatuous drivel”). A charge of appeal to ridicule may be brought against me, but in my defense, I posit that, through my analysis and critique of his work, I have established just cause for such assertions.

As a Christian, perhaps Paul is offended by such language (I still can’t find Biblical damnation of “bad words”), particularly my sexual, and thus potentially homosexual, allusion to fellatio. I could have substituted “make my name taste like shit in ya mouth,” but that would have changed nothing.

Pauls response:

"'dumb',

Thanks for the above ammunitian [sic] as I use it to show your hypocrisy. You pick on me for being mean and rude to the poor atheists, but then use words like you did above about me? It looks like the gangsta can give but can't take.

[…]

Peace out my brotha from anotha motha" [emphasis mine]

First, as we can see, he has given me a nickname of sorts. In a moment of apparent brilliance, and unparallel wittiness, he has ingeniously, through the mere insertion of the single letter “m”, dubbed (this is a pun) me “dumb.” Total lack of originality aside, this is name calling, and as so a direct assault on me and my character.

Second, my statement has only become ammunition for a new “argument”, as he has been thoroughly disarmed and rendered weaponless on the battlefield of intellectual ballistics and logical logistics in the previous “war” of words to which he is alluding in his charge of “hypocrisy”.

Third: “being mean and rude to the poor atheists”. Note how this is just dripping in sarcasm. Also notice the addition of poor, an obvious appeal to emotion.

Fourth, and finally, here’s where the racism comes in…

My use of such colorful language (seriously - this is not a pun) may illustrate my flair for humor (crass or not). My delivery may even be arrogant. But how is my behavior in any way indicative of violent and criminal-like conduct to a degree warranting the label “gangster”?

But notice, I’m not just a “gangster,” I’m a ”gangsta”. This is an obvious play on what is widely held as a form of black vernacular. I fail to see how it could be anything else, and my point is proven with his addition of “brotha of anotha motha.”

How and why did Paul take it to this level? Even a precursory look at my site may explain. And one need not even read any of my many posts regarding race: a simple look at my sidebar will suffice. He cannot claim to have never been to my site, because elsewhere, previous to this particular remark, he had directly quoted and commented on one of my posts.

But for arguments sake, let us assume he used this particular choice of words as a direct result of what I had said. His decision to include the term “gangsta” is quite telling. He didn’t have to comment on how I said what I said at all, but once choosing to do so, he could have just come right out and made some ridiculous claim of my “talking black” – which I believe he was getting at in his sarcasm, and which in itself carries racist tones.

But he said “gangsta”. Which I think very clearly illustrates a line of thinking that closely, near synonymously, identifies black people - especially young black men - with criminals and thugs.

I can easily draw this conclusion from years of personal experience. Upon hearing language that is perceived to be typical of that used by some black people, or even just as a parody of black people in general (or any aspect of their culture, such as rap music), I have seen far too many white people immediately assume a certain posture, use exaggerated body movements and accent in mimicry, and strew forth some embarrassingly inaccurate string of words no actual black person would ever truly say: Something along the lines of, “Shiiiit, homey/gangsta! I don’t be playin’ that shit. I’mma get me a gat and pop a cap in yo’ ass!” If bold enough, or in what they assume is safe company, they’ll throw in an occasional “nigga” or two.

Most of you, I’m positive, just had a visual.

Risking exposing a bias of my own, I also find it easy to apply a label of racism because of Paul’s very status as a fundamental Protestant Christian, whom I think are merely the housemates, if not bedmates, of white supremacists. I know this assertion in particular will draw heavy criticism, but I firmly stand by it. Later, perhaps in a future post, when time and space permit, I will expound on this thought, as well as the entire topic of aversive racism itself.

My intent here was simply to provide an example.

Don't Presuppose My Supposition...

2005-09-26T11:27:00.002-04:00

In a post entitled Atheistic reasoning concerning the Bible and God made on Sunday, September 25, 2005 at Atheism Presupposes Theism (I could not find a direct link), Christian Theist attempts to even the playing field, so to speak, and show that both teams – atheists and theists – are equally biased.

That our respective positions, in the arena of debate, are intellectually, though I’m sure still not morally, essentially equal.

He gets to the heart of atheistic logic, demonstrates it as inherently and fatally flawed, and then quickly reminds us that this is all entirely inconsequential, because, not only is he right, he is so right that there is an “impossibility of the contrary.” How is this so? Because “without [his] God, you could not prove anything.”

It may appear that he is taking a great liberty here by making a momentous assumption and allowing it to be taken for granted, but remember, he is a Van Tillian presuppositionalist. Also remember that is precisely his point. He asserts this as so for both sides, but I can’t help envisioning him as putting his thumbs to his ears, revealing his palms, shaking them, and singing, “nanny-nanny boo-boo” while doing so.

He begins with a categorical syllogism purportedly demonstrating, well, atheistic reasoning concerning the Bible and God:

Syllogism A (“A” for Atheistic)

Premise #1: God doesn't exist
Premise #2: The Bible claims to be inspired of God and therefore true
Premise #3: Since God doesn't exist, the Bible isn't inspired of Him
Premise #4: The Bible claims God exists
--------------------------
Conclusion: The Bible is not true and God does not exist

followed by the rhetorical inquiry:

Can anyone say “circular”? No? Can you say, “begging the question”?

It’s all moot, as no valid argument would be built on such a syllogism: Any interlocutor who is not masochistic or mentally Schiavo’d would never grant such a premise by the proposer, as it would be tantamount to conceding the point.

Nevertheless, I will address it.

The real issue is ascertaining Premise #1, no matter if presented in the positive or negative.

Of course, we could grant that both sides, by definition, presuppose #1 (+/-) and therefore, no arguments could even be brought about without it. This, though, isn't exactly an honest representation of the situation, which I'll examine momentarily.

As CT plainly illustrates when saying: “But of course, God does exist and His revelation about Himself in the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary”, presuppositionalism (in a generic sense, not just in Christian Apologetics) nullifies any need to even argue, as it creates a no-lose situation.

“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”

The syllogism he’s created here, and taken upon himself to put in our laps, is nothing more than a modification of one we've presented from day one (or at least since about 150 CE when the closest thing to a Christian canon was recognized – only to later be declared heretical. Protestant Christians like CT would have to wait until about 1647 CE when the Bible – as it is canonized, closed, and presented today – was essentially voted into existence. But I digress.)

The syllogism is as follows:

Syllogism C (“C” for Christian)

Premise #1: God exists
Premise #2: The Bible claims to be inspired of God and therefore true
Premise #3: Since God exists, the Bible is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The Bible claims God exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The Bible is true and God does exist

“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”

But what if we reduce it one level further, and substitute “D” (deity) for “God” and “R” (revelation) for “Bible”:

Syllogism T (“T” for Theist)

Premise #1: D exists
Premise #2: The R claims to be inspired of D and therefore true
Premise #3: Since D exists, the R is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The R claims D exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The R is true and D does exist

Deity and Revelation replaced with God and Bible, Christians have no trouble with this.

But experiment replacing D and R with any OTHER belief system-appropriate substitutes (e.g. Allah/al Qu'ran, Ahura-Mazda/Vesta, Zeus/Illiad, Devi/Devi Mahatmyam, Necronomicon/Cthulhu, The Book of the Dead/Thoth, YHWH/Tanakh, et al.*) and Christian approval won't be so forthcoming.

This is another reason why, from anything other than a presuppositional perspective, this is a flawed syllogism. It relies on far too many conditions.

Alas, I present, as an objection to CT’s Syllogism A:

Atheism does not claim God does not exist - not explicitly. Atheists lack a belief in god. There is a difference, and it is pertinent enough to eradicate his syllogism.

I should also emphasize that atheists rarely attempt to disprove god “by an appeal to the Bible”, nor does one necessarily have and “axe to grind” with either the Bible or its god. The former is usually thrust upon us when the Christian introduces the Bible as defense in our argument against the existence of adequate evidence for a god, and the latter is an unfortunately common and equally false misconception, which is only perpetuated as an appeal to emotion.

The entire concept of an atheist appealing to the Bible is rather absurd. The Bible is completely irrelevant to our position until made so by parties outside our ranks (remember here that athiests existed before the Bible, and it can be argued that all humans are born atheist). Even once the Bible has been injected into the argument, an atheist's “appeal” to it is usually no more than a simple prompt for one to read it sans bias and compare its content to its adherents assigned properties of its god.

One of my personal peeves regarding Christians centers on, as I see it, an incongruence with their (modern popular) beliefs and what the Bible in fact contains. I, as an individual, may then use the Bible to argue the qualities or characteristics ascribed to their god as a preliminary to attempting to provide a case for there being no sound reason to belief in any god. But I am in no way the representative embodiment of all atheists.

I will not address CT’s vaulting of the Christian worldview's “account for universal, invariant laws of logic and morality, and the uniformity of nature” above all others. This is far too broad a statement, far too arrogant, and far too unsupported in and by world history.

Finally, I will address an issue I realize with his proclamation:

"My position is that Christian Theism is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. If Christian Theism were not true, you could not prove anything."

His status as a Presuppositionalist explains the “impossibility” part, but he MUST insert some prepositional phrase before that period (aside from "at all").

“Impossibility” and “anything” are absolutes to the superfluous, and this is just an unfinished statement.

CT begins presenting an argument for God, but in this statement extends that with a presupposition that Jesus existed in the most full-blown, glorified sense – complete with deification. I realize that to CT, Yoshua ben Yosef IS God, but what of every theism that existed before, parallel with, and since - completely independent of - Christianity?

If it is impossible to be false, then nothing else can be true (am I assuming here, or is everyother theistic belief also true?). So, before some people got together and decided what they were going to believe as Christians, depending on which writings they were going to accept, nothing was true?

What about Judaism before Christianity? Christians can’t just claim to be an extension or continuance of Judaism, because the bulk of their fundamental dogma completely conflicts with Judaic belief (thus non-Christian Jews remain). It’s comparable to Jews being considered Babylonians by faith. Some could argue that Islam has an equal or greater claim as such an extension.

Predestination aside, CT would be declaring the religion his is (loosely) based on – the very religion his supposed messiah would have practiced – false.

(So, God knew that everything he was “inspiring” these “prophets” to write was temporary, and could later be completely contradicted? Why not? He “knew” that Eve would fuck up and He would have to kill everybody but Noah and eventually have to kill even himself.)

The only way to fix this is with predestination, and thus CT is adding yet one more piece to his puzzle. It appears his original assumption is quite a bit more specific than “God exists”: “An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, Protestant Christian God exists” seems more along the line, and such a precise supposition is QUITE different than one as broad as “god doesn’t exist.”

His field is hardly level.

*I’ll grant I took a liberty with some of these as “revelation,” but my point stands.