Happy Holidays

     This post is merely to wish any reader a happy holiday season. It is a season for joy and happiness, and fortunately, I am able to spend it with family, though I do feel for those who are unable to.  I see terrible things happening all around me, during the holidays especially, vicious attacks from the left and the right, politically, as well as socially. To those bigots who support Phil Robertson: GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!! The man is obviously a religious bigot, or a troll. Many Youtubers have posted the hypocrisy in his statement. To those in any minority, be it racial, sexual, social, as well as others: keep on keeping on, it does get better friends, don't let those who fear change control who you are. You have allies such as reason, and logic; those who oppose you are on the wrong side of history, and just like everything else, it will just take some time for good things to happen.
     I understand the concept of respecting ideas opposing our own as it is the very driving factor of progress. Without opposition, there is complacency, and in that state, there is no progress. Our side is about peace, their side is about separation. This season is supposed to be about charity and family; those who oppose us seek to destroy both, only providing charity in order to gain something (tax break, followers which lead to a return investment in tithes and offering, social bragging rights). We all have something in our lives we have to struggle with; some can find comfort in their family, but others who cannot, no matter what happens, no matter what the issue is, those people you chose as close allies are your family, not those who judge you for who you are, not those who only come to you when they need something. There is nothing stronger than the bond shared between individuals who help each other in their struggles.
     Anyways, this may be a little corny, but to those who struggle in their lives about who they are, or what they are, hell those who fear they will be abandoned because of features that are core to their very being: If people don't accept you for who you are, family or not, those people are not worthy of knowing you, not worthy of being given the time of day, and most importantly, not worthy of you losing parts of yourself over. They are the problem with society, not you!

The Importance of Staying True to Yourself

     This seems to be a remaining topic on this blog, so it is obvious that it is a topic that this writer struggles with a bit. It is understood that for society to function we have to inhibit some of our urges and personal quirks at our place of employment and social gatherings (to some extent). I do not believe in the world being a free for all, where one can go and tell people off willy nilly, not in our society anyways. I do, however, challenge the effect that said society has on us. people who are close to me are struggling about their own identities simply because society has taught them that it was wrong for so long to be a certain way, that their psyche has partially blocked such behaviors (be it in public of private).
     For the sake of anonymity, I will not state any personal information about this acquaintance, though I will state that they are struggling with something that is a part of them and were taught was wrong, and "of the devil" since childhood. This form of child abuse is not only to be placed on the shoulders of the parent who supports those archaic concepts, but on the society which fortifies them as well. A man or woman who is bisexual should not feel excluded from society because of the way they feel towards people of both sexes.
     For the sake of those involved, I hope that this person comes to terms with who they are and lives a fulfilled life in spite of what they were taught to be. I can be who I am in most aspects of my life, and wish it to be true for everyone. A big portion of human personality lies in sexual and emotional attachments. We are, after all, social creatures, and I as often joke, monkeys in shoes. Though it is, at best, repressed by society, as it is generally considered gross by those people we entrusted with our education.
     For what it's worth, I have hope in newer generations as they show empathy and understanding towards those who are different. I was recently painfully reminded that homosexuality was, until recently, treated with electroshock therapy and negative reinforcements. Why must we hurt that which is different? Why must we destroy that which we do not understand, instead of understanding them? That is the cost of religion and bigotry. As we fail to understand behavioral changes around us, some members of our modern civilization still look to bronze age knowledge given to sheep herders and likely molesters in the desert, supposedly by a deity who has failed to show itself since the invention of the fucking camera.
     Well, I thought I was going to make it one entire blog post (academic works aside) without cussing, but apparently I feel too strongly about the state of humanity and its dependence on archaic beliefs to restrain from actually get enraged. More importantly, when those beliefs make people feel like shit and force them to be who they are not in order to fit a cookie cutter ideal given by an archaic people, they make the world a worse place to be and that is counter intuitive to the perpetuation of the human race.

The Hellenistic Characteristics of the Christ Myth

If we were to ask any Christian about their faith, one of the things we would hear is that it is unique, the concept of a sacrificial god, born of a young woman from a patriarchal god, it seems extremely enticing. Indeed this reflects the bias of the believer, there are many sources predating the myth of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God similar in those qualities, take Heracles, for example, the son of Zeus born of an asexual relationship, a shower of gold, who selflessly travelled Greece in order to defend its inhabitants from the merciless toying of the gods, who even went to Tartarus -the Greek Hell-  in order to deliver Theseus from it, similar to the common tradition that Jesus went to the underworld to save the souls of the deceased before ascending into Heaven. The idea of a triune god is also not a novel concept as many gods in ancient Greece and Rome were represented by different forms such as Jupiter being the almighty god of the Roman pantheon, represented as a human, but also as an eagle, and the emperor, at least for a time was the representative of god, or Amon Ra, in Egypt being represented as the Pharaoh to the mere people. But the question is, why did Christianity prevail of those previously common myths and how did Jesus of Nazareth come out as a Savior god to the people of the Western World? Those questions are answered in the history of the composition and redaction of the texts depicting the life of the Son of God, and the politics surrounding them.

Starting at the beginning of the Christian Myth, one can clearly see resemblances between the greek Creation myth and fall of mankind, and the Judeo-Christian one, coming from a misogynist standpoint. Indeed, the story of the fall of man coming from a woman is not a new one, as the Christian Fall story and the cursing of the Earth is attributed to Eve, the Greek story of such a curse is attributed to Pandora (Hamilton:88). When Pandora opened her box and let all kinds of evil roam the world, she closed it, albeit too late. The last thing remaining in the box was Hope (Hamilton:88), in a similar fashion, hope was attached to women in the form of giving birth to the savior of all nations.

Now onto the Christian myth, it is easy to see similarities between Jesus and Heracles, or Hercules his given Roman name. They were both born of a god, Jesus of Yahweh, Heracles of Zeus, by a human mother. Both women were betrothed to a human man, Jesus’ mother Mary to Joseph, and Heracles’ mother to Amphytrion (Hamilton:227). As I mentioned before there are several different similarities between Jesus and Heracles, including the last feat Jesus accomplished according to Christian Tradition that he went to the underworld to preach to those lost souls who had the misfortune of dying before having the chance to witness his ministry. Heracles’ parallel to this story is none other than the last of his 12 works where he was sent to the underworld in order to defeat Cerberus and freed the Athenian Hero Theseus from the underworld (Hamilton:235).

But the Heracles comparison doesn’t end there, the young demigod was well educated but also extremely prone to violent and vicious fits throughout his childhood, such as the time where he murdered his music teacher simple because he disliked musical education (Hamilton:229). Young Jesus, as depicted in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, was quite the violent child as well, murdering, cursing, sadistically resurrecting children in front of their parents only to kill them again after they confirmed his word (Ehrman:58). The temper attributed to young Jesus in this Gospel seem to show in the casting the merchants out of the Temple in Matthew 21:12 (Wells:1239). Though apologists, as well as most Christians would argue that this anger was righteous, is is highly unlikely as the practice was condoned by the Torah, and price gouging were heavily frowned upon by the Temple administrators (Aslan:6).

Other Hellenistic influences are found in Christianity when compared to the Sumerian goddess Inanna, who descended through the seven levels of hell, having an encounter at each level, only to be crucified and humiliated at the bottom of the seventh level. The Christian savior, in a similar fashion descended through the seven levels of Heaven to Earth, having an encounter at each level, only to be humiliated and crucified at the bottom of the seventh level -Earth- as well (Carrier:18). After reading on both posthumous accounts, we also see an interesting similarity, the idea concept of spending three days and three nights in the underworld, as Inanna was dead for this amount of time, and Jesus predicted that exact same time period, though we know different as tradition has the Nazarene Savior god die on a Friday evening, and his resurrection happen on a Sunday morning, leaving only 2 nights (Carrier:18-19).

To this day, in certain Christian traditions, a Pantheon has been kept, we clearly see this in the Catholic prayers to the saints, similar to the worship of lesser gods in Ancient Greece, and is a remnant of the Roman influences in  Church, as many consider their prayers to the Saints as a respectful way to approach their Savior (Brom:1). We can clearly see that the worship of ancient minor gods directly affected this early Christian Church as a means to not bother the Almighty with the trivialities of life, and the saints would intercede for the living. In the Roman Catholic culture, the saints seem to have taken precedent over Jesus, not in importance, but in the day to day activities, similarly to what happened to the worship of Hestia in ancient Greece, who was the goddess of home and hearth, and whose temple flame was most important in Greek cities (Hamilton:34), though her name is generally unknown to the general population compared to Dionysus in the modern mind.

One way in which Christianity managed to survive, and still be relevant in its early stages was the ability complete disregard for the elitism attributed to Judaism, where one is born into a religion, and in the embracing of the gentiles (Carrier:51). Indeed, in a Roman controlled world, the only way to expand one’s worshippers base is also to avoid ostracizing people, welcoming people of all walks of life into the religion. Offering redemption for virtually any sin is also a good way to earn worshippers. Hellenism in its purest form promoted the longing for immortality and everlasting life, though it was a rather unknown process in the mind of the early leaders and worshippers, Christianity, by its very nature offers a vision of life everlasting and even a purpose for such an ideal, as well as a reason for a temporary life in the known mortal World (Von Dobshutz:249).

In yet another parallel with Hellenistic traditions, we see the Judeo-Christian myth to be polytheistic to some extent as with the existence of minor deities, some benevolent as angels and all the hierarchy which comes with it, others depicted as the source of all evil in the world and having a hierarchy of their own with the first fallen angel, Lucifer, at the top (Von Dobschutz:250). Though Christianity prides itself in being a monotheistic religion, it is only so in named, after the redefinition of the term, after all, by the Christian standard of monotheism, having one supreme god reign over all others, the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian myths can be considered monotheistic as well with Zeus, Jupiter, and Amon Ra set as supreme deities.

Lastly, we see the trial a tribulation of Jesus of Nazareth as a passion, and the pinnacle of the his ministry, Dr Richard Carrier, in his lecture for the UNCG Atheist about the historicity of Jesus points out that it is a typical trait of hellenistic deities (Carrier:Video). This point is driven home, especially as I mentioned previously that the last Heraclean trial was to travel to the underworld and conquer death. The trial is one of enduring pain and lasting fight. Such a trial was rather common especially when compared to all the other previous deities encountered in the Greco-Roman world, such as Prometheus enduring pain and suffering for a seeming eternity in order to provide humans with fire (Hamilton:95).

While semantics in the Christian myth apologist conferences, and articles lean towards a unique faith based on the life and death of a truly great man, we learn through our study of history that it is not as unique as it is portrayed. From the immaculate conception to the death of a Savior god, through the enduring of a passion, and humiliation. Jesus of Nazareth, if he lived in Galilee at the beginning of the first century BCE was little more than a plagiarist of previous religions, giving hope to those less fortunate, and adapting older myths to Judaism. The life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God could be a compilation of several stories given to us by Roman editors under Constantine’s supervision and a severe amount of redaction and adaptation in order to fit the story (Gonzalez:340).

If Christianity were a novel idea in any way, shape, or form, it would be in its adaptation of hellenistic elements in the Judaic faith and the expansion of salvation beyond a simple ethnicity, embracing the cultural influences of the Roman occupation in the Middle East. Though some elements are heavily resembling older Hellenist myths, it has been most successful in its expansion due to the appeal of redemption of any crime or transgression. The reinforced appeal of a benevolent god who wants nothing but good things for its creation and the explanation of the concept of ever lasting life. Jesus, as I stated before, is merely a Jewish version of Heracles and Inanna, among others, a mere compilation of previous myths which gave hope to an ever suffering population.

Works cited:

Aslan, Reza

Zealot, The Life and Times Of Jesus of Nazareth, Random House Publishing, New York (2013)

Brom, Robert (Bishop)

Praying to the Saints, Catholic.com (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints) Accessed 11/10/2013

Carrier, Richard

Not The Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn’t Need a Miracle To Succeed, Lulu Publishing (2009)

Carrier, Richard

Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist Lecture March 18th 2013, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc) Accessed 11/12/2013

Ehrman, Bart D.

Lost Scriptures, Books that Did Not Make it in The New Testament, Oxford University Press, New York (2003)

Gonzalez, Justo

A History of Christian Thought Vol. 1, Abingdon Press, Nashville (1970)

Hamilton, Edith

Mythology: A Timeless Tale of Gods and Heroes, Hamilton press, New York (1942)

Koester, Helmut

Introduction to The New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity, Volume 2, 2nd Ed.

DeGruyter Company, Berlin (2000)

Von Dobschutz, E.

Christianity and Hellenism, The Journal of Biblical Literature, Volume 33, no 4 (Dec 1914) pp.245-265

The Understanding and Acceptance of Differences

     It is interesting that we are usually willing to accept differences which do not affect us , but it becomes increasingly harder to accept them once the people we care about, those we are closest to and can affect our daily lives have them. I have been in a situation where my own wife, whom I love very much, was put in such a situation where she was asked to choose to spend the holidays with her mother and stepfather, as well as her brother, or with her husband. Naturally, she chose me, though I can't help but wonder why that choice was necessary. There are two different speculations referring to why I am not welcome at my in-laws: my wife's opinion is that they are upset with me for her atheism. She was a firm conservative evangelical Christian before we were married and renounced her faith based on evidence. I, on the other hand, think it is because her stepfather's status was challenged last year when, during the holidays, a discussion on equal rights came out and I challenged his faith based point of view with my evidence based opinion and his authority, within his own household was hurt due to his lack of cognitive capacities.

     Let's analyze my wife's point of view first. Though I do take credit for presenting her with the evidence for a scientific explanation of human origins, it was my wife's decision to defy her beliefs and to break the cognitive dissonance associated with her faith. Her mother was adamant that I was solely responsible for her change of heart and dismissed her own daughter's reasoning abilities only to turn her into a puppet of whoever would be a major part of her life. That is something I do not believe in and trust that she is her own person and makes her own decision. I find that the process her side of the family is describing to be stripping of humanity and dismissive of her intelligence and ability to be her own person. My wife is an intelligent woman, capable of making her own decisions; she is not a follower, by any definition of the term, and I find it insulting, not only for her, but for my pride as I like to think that I chose her because of her strong demeanor and intellect (though she is incredibly sexy and beautiful!). Such harsh judgement, to me is a mere projection of their own behaviors, and their indoctrination of their son.

     For the second behavior, that of the failing Alpha being challenged in a battle of wits for which he came unarmed, the only thing I can say is that they are completely off their rockers if they believe that anecdotal evidence or faith based reasoning is enough to restrict human rights in a secular society. The man refuses to believe that sexuality is innate except for heterosexuality of course. Why? Simply because he is a heterosexual and the only book he ever read (if he indeed did) with the intent to learn anything from it, or out of a need for self empowerment and affirmation of masculinity, defined any sexual behavior outside of for reproductive purposes as a reprehensible act. To be challenged by someone 20 or so years your junior and losing because they are better educated on the subject you are discussing is a complete shame and an experience he would not want to replicate. His status as Alpha would have been damaged and the intellectual honesty needed to apologize is lacking. The man refuses to apologize or face his opponent, probably for fear of having to resort to primal violence in order to prove his point. This type of behavior may have worked in the long history of bullying in the World, but in this day and age, reason tends to prevail, peaceful negotiations and debate are the way to go. He is a dying breed and I am happy for it, the world will be a better place when the might makes right mentality is gone.

     In conclusion, while both ideas are speculation, I find it interesting to entertain the different possibilities for such a ban. It is also extremely easy to understand that regardless of which hypothesis is correct, they stem from a lack of understanding of differing views and opinions in the minds of the actors. It is fascinating to see the mind processes unravel and even spur an interest in neuroscience. So out of this hideous act of segregation something good came out.

Morality?

     Well, this post is not going to be about religion... well maybe a little. Though I fully intend it to be related to life itself and the state of human society in general. I have been asking myself why humans, as a general rule are seemingly contradictory in their instincts and actions. Our instincts, based on evolutionary processes make us survivors, at the expense of others, though our nature is also one of altruism. We are, in fact very well aware of our own shortcomings in life. Hell, I know I am! People who think I have minimal issues only need ask my wife! But I try to be as helpful and inspirational as I can be with others, be it through leading by example, or providing much needed words of encouragement, or slight kicks in the ass. But why do I do it? Is it because of some basic sense of morality given to me at birth? No, it is a learned behavior, one that my parents passed down to me, and, though they disagree with how I live my life, I usually abide by the sense of justice they have inspired in me. I do not possess much, but I try to give everything I have to those who need it more than me. Is that morality?

     Morality is usually defined by a set of beliefs about the difference between a "right behavior" and a "wrong behavior", though what dictates this? Society? Education? Upbringing? Human Nature? All of the above? I believe it is dictated by all of those, though sometimes, a subculture forms forming its own set of moral behaviors; those that are successful tend to change societal views of certain moral issues, and those that aren't adapt, or disappear into oblivion. One must only look at the LGBTQ movement to see a successful subculture within our own. I consider myself an ally of those members of the community, not because I have an interest in it, but because I understand it is not a learned behavior, it is not a choice, it simply is. I completely understand the want to belong to society and then to have it reject parts of who you are. There is no simple way to express the sense of despair that comes with that realization. But with help and time, as well as a well adjusted "give them hell" attitude, one can overcome this depression.

     Those that are not as successful at adapting or even incorporating themselves into society live in fear and eventually disappear. I do hope that is not the case for many human rights -I did not use civil rights on purpose as they pertain to Humanity in general not just citizens of a given nation- I am a supporter of what is considered outside of the norm, so long as it does not hurt those who perform it, and it is between consenting adults - polyamorous marriages, gay marriages, swingers, etc... Those may seem to exist outside of the civilized criteria for moral, but who, or what is it hurting? Does it just feel uncomfortable because it is different? Because the majority of people do not understand the feeling or concept? It is time for society to understand the wide spectrum of the human attraction, and understand that, most of the time, it is not a choice. We all have our own moral standards to follow. Mine, I know, are extremely different than those of the general population, and you know what?  I can live with that. I tend to want to give people hell anyway. To those who refuse to understand that others have needs, be it because of politics, religion, or societal conformism, they need to step out of the shelter of their bubble and understand that humans, in general are multidimensional creatures.

    For those too lazy to read through the entire thing, I have two things to say: It's not long come on! And as a summary: Morality is taught, then developed as a part of the population -even one person- discovers who they are. There is no greater feeling of empowerment than that of knowing what you are and being free to express it.

On the Originality of the Bible

     Well, it seems that the God of the Bible is the all creating, all knowing, original lawmaker. Or is He? Most modern Christians would agree that modern law is based on the 10 commandments, that is not accurate in and of itself, but what if there was something else predating the 10 commandments? Surely such a thing would not exist, especially not in Babylon, the land of immorality and everything Yahweh stands against. Guess again! Hammurabi's Code predates the Mosaic Law by a few centuries, in fact, most of the Laws proposed and imposed by Moses were flat out copies of Hammurabi's with a Judaic twist. So how original is the God of the Bible? Does He bring any original ideas? Let's see!

   Original sin is a novel idea and concept in the Bible, and according to most Christians.is the reason for the coming of Jesus Christ, according to most scholars, the story of Genesis was written around the 7th Century BCE, whereas the story of Pandora ( a woman bringing about all the evils in the world) came around the same time. It is interesting to see who or what came first, but in both cases it was a woman who brought on a curse to mankind. Original? that's debatable.

     Then there is the story of the flood, being a blatant copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which the hero saves all the animals surrounding the area from a Great Flood, by putting them in his boat, the tale was later greatly exaggerated by the accounts in Genesis. Again, borrowing elements of salvation from another myth. Tsk Tsk Yahweh.

   Lastly, the immaculate conception, the Greeks already had such a  story of a man Hero, son of Zeus through no natural means (a gold shower?), Heracles was born of a young woman, and saved many lives because of his superhuman strength/powers. Heracles went as far as to go to the Underworld in order to save Theseus, which is later reproduced by Jesus supposedly dying on the cross and spending 3 days in hell in order to save lost souls who were not given the opportunity to be saved prior to their death (according to common christian extrapolation of NT verses).

   So... Yea, a creative deity indeed. Or, like Loki, a trickster god trying to gain a following through misappropriation of myths, or even better and more plausible, a story meant to simply protect people from a hard cold reality which they were not ready to face due to lack of knowledge regarding their surroundings.

Regarding Christian Eschatology

So, I was in class today, "Anthropology of the Bible" and the discussion turned to the topic of eschatology. I never really thought of the different topics at hand in a discussion about end times. But it seems to me Christians tend to love the idea of the world coming to an end. Yet it's the bleeding liberals who are bringing upon that particular end to this Earthly Realm. Let me make one thing clear, if anything, Liberals and Progressives, unlike conservatives are trying to preserve our planet and the likelihood of life on it. This may seem like a complete ass backwards concepts to some people but here is my humble explanation, or pathetic attempt at explaining our point of view.

One of the main debates between progressives and conservatives is the issue of global warming. Now it is a fact that CO2 emissions cause a greenhouse effect on our planet. There seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the concept of "Global Warming". It does not mean that ALL temperatures in the WHOLE WORLD are on the rise. It means that the average temperature in the world rises. Some areas will see a decrease in temperature as the melted icecaps bring in a cold current towards the continents and eventually cause temperatures in those affected areas.

Secondly, the issue of abortion, now I disagree with abortions myself but I will not force my personal beliefs on others especially when it affects their life and not mine. Progressives aren't pro abortions, we are pro choice, there is a different, as a matter of fact, I read a few surveys showing that progressives and liberals are less likely to have abortions than conservatives.

Lastly, Progressives are immoral and are the cause of the downfall of civilization. Yeah, because Progressives are pro war, pro death penalty, and are threatening an armed uprising. Oh wait, that's Conservatives. Conservatives are in favor of Might makes Right, they are in favor of policing the World, regardless of what the conflict is, but rather to reshape the world in their own desolate image, a smoked out, top 1% rule world, they want a World Oligarchy, and the idea of a World government. Why do they want it? Because it has been said by a dude stoned out of his mind that it will bring them closer to an eternity in paradise with their less holy version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his meatballs.

Christians, especially in the United States need to understand that the supposed prophecies which are being fulfilled are so because they are willfully fulfilling them! They are actively participating in the advent of the world government, they are so full of themselves, of their so-called humility that they claim to have the only possible answer to a time old question, that of the meaning of life. Isn't there a simpler answer? That the meaning of life is simply to live? The idea that the rest of the world is out to destroy them is laughable at best, it is quite the other way around, They are here to destroy the world and prevent our descendants from living comfortable lives in the same ways that previous generations, through manipulations of the legislature screwed the current generations. The problem is, they are sheep following their leaders who know full well what they preach is bullshit and do not care about the future generations as they will not be here to deal with it.

A direct response to Dr. Michael M. Brown Regarding the case against violent video games

  Alas, I am about to do something I thought I would never do in a public blog such as this, which is to call out someone specifically, by name, as the vitriolic cult leader they are. This is a direct response to Dr. Brown's article regarding the release and success of Grand Theft Auto 5  (link here). Indeed in his article, Brown -who is an advocate of religious rights and a strong opponent of everybody else who disagrees with his chosen type of insanity- blames the rise of violence in western culture to be in part because of the increased violence seen in the media, and specifically the interactive form of video games.

  First I would like to mention that the article is merely its author's opinion based on a review made by another conservative journalist. Brown writes his opinion as fact when there is little data to support his analysis, quite the contrary as pointed out by one of the comments, which, if there were a correlation between violence in video games and violence in society, it is a negative one, as violence has decreased over time, in our society, whereas the amount of violent media (especially video games) has increased significantly. But more importantly, the original reviewer fails to mention that the parts reviewed in the article are merely a flashback, and doesn't mention how the game is designed to allow players to make ethical choices, to return stolen items, to attempt to reconcile a married couple, to bond as father and son... No, the reviewer focused on the negative; yes, it is a game where you play as not one, but three criminals, and the story mode (the only playable mode available until multiplayer becomes available) takes you through a narrative of how the main protagonists evolve as human beings, but if anything, it is a virtual ethnography of criminals in the west.

   Brown, of course, uses a rhetoric which detaches him from all responsibilities about what is done based on his words, and, just like a good cult leader, obviously attacks the few in the opposing factions, those mentally ill people who cannot differentiate between fiction and reality, and act, unrestricted, upon their own view of the world, without even mentioning the attacks made by those who follow the same doctrine he teaches, the liberties being suppressed by the religious right, and the blatant ignorance of the acts of terror committed by anybody but atheists (few as there may be) and muslim extremists (who are condemned by the islamic leadership). Indeed, Brown also fails to mention his own militaristic rhetoric about taking the government back, where any loon can be touched by his words and mistake their meaning with taking back the government by force. At this rate, sir, I would strongly suggest you start using a more candy coated vocabulary, less riddled with violence, or pseudo violence.

   Lastly, I would also like to point out what Brown and his mindless followers are trying to bring: a roll back to the 17th century, in culture at least, when the Church was in power and was free to exterminate the opposition unpunished. That is what religion does to people and that is what we must fight. There was a time when people were burnt at the stake for not believing in the Christian myth, or even questioning the doctrine of the Church. Indeed, were that to happen, the comic/movie "V: For Vendetta" would not be far from becoming a documentary of how freedom would be taken back and religion would fall.

The failures of Christianity

     This post is mainly a summary of some of the failures of Christianity in the face of Science and of morality in general, as well as upon itself.  Let's get right to it. First of all, according to the Christian doctrine, humans need redemption because of the story of the Fall of Man. The entire redemptive value offered by Jesus in his supposed sacrifice is meant to wash away our sins inherited from the first man and woman who allegedly walked this planet. The fact of evolution demonstrates that there is no signs of this "Fall" therefore making original sin an imaginary disease, commonly referred to as created to sell an imaginary cure (salvation). This is the primary reason why Creationists not only accept the literal interpretation of the Genesis account (though are fuzzy about the rest of their Holy Book for some reason) but also reject the scientific evidence for an evolutionary track which led to modern humans, even going so far as to doubt proven dating methods.

     While I find this disturbing, it is nothing compared to the historical facts of the story of the crucifixion. In the Roman law of the time depicted in the Gospels, this particularly harsh punishment was only given for revolutionaries and dissenters of the Roman Empire, not for Jewish criminals, or people found guilty under Jewish law, but only for people encouraging a revolt against the Roman Empire. This story leaves the whole narrative given by the gospels of Jesus being sold by the Sanhedrin rather impotent as the punishment would not match the crime (and as we all know, Romans were particularly famous for following the rule of Law).

     Furthermore, I would like to point out that Christianity fails to meet its own promises as Jesus stated that he would return and that the end of days would happen before the death of the disciples present before his demise... Last I checked they were all dead. Paul reiterates this promise and again fails to be met by the all knowing God of Creation. We can take a few things away from this example of blatant ignorance: 1) Jesus lied and therefore is not perfect and has sinned and is not God, 2) Jesus thought he would come back when his disciples were still alive and was wrong, and therefore was not an all knowing God, 3) The Bible is not so perfect after all, and is not the perfect word of a perfect Creator. We can also add that most of the doctrines of modern day Christianity come from the writings of Paul, who according to several scholars was considered a heretic by early Christians. Let us remember that Paul was a man who never met Jesus, yet told people that he had an encounter and was told by Jesus to reform the Law of the Old Testament. His letters were written long before the gospels which were supposed to be the basis of Christianity.

     Which leads me to my last point of the post: we have no originals from the Gospels, or any of the New Testament, and most of the Old Testament was originally given as oral tradition then written down for the literate masses. The New Testament, as we know it, was translated from documents which were copies of copies of copies of translations of copies of letters which were, you guessed it copied, most of which were contradictory and a group of men decided which parts were best representative of their faith as they say it centuries later. They are not historical facts, but mere opinions which were altered through miscommunication and an obvious personal agenda. Christianity is above all, the word of a few men interpreting the ideology they were taught by their culture at a time when only certain people were allowed to express their opinions. It is an obviously plagiarized combination of several Hellenistic myths all bundled with the ever so angry God of the Old Testament, probably in order to claim some kind of originality (even though Judaism has a lot of its myths plagiarized from older civilizations as well, see the Epic of Gilgamesh as a reference of the Flood, for example).

Evolution and False Assertions

     Well, it has been an interesting month, I do apologize for the late post, things have been somewhat crazy at work and at home. Anyways, let's dig right in to the subject matter at hand,  shall we? Some professional con men, as it is the preferable option to those content providers being humans with the IQ of a banana, have been posting videos of students interviewed about their knowledge of evolution. Now normally that would not have been a problem, though the editing put forth in the video betrays the dishonesty of its creator. Indeed, anyone can mine quote, or ask for such insanely stupid questions that the interviewee is dumbfounded by how little understanding their opponent has of reality. I am speaking, of course of Evolution vs God, the latest gem from the folks in Ray Comfort's ministry. Comfort goes so far as to interview professors of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology, though only uses the footage of them being completely dumbfounded by the stupidity of the question Banana Man asked.
    
     After this mini rant,  I must respond to Comfort's assertions with one single statement: Scientists, be they Geneticists, Physicists, Anthropologists (and all than includes) have provided mountains of evidence regarding the BASIS of modern Biology, the issue is that Creationists keep moving the goal posts when it comes to the requirement for meeting the burden of proof. If you deny evolution, stop getting shots, as they are changing year after year due to the fact that viruses evolve. I am sick to my stomach when I talk to people who do not understand the basis of modern life sciences yet argue that their deity of choice is, in fact, real, and the proof lies in a contradiction plagued, bronze age book, which obviously plagiarizes older texts and legends. Furthermore, there is more and more evidence piling against a deity as it is defined by most theists in the God of the gaps arguments. To conclude this section, I would also like to point out that a THEORY as in the Theory of Evolution, is meant as a scientific theory, which is hypotheses confirmed by the evidence. It is NOT just some dude smoking a joint dreaming up that shit in his lab!

     Lastly, I want to answer the claim that atheism is Dogmatic and has to prove its stance. Simply put, Atheism is defined as a lack of belief, it does not claim knowledge that there is no god, it is the denial of the existence of a deity that has not met its burden of proof. Another way of stating this is to state that I am also an abigfootist, I don't believe bigfoot exists because of the serious lack of evidence, I am also an asupermanist, as the only evidence given for the existence of the Man of Steel from Krypton is found in books. Seriously, stop with the shifting of the burden of proof! Finally, and I thought this was common sense, DO NOT use the Bible in order to argue for the existence of your god! If you do so, I fully claim the right to use the Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook to prove that Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, and Fairies exist (and they are a whole lot more interesting). No I don't believe in that stuff, but your argument is as silly as mine in this case.

Why I won't worship the christian deity, even if it were to exist

     Sorry about the lack of posts lately, it seems life caught up to me, leaving me no time to post anything.
    
     Today, I would like to post about the Christian deity, and why it is not worthy of worship. It is interesting to me how I ever believed in such a terrible being, but also agreed that it was worthy to be praised by its supposed creation. The God of Abraham, as he is described in the Bible seems to be a petty, vitriolic, arrogant bastard, his constant punishment of people whose hearts he has hardened also adds sadism to his list of attributes, I have compiled a list of biblical reasons why such a being, were it to exist, would only be worthy of ridicule and contempt.

1) From the beginning of the Bible, at the time of creation, God, who supposedly created the natural order seems to go completely against it during creation. The Genesis points out days existing when there is no sun. The omniscient deity also sets the moon as its own light (not as a reflection of the sunlight to earth).

2) The story of the "Creation of Humans" and "The Fall" lack a serious amount of logic, and are obviously geared to lower a woman's status in society. The creation is so full of crap, stating that Man was created first, in the image of God, and women were created as copies of Man. If this were true, how come men have nipples? How come the constant in chromosomes determining the sex of a fetus is the X chromosome, the female determinant? The God who created science obviously didn't know that, almost as if the illiterate goat herding tribe who created him didn't know. The story of the Fall of Man, is so illogical Mr. Spock would bitch slap its author to death. Seriously, mankind's crime is to have eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which is also known as the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If they didn't know the difference between good and evil, sin and righteousness, how can a just being punish billions with suffering simply because two idiots who didn't know any better committed a crime?

3) The obvious lack of historicity in the Old Testament is simply astonishing, there is no record of a 40 years track in the desert by a tribe leaving Egypt, on the contrary, archaeological records show Israelite buildings in Canaan long before they "conquered" the land, and evidence shows that it was, in fact a rebellion, not an invasion. Similar stories are debunked by the archaeological record  about David and Solomon's conquests placing the destruction of some cities generations after their deaths.

4) The lack of Justice in a petty god, as the Bible points out, the Christian God is unchanging, so he doesn't have a problem with killing 42 kids in a rather gruesome way for merely calling a prophet "Baldy"... I'm sure Elijah was deeply hurt by their comments and had to receive immediate psychological and medical treatment for this terrible act of mockery.

5) Jesus lied... Repeatedly! That's right, the only hippie religious activists will listen to happens to be wrong about when he is supposed to come back, but he knows everything, and is never wrong... He told the apostles that he would come back before they passed... Yea, I'm pretty sure they are all dead...

6) The idea of justice in an infinite punishment (Hell) for a finite crime (human life lasting less than eternity). Who in their right mind would do that? It's like me telling my kids I love them, but also as soon as they disobey me, lock them in a basement and torture them for the rest of their lives... Yea, that would be biblical morality...

7) The many contradictions in the Bible, such as the ways to "get saved" according to Jesus, versus Paul's ideas. Jesus stated that obeying the law, and accepting him as a savior is the only way. Paul stating that works will get you saved as mere acceptance of Jesus is only one of the requirements, oh and also, just obey the convenient laws, like don't accept the gays, and don't murder, you can totally eat shrimp and pork, cause Paul said so.

8) The obvious hypocrisy of God... Seriously, he stated that we should forgive everyone, no matter what, whether they apologize or not, or we will be sent to hell, because he is holy and will not stand idly while someone is unwilling to forgive, but go ahead and do something he doesn't like... Hell!!! No forgiveness, you do not pass go, immediately go to hell. Unless you ask Jesus for forgiveness... Double standards are apparently applied to perfect deities as well...

   So  there you have it, it is not a complete list, but as I am writing this at 3 in the morning is it kind of the main ideas.  Comment on why you would/would not worship the Christian God if you feel like it. Don't forget to like/+1/share if you enjoyed this post!

A Rude Awakening

     I love my friends and family, I really do, but sometimes I can't help but think of how some see things. It is really disheartening to see such smart people believe in something so... deranged. Of course I remind myself that I used to believe in such fairy tales. I spend a great amount of time reading up on theist literature, watching theists’ videos, and then realizing that people really do believe that a creator is responsible for our existence and that this creator is male, of course. This belief is strange to me now that I analyze it from the outside looking in: that such a character exists who would condemn me for all eternity if I do not believe in him, not only without evidence, but also in spite of the evidence against him, is simply preposterous. I see people who possess a very analytical, critical, and scientific mind apply their inquisitive nature towards everything else but the state of their beliefs; the one person who took my challenge happened to have traded her faith with knowledge and reason - of course I am talking about my wife. 

     

     Words cannot describe the distress I feel whenever people make condemning statements about themselves in the name of humility and righteousness compared to a "perfect" being that condones rape, slavery, and overall ignorance, as well as being restrictive of the inquisitive nature of his own creation. I must question the reasons for such deliberate self-loathing. Why is it considered healthy to condemn yourself in a religious context? Why is it ok to call yourself a worthless being undeserving of a life of happiness? How come this deity sounds as petty and human as those of ancient Greece? Could it be because Bronze Age cultures projected their own fears and biases on the deity they created? Could it be because the very nature of our creator is human as we do not worship anything but ourselves? 

     Also, what is it with public displays of religious behaviors such as prayer? Isn't that in direct contradiction of Jesus' teachings (Matthew 6:6)? If Jesus is in fact God, and what he says is absolute Law, I question the motives of Christians who post publically their prayers on a forum, or even worse, demand that their religious type of wish making be made official in the eyes of the Government by declaring official days of prayer! I propose that it is in fact to boost their own egos and to try and keep the majority of people in the dark and afflicted by the shallowness of their beliefs. I find it amazing that MOST Christians I have talked to refuse to get their news from anywhere other than their beloved conservative religious news source. They refuse to hear the other side of the story, whereas, in the skeptic community, MOST watch several different liberal and conservative programs, though admittedly in order to learn about what the opposition thinks and to address the insane amount of bias on either side of the spectrum.

      In closing, I would like to expand on a quote from Steven Weinberg: 

   

  "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

    

      It still amazes me that we are willing to deny people different rights according to our own religious bias, in America with Marriage Equality, as well as in the Middle East, where people are not even given the right to worship their own way because their Big Book Of Fairy Tales tells them that it should be the Law of the Land. Too long the skeptic community has held its tongue, too long have we been shackled by fear of judgment from our communities! It is time we fight back! They only have Tinkerbell on their side and we have Reason!

On Liberty

     On the eve of the celebration of the American Independence Day, I can't help but think of the innumerable violations of civil liberties still in play in the American Empire. From the obvious bias of politics in favor of the Christian Fairy Tale, to the hatred of people who dare to think and act different than what is considered the norm, ending in the imprisonment and condemnation of people for daring to inhale smoke produced by the burning of a plant. That's right friends, America is no longer in danger of becoming an oligarchy, it is one. Those in power may do whatever they please, while those who protest and uphold the Constitution - the supposed law of the Land- are imprisoned. It is a shame to see the prison statistics, considering most of the inmates lives' were ruined by the government's failure to uphold its own policies in favor of lobbyists.
    
     Friends, I know this is coming, and it may take a few generations, but anarchy is the way we need to be headed. I do not mean chaos, by any means, but the self regulation of communities through understanding and knowledge, wisdom and education. The days of human decency ruling the world will come, and that can only happen when we learn to not only tolerate those who are different, but to be happy to call them friends. I have had a friendly discussion with someone who thought very differently than I do, a very strong theist, and this discussion did not end in a debate or a screaming match; no, friends, it ended in mutual respect for each other's position without so much as a bad thought about each other. When people realize that gays, bisexuals, and other minorities or labeled groups are merely human beings, and only want to live their lives as best they can, the same as everybody else, that day we will have no need for religion, no need for government, no need for imposed regulations, as people will only need to think!

     The world needs only one law, one rule: compassion. Yes, I know this sounds touchy feely, but think about it. What war cannot be overcome by compassion? Fights over territories will be obsolete as no land will belong to any one government; differences of ideas will be met on paper and not on the battlefield, with the reasonable ones winning wars; fucking civil rights will be accorded to all members of society - women, children, gays, polyamorists, atheists, christians, mulims and jews alike. It is imperative for the people of the world to rise above the status quo and fight for what we know is right: Down with the oligarchs, strip them of their power, strip them of any so-called birth-rights. Give the people of the world a chance to govern themselves without prejudice. The day this is feasable may not be in my lifetime, or in my children's lifetime, but it will happen. Who will be a part of this revolutionary concept of true uninhibited freedom? Who will make a stand against the tyranny of governments and the implicit hatred of differences?

Fear of marriage equality

     It is with great regret that I observe people discriminating against others mainly because they are different. Those same people who claim to not tolerate injustice would deny equal rights to those who act differently than they do. I cannot stand this amount of hypocrisy and fear mongering. This, of course, is yet another post about marriage equality and LGBTQ rights. People of this community are just that, people, who are no different than you and me. They love, grieve, enjoy things, are hurt, and simply want the same rights heterosexuals enjoy in marriage. The main arguments I hear against it, aside from old reliable: "The Bible calls it an abomination!" (which can easily be refuted by stating that the very same Bible only mentions homosexuality as an abomination 4 times, whereas it mentions several times that eating shrimp is detestable to the Lord), is that the age of consent is going to be lowered to accomodate pedophiles and then bestiality will be allowed. Do keep in mind that those very same arguments were made against interracial marriages, and they still haven't happened. Those religious professional fear mongerers are simply attempting to terrorize people with their own bigotry and cannot be allowed to gain power. Those same members of the clergy who continuously push their religious views onto a SECULAR government obviously forgot that, as Thomas Jefferson put it, the First Amendment was put in place as a WALL between church and State.

     Those very same people run their religious institutions as corporations and use their money to lobby the government to favor their particular myth over another. If you want your particular delusion of a magical sky daddy to lobby the government, go on ahead, nobody is stopping you... though we will have to treat your institution as a corporation and tax the ever living shit out of it... freeing up some of the estimated $71 billions a year subsidized into religious institutions. That's right, you can't have your cake and eat it too! For crying out loud you worship a fucking hippie who provided free healthcare for those who asked and promoted socialism, while there are some religious institutions who provide services to their communities through soup kitchens and lodging, most aren't and those that are always have the idea that by doing so they have the right to preach  to those they help in order to gain more money... it is an investment, not in the so called kingdom of they favorite flavor of sky fairy, but in the very pockets of the ministers in charge. Everytime I have presented this idea, I have been called naive and unrealistic but here goes: why don't all members of the clergy do their duties for free, and try to have an actual job on the side, while the church is ran by volunteers. All income is to pay the utility bills, and the rest of the money donated to charities for helping those in need, not in house (because of possible fraudulent activities), but through those organizations that are already established? I mean it certainly has biblical precedent as I believe it was Paul who worked as a tent maker. If your god is so powerful, then he can provide you with a job, and with the strength to perform your calling along with this job! No congregation should allow for remuneration of their leadership!!!!!

    I would also like to point out that countries who have legalized same sex marriages do not suffer any of the predicted consequences cited earlier. Do you want to know why? MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS! The age of consent is in place to protect those who cannot fully understand the consequences of their actions and the repercussions they may have, so children cannot make lifelong decisions (that includes baptism by the way douchebags) without being educated in all the possible repercussions which we set fot 18 as it is the time, in our society, when teenagers start to become adults and are educated enough to make their own decisions. Animals CANNOT express their consent with human beings as there is limited communication and our understanding of other animals' cognitive abilities is still rather limited, regardless, they cannot be educated in our ways so much as their behavior is being modified to fit our perception of what they should do. Sadly enough, it is exactly what churches do, and, if you allow me the analogy, If Jesus is the good shepherd and his Church is the sheep, but also his bride, then your religion, at least in its rhetoric condones bestiality when it comes to sheep - Yay Bronze Age mentality!!!!

Venting--- Caution this will involve an incredible amount of foul language...

     So this is somewhat of a continuation of my last blog on stupid crazy shit I am tired of hearing, namely questions. I must obviously go to the argument I repeatedly make regarding the second amendment. For the record, let it be known that I am not, by any stretch of the imagination anti guns, though the argument made against gun control is always the same: The founding fathers wrote the second amendment so that, should the people need to rise against their government through violence, they should be able to do so... here is my typical response: You can have all the assault rifles you want... what in the fuck is it going to do against an f-18 Hornet, or a fully equipped tank? Not a goddamn thing... now if you want to possess a gun because you enjoy it, or for protection against whatever potential danger you might encounter, the more power to you and may you have it to enjoy or rely on in your time of need. But be fucking honest with yourself and with the rest of us. Your pea shooter isn't going to protect your civil liberties; it sure as hell isn't going to protect you against tyranny.
  
     Secondly, what is it with all the fucking falsehoods propagated by the Church about how the Bible isn't allowed in schools, about how prayer is illegal? Those fucktards propagate the idea that the government is anti-Christian... yea that's fucking great, except that your religion has no less rights than any other. Do not mistake the idea of a government waging war on a religion with the government not letting you dictate what others should do. Last time I checked (and there may have been yet another translation of the Bible which contradicts this statement), your holy text, the book that you claim to follow, obviously condemns liars, of any kind... and guess what, that includes jokes, that includes any falsehood propagated through your writing, art, voice, and expression of any form. Here is what the government banned regarding the christian faith in schools: TEACHERS (you know, those guys that apparently are supposed to raise your kids for you) CANNOT mandate prayer or scriptures in the schools as representatives of the secular government... STUDENTS may (and quite often do) initiate prayer groups, Bible study sessions etc... The fucking government isn't out to get you, it just doesn't allow you to indoctrinate kids on their dime. How the fuck would you feel if teachers were to tell your kids to pray 5 times a day facing Mecca, or to observe Ramadan? Yes, I thought so, you'd raise hell and cite the fucking first amendment... Where is that same text when it comes to YOU infringing on others' liberties? How about you shut the fuck up and be a fucking honest member of society?
   
     Third, how in the fuck are you actually claiming to be a religion based on love? "God loves you soooo much that if you don't love him back he will send you to a special place of torture for all eternity!" Yea how about an infinite punishment for a finite crime to define perfect justice? Hitchens, one of the great writers of the 20th/21st century said, and I cite: "Most religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in the marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behave when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse." These words resonate in me; they express what I think about religions. Indeed, now that secularism is on the rise, religious people tend to come at us, not through accusation (though some of them still do and are repeatedly made fun of), but rather attempt to lure us with (poorly composed) music, (badly written) texts, and (horribly executed) promises of love and completion. Though in times when it had power, and in places where it still does, religion infringes on basic human rights. For Americans who read this blog, the Declaration of Independence, while not a legal document, is still a very influential text revealing the intent of the founding fathers for this nation, telling us that every man is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What makes me happy is the truth, not the delusion of an imaginary friend, be it a bearded sky-daddy, or a fucking fairy riding a dragon, and wielding an elemental rod of shitstorming...
   
     Lastly, for this entry, I am sick  and fucking tired of religious people's logical fallacies, especially post hoc ergo propter hoc. For those not versed in debating terms, or Latin, this fallacy is simply: This happened after this, therefore the latter happened because of the former. In other words: You were misdiagnosed and do not have cancer, I prayed after the original diagnostic and God must've healed you. NO! This is not how it fucking works. First, you have to determine causation. If I were to say that Bob, in London will eat lunch tomorrow, and some dude named Bob eats lunch tomorrow in London, this does not make me a fucking prophet. Or stating that we live in the fucking end times because the Bible fucking states that in the end times there will be wars and rumors of war... guess the fuck what, as long as people have lived in factions (probably before we had acquired our recent cognitive skills) there were wars and rumors of wars in our bands, over control of resources. Or the infamous Bible Code where by looking at different letter intervals in the original language, we can find shit that happened in the past; do you know what that proves? The Bible contains a lot of characters recognized as letters. I find it interesting that those fucking messages and prophecies are only found out after the fact by fucktards who are looking for those particular items.
   
     Anyways, I am getting tired of shit from religious douchefucks, now I am not saying that everyone of them is a douchefuck... but I will state that every follower of a religion, any religion, is seriously mislead. I consider myself a seeker of truth, whether it is convenient or not. Life is not about convenience, it is about facts. The distortion of those facts by unscrupulous social rejects who vow to control those who rejected them by interpreting a doctrine created by goat fuckers in the bronze age in order to fuck women and profit from their neighbors is sickening to me and will be met with not only resistance, but counter attacks.

The State Of Unbelief, The Stance of Disbelief, The Honor of Logic

     It is with great clarity that I write this post, I thought about writing on the skeptics' need to become militant, but I soon realize that our burden is not to convince those around us who do believe, ours is to simply live our lives and fight in order to get our rights respected. We should not have to answer to those who make an irrational claim!
     I have recently  been painfully made aware of the sheer amount of ignorance and repetitiveness coming from theists regarding the state of unbelievers. Yes, like most overqualified retail workers, I am used to answering idiotic questions, though I often grow tired of the same ones coming up. Here is a short list of the short bus questions I get upon revealing my lack of belief in a deity along with some typical responses (though the smartarseness of my response does not show well in written form, I beg of those of you who know me to please add my regular attitude towards lack of intelligence in my responses):

But what if you're wrong? (Pascal's wager... ahhh a classic)
Well, this question is malformed  as every myth claims to be the one truth and that anyone who does not share in its theology is damned to an eternity in a very displeasing place, typically a place of eternal torture known as hell. The only real answer to this question is to return it! There are over 6,000 different religions, over 30,000 different denominations of Christianity alone, each claiming that the others are false doctrines, how do you know you are in the right, as those who believe in different doctrines will defend their stance with every bit of righteousness and conviction as you? You are an unbeliever when it comes to  all of those other deities except for (insert number of magical sky fairies believed in), I just go (use same number of mystical creatures as before).

But where do you get your morality? (Friends this is where we get the moral high ground)
I get my morality from myself, as a member of a society,  I understand that such a lifestyle depends solely on our ability to get along with each other, and to better our lives in community and in our social conventions. I do not need a higher power (or other pejorative word describing a mythical sky daddy) to tell me what is right and what is wrong as I have my own understanding of those matters and know that I should not harm those around me in order to get ahead. Of course, sometimes it is harder than others, but my morality comes from me and not out of fear of punishment or hope of reward. If something is detrimental to society, I do not do it. Though I may not say the same about theists who would do anything the voices in their heads tells them to (refer to Abraham's test in sacrificing his son).

How can you support homosexual marriages? (Not necessarily for atheists but a good chunk of us are in favor)
Well, they are human beings, they deserve the same treatment as any of us. What makes a bronze age doctrine made up by goat herders the authority on how to treat other human beings? But the Bible says that...(Leviticus) That very same book claims that eating shrimp and wearing two of the same threads are an abomination, and according to Matthew 5, not one jot or tittle of the law (meaning of course the Pentateuch) shall be taken until Heaven and the Earth have come to pass. (Romans) Paul, in his letter to the Romans clearly states that man shall not lie with man, that is true, though I could argue that Paul was rejected by the early Christians due to his heresy in contradicting Jesus. He was not, according to the Bible, directly appointed by Jesus, but rather hallucinated on the road to Damascus - no doubt haunted by the faces of those he persecuted- and changed his ways, making shit up as he went along.

But your world view must be so bleak, I mean you believe that when you die that's it, how can you live that way?
I find wonder in everyday life such as the love of my family, the expanse of the universe, the complexity of nature. There is plenty to live for, to grow human knowledge, whether it is useful or not (yea most of what I know is useless). If you know you are going to heaven, yet your loved ones are in hell, how can you be truly happy knowing that they are suffering for all eternity while you're drinking wine and having a good time? If you don't care then you are dehumanized.

But there can be no justice without God, he created everything, how can you deny that?
Justice? Really? The deity portrayed in the Bible (for this example) is, at best, a capricious child whose will and deeds are not as mature as those of a 5 year old. He kills on a whim for the most stupid, most insignificant crimes such as making fun of a prophet, or a man spilling his seed on the ground, hell, even disagreeing with those who believe in him is a crime punishable by death! But we have grace now. Grace, by definition is the suspention of justice, therefore your god is either perfectly Just, or perfectly Merciful, he may not be both as those are in direct opposition of each other. He also is one of those Zeus types: do as I say not as I do, as apparently, it is ok for him to be jealous (though it is against his own law) and also it is ok for him to ravish a betrothed young lady in order to give birth to himself so he can sacrifice himself to himself so we can be saved from him... yea a truly logical, not paradoxical god at all you got there!

So this is a small sample of those questions I typically receive, at least twice a week from those around me who find out I am a non believer. I do hope you enjoyed my answers and if you find a better response, or would like to share your own answers to stupid questions, please comment.

Righteous Indignation

Righteous indignation and anger, those are two feelings that I feel the most. Though I am very vocal on this blog and in my life, I cannot help but realize that my opinions and actions also affect those that are closest to me, so I filter my thoughts and my understanding of life so as to protect my friends and family. I am luckier than most like-minded people in the sense that my family does not judge me because of my lack of beliefs. Though I can't help but think that if left unfiltered, my thoughts and opinions would more than raise an eyebrow.  I also know that some people would look down upon those I care about because of those opinions and I care enough to not state some things publically. I can take the social suicide caused by the expression of my ideas, but I cannot sit around and see the injustice of others being judged because of something I did or said. Keeping some of my ideas hidden, while hurtful to me, does not hold a candle to seeing someone else being ostracized or criticized merely because they associate with the like of me, and even agree.

I am extremely vocal, if people want to know what I think, I will typically give them a straight answer. I will not however answer publically for something that might affect those I care about. I read a lot of stories about those who fought for what they believed and I aspire to be one of those people; I aspire to be the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Christopher Hitchens, and Mahatma Gandhi. I see bloggers and youtubers who kept their identities and personal information secret because of the impact their thoughts could have on their loved ones. I have witnessed those people’s personal information released to the public in order to threaten the social and public life of those around them. Friends, there are many more controversial ideas brewing in my mind, but until those who are closest to me are safe from social harm because of their association with me, I cannot state them.

This brings me to righteous indignation and anger; why is it that they would be judged because of something I believe? Why is it that people feel a need to judge others based on their relationship with someone? It is not as though people I associate with agree with me 100% of the time, and I would argue that it would make for a boring life if it were true. I have friends with differing points of views on most of what I think and I still speak my mind to them, albeit in verbal form so as not to be misconstrued. Our society needs to change drastically for true freedom of expression, and I do not mean in the legal sense. I mean that if I were to say something controversial on a certain subject, and share from my own life, my family would be judged, not because they necessarily agree with me, but simply because they are close in relation to me. This angers me to my core and sometimes I wish that this part of our society would just disappear.   

A Heathen Goes To Church

As a small disclaimer, I would like to state that this blog post is not a judgment of the people I encountered, but rather an observation of the rhetoric and behaviors demonstrated in an evangelical service on mother’s day.

Interestingly enough, after a few songs of praise and worship, the first thing that is brought up is that of offerings and tithes (as a form of worship?). While the attitude towards outsiders was rather positive, I find it interesting that money still plays a prevalent role in the congregation. As I watched everyone so willingly give towards what I now know is a business model, I cannot help but feel pain, to know that someone is benefiting from this, knowingly deceiving those who freely give, maybe not at a local level -though I highly doubt that- but the Church has become a business, the concept that salvation is free is just that, a concept that has been given up since the dawn of Christianity. Only certain laws are observed here, and I cannot help but remember that the original congregations were house groups willing to help each other, not an organized group of people demanding money for the salaries of those in leadership and playing to others' guilt.

My wife, a recent unbeliever, stated that it hurt her to even attend as she misses the sense of community instilled in followers through the music which was created to mold the minds of people and create a sense of addiction in communion.  I see it as a sense of paradise lost, a typical manipulative tactic meant to lead the masses involved in a guilt trip when leaving the community; emotional blackmail designed to overcome a sense of self-preservation which brought us into the state of scientific advances we live in today.  The music is designed to destroy self-worth through the lyrics which are meant to instill a sense of damnation without the imaginary cure for the imaginary disease. The very rhetoric used in those lyrics are destructive to the human “spirit”, promoting worthiness of the deity and invoking the unworthiness of those who worship said deity, instilling a loathing of humanity and the powerlessness of humanity, and the need for a supernatural forgiveness for an event which we, as a species had no power over, yet the deity, of course, did.

Though, once again, everyone was extremely welcoming to me, I could not help but get a strong sense of alienation, not because of the people, or the atmosphere, but rather because of the strong convictions which drive me to persevere in my seeking of truth. Everything about this dogmatic culture seems to steer people away from questioning those things they are taught within the community and to deny that which is taught without it. Socrates fought until the end of his life in order to fight this type of thinking centuries ago. It is counter intuitive to the search for truth for which questioning is the basis. I imagine I stick out like a sore thumb, typing my notes as everyone around me is deep in "worship", which in reality is just another form of meditation.  Ironically, the followers come here in order to feel better about themselves, not realizing that what is supposed to build them up is in actuality tearing them down.

Based on the preacher’s words, my very existence is sin; everything about who I am, what I believe, what I do, the way I think is considered a sin. The language used by the leadership is typically made to subdue and not empower; it is about submission.  The verses used in the sermon were twisted out if their context; those verses, culturally and contextually, were written to justify the subjugation of women. It was also hinting at the fact that Adam was not created perfect (in direct contradiction of the Bible where Man was created in the image of God, therefore in the image of perfection). The preacher then went on to be humorous about the creation of Eve.  Though he stated that women, throughout scriptures, are to be honored and to be man’s equal, he also stated that Adam named Eve because naming something gave the one who names authority over the one named. The preacher, on mother's day, is laying it on thick for the women, going completely against the scriptures about the subjugation of women.   Of course, he went on to the objectifying of women in pornography and their dress.  And do you want to know what the big kicker is?  At the end of his Mother’s Day sermon that was supposed to be all about women, he went on to honor certain men in a ceremony, and still claimed that this ceremony was in actuality, for the women.

             

            I find it very interesting to note that the hypocrisy in the sermon was only rivaled by the charisma of the person delivering it; leading me to believe that this is a con, that the person delivering knows it's bullshit, and that the appeal was meant in praising the women (again, and I cannot stress this enough, CONTRADICTING the Bible), and appealing to the men's sense of humor. The Bible states that angels don't have free will, but then where did Lucifer get the idea that he could be greater than the person who created him? That's right FAIL! I felt like I was watching Michael J. Fox, 'cause friends I was in Spin City! There was so much misdirection and spin that even I, as an outsider had trouble finding my way through the bullshit. The concepts introduced by the preacher were completely contradictory to the creation account in the Bible. He announced that labor was commanded to Man before the Fall; we know the accounts state exactly the opposite. It is interesting that the preacher referred to women as SERVANTS, SERVING the church and men, yet a few moments ago claimed them to be equal (which is it bro?) then went on to come into my territory: culture! His entire sermon was based on cultural misconceptions, as well as mistranslations of the Bible.

The sermon went on about slavery, and the fact that Eve was not created to be a slave, however, Leviticus and Deuteronomy claim that women are impure creatures and are to be subjugated. The sermon is based on the principle that the fall happened from the beginning, without ever directly addressing it, and is riddled in logical fallacies, wild assertions, and severe contradictions, not only with the holy text from which it is preached, but also within the sermon itself. The message was also, obviously strictly heterosexual (Well yea, duh!) and even addressed single women, but not bisexuals, not lesbians, and not transgenders. It is an obvious pass at those who are born this way.

All in all, this is not an experience I enjoyed, though I must repeat it to know what I am up against, in my future endeavors and in my chosen career path. A focus on the study of religions and the cultures in which they thrive is as important as the understanding of the nature of conflicts between warring nations. Religion, by its very nature demands the destruction of people like me, and that is not something I tolerate. If people want to believe a certain way, fine, whatever, but I will fight tooth and nail when people are trying to push legislation based on their religions, regardless of potential harm. Atheists are not trying to outlaw religion because we think the belief silly; we are trying to limit its control of the government. We are not trying to tell people how to live their life, or what convictions they should espouse, but rather encouraging the questioning of any information given. That is something religion does not typically tolerate, though I have several friends who are Christians and skeptics and who apply their skepticism in different aspects of their lives. If those who question choose to believe, then they have made their choice and I am in no way, shape, or form in a position to tell them they are wrong. Lastly friends, I must issue a warning against the methods used by religions to control and manipulate you. As I've stated before, it will try to appeal to our need of community, and then slam us with talks of unworthiness and disease which we have tremendous control over. As written in my previous post, we are capable of love, in several different ways, and we only need to embrace our nature and love freely, intellectually, emotionally, and passionately. 

On The Concept of Love and Religion

Friends, I have to admit, as I write these words, that my spirits are rather low, maybe it is the lack of sleep, or maybe my brain trying to process the truly unimaginable amount of data it received in the past few days.  This kind of, let’s call it depression, though unreasonable and illogical, is much needed, as it forces my mind to focus on that which I care the most about. This blog is meant as a preamble to my next entry which will come out in only a couple of days, I assure you.  For today though, let us focus on the topic of love: unrestricted, unreasonable affection, meant, traditionally to be experienced between only two people. As I keep thinking about the reasons for religion, and family structure where a person, who is unrelated to a family core other than through affection such as a family friend is automatically called an uncle or an aunt, or a brother or sister by those whose affection is closest, how do we define love? And do we have to define true passionate, selfless love, as something that can only be experienced between two people?

It is with heavy regret that I admit that I used to think in such manner, I believed that love – as it grows over time between people- cannot be shared with multiple partners, and I will also add that the consumption of that love need not necessarily be physical, though it may be, so long as no party is hurt or harmed by such methods of consumption. I have been thinking about the need for religion, and what it brings to the table, about the true happiness found in both monogamous and polyamorous marriages. I have tried to understand why most accepted religions require a sacrificial love for many people. My friends, I believe the answer lies right in front of us: human beings, as all social animals, need to feel a sense of community, though, through the complexity and range of the emotions we share, we try to identify with different people. It is my belief that theists, in general, feel a need to be loved so greatly by someone other than their partner that they need to create another being, far beyond their reach in order to express that love and still follow the conventions of their culture. They feel the need to express a deep love, much stronger than the one they can give a mere mortal, though all that needs to be done is to love others as well.

Now, there are going to be critics of this entry, stating that I encourage “perversions” and I am not truly in love of my wife. That is completely irrationally wrong, as I have stated before, physical consumption is not necessarily needed, though it may. There are others who would say that human beings are capable of truly terrible things, such as murder, theft, rape, gratuitous amounts of violence that could, and does hurt us as a species. But my response to that is that we need not focus on the negative, I am a true humanist who believes greatly in the human potential for good. I believe that because we are capable of such horrid things, we are also capable of tremendously wonderful actions and emotions. However, we limit ourselves because our concepts of normalcy are heavily enforced by our ever growing western cultural norms. It is great time, my friends, we stop lying to ourselves and start exploring our potential, we have a deep emotional connection to other human beings, I am not saying to have sex with everyone you encounter (though I do not believe there is something necessarily wrong with that), I am saying to attempt to bond intellectually, and emotionally with other human beings, so that all parties involved may become better people.