tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37022875212776421702024-03-19T04:50:14.013-07:00A Positive view of AtheismTheism, Atheism, Philosophy, Psychology, Anthropology, and the logical pursuit of rational thoughtChad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-79833746006832685352010-03-04T05:05:00.001-08:002010-03-04T05:05:43.752-08:00Young Men Behaving Badly<p><a href="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S4-wHlnuo7I/AAAAAAAABDo/QEHg_DeURO8/s1600-h/bibleforporn1%5B1%5D%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="bibleforporn1[1]" border="0" alt="bibleforporn1[1]" align="right" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S4-wIIioMWI/AAAAAAAABDs/V2TO8Ro957Y/bibleforporn1%5B1%5D_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="244" height="138" /></a> Recently the atheist student organization on the campus of the University of Texas – San Antonio held what I would surmise as a publicity stunt. In the public form of the school campus the group offered to exchange porn for bibles. There are several issues, most of which are associated with immature behavior and what I would term adolescent level judgment.</p> <p>Offering to exchange porn for the Christian bible would almost be the equivalent of offering to exchange a Boston Red Sox fan a Yankees hat for outfielder Dave Roberts’ glove. Not only is this sacrilege and insulting it is structured to be an insult and to infuriate a group that they obviously disagree with. Based on the student’s response of holding prayer groups on the spot they have accomplished this task.</p> <p><a href="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S4-wIaxnESI/AAAAAAAABDw/2uKHZlYRVCk/s1600-h/100303_rnc_screenshot_289%5B1%5D%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="100303_rnc_screenshot_289[1]" border="0" alt="100303_rnc_screenshot_289[1]" align="left" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S4-wI281kbI/AAAAAAAABD0/7TyJj3bsea8/100303_rnc_screenshot_289%5B1%5D_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="244" height="185" /></a> In breaking new we recently find out that the Republican National Committee has published and presented a PowerPoint presentation depicting our President and several members of the Democratic congress as comic book characters or children’s story villains. According to the reports this presentation was provided to the “large donors” of the RNC and was intended to be a scare tactic to drive contributions to the party and its members. In my view, there are very little if any differences in both activities.</p> <p>Resorting to an extreme tactic to either make a point or drive donations simply shows poor judgment and an extreme lack of character. Poking someone in the eye and then insisting that they listen to your position or opinion is not only absurd it is a most telling sign of one’s mental capacity to engage in a civil disagreement.</p> <p>Why am I disturbed by this behavior? Two reasons… one being this collage group is claiming to represent a position that I subscribe too and two they are resorting to tactics that insult not only the Christian position but the intellectual position of atheists around the world. “Drawing attention” to one’s self or agenda by acting like a group of school children should not be on the table as an option to pursue.</p> <p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S4-wJW4NzYI/AAAAAAAABD4/67GTPeebaqw/s1600-h/bibleforporn3%5B1%5D%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="bibleforporn3[1]" border="0" alt="bibleforporn3[1]" align="right" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S4-wJjQ4gfI/AAAAAAAABD8/aMcy6cUA_OM/bibleforporn3%5B1%5D_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="244" height="165" /></a> Intentionally engaging in activity you know is the most offensive activity you could possibly engage in to insult and degrade another person or group of people is always, in every instance, without exception a bad idea. There is no sociological, psychological, or anthropological evidence that this activity will lead to anything other than a fight, a war, or a terrorist attack. This is so egregiously wrong that it should be removed from anyone’s list of options that happens to have a maturity level above a ten year old.</p> <p>Redeeming quality…</p> <p>It has been suggested that anyone who would agree that the Christian bible is itself “smut” should back this campaign. There are variations on the definition of the word smut, none of which I would use to describe any theological text. Regardless of you opinion of the Christian bible, supporting a position that places yourself or a group in a position of advocating an activity that is the most insulting to someone you disagree with is simply absurd. One would expect that we could disagree without being disagreeable.</p> <p>It has also been suggested that it is in fact the religions extremist are themselves responsible for the perception of the porn industry and thus anyone else who does not subscribe to their rhetoric would not find porn objectionable. This is simply an ill conceived argument. I am personally aware of people who follow no particular theological practice that find issue with many points the Christian dogma condemns.</p> <p>Going after our own…</p> <p>My position of displeasure and disappointment in this group as well as my vocal condemnation is a direct result of my position of “cleaning one’s own house”. I do constantly remind my Christian and Muslim friends that it is their responsibility to stand up against what they themselves claim is a bad representation of their own respective faiths. (Pat Robertson or Alhaji Mutallab for example…) If someone is misrepresenting, degrading or outright insulting or damaging a mutual position it is the responsibility of every person sharing that position to not only work to condemn the activity but initiate activity to counter the destructive activity itself. </p> <p>To the students of the University of Texas – San Antonio atheist group, I strongly encourage you to withdraw from any future activity that even remotely resembles this type of engagement as well as issuing a full public apology not only the any religious theology you have obviously insulted but to the entire world of atheists who have now damaged by your actions.</p> <p>- Peace, Chad</p> Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-80411374407662781212010-02-19T07:39:00.001-08:002010-02-19T08:16:54.673-08:00Complete Disarray – Well Almost Complete…<p><a href="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S36wuVb3fbI/AAAAAAAABCs/plrBk6j1qHo/s1600-h/george-w-bush-john-mccain-photos%5B2%5D%5B4%5D.jpg"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: 0px" title="george-w-bush-john-mccain-photos[2]" border="0" alt="george-w-bush-john-mccain-photos[2]" align="right" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S36wu0uZC7I/AAAAAAAABCw/gzv0N3nQGbs/george-w-bush-john-mccain-photos%5B2%5D_thumb%5B2%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="198" height="134" /></a> At the end of the Bush administration the country was ready for a change. “Change We Can Believe In” is what we wanted. And a very hopeful country along with a very charismatic personality that spoke to the issues we wanted to address stepped up to the podium.</p> <p>The American people were so upset with the last administration that they cleaned out the Republican leadership across the board giving the Democrats full majorities in both houses. History has shown that when one party has the overwhelming majority in our government it usually turns out to be a bad thing. So what is the answer? Put balance back into the House and Senate?</p> <p>Obviously there is a disconnect between our leadership and the middle of the road conservative / liberal. Both sides have their fringe from Tea Party to Blue Dogs. These groups simply make static and provide Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann with daily material. </p> <p>In the first year our President seemed to have a single agenda, Healthcare. Even with the overwhelming majorities this one item could not gain enough traction to pass congress. Our President who gives the appearance that he promotes and strives to achieve bipartisanship seemingly had issues with controlling his how party members. During this entire process the economy was in the fast lane heading directly into the tank.</p> <p> </p> <h3>The bubble and economic roadmap…</h3> <p>I do agree that the issues with the economy were caused by the previous administration and the policies typically associated with the Republican economic road map. The major problem that I saw with the drastic change in our government’s leadership is that the Democratic approach to the business world and the economic agenda is so drastically different that it caused the creation of what could almost be termed a singular singularity in the US economy. While attempting to stop a financial meltdown that was caused by the unbridled activity of the financial world the solution to “save” some of the very institutions that caused the problem was in direct conflict with the natural order of a free market.</p> <p>We were in the middle of an over inflated market that finally ran its course. We had a bubble in our housing market created by the fast paces economy and the, what I would term outrageous practices of the lending institutions and the insurance companies who were underwriting the risks. I believe any economist would have seen this coming. So the logical course correction would be that the bubble would burst and the markets would fall flat and the organizations responsible would have failed or been penalized to a degree that would have caused them serious pain.</p> <p>That should have been the natural progression, but we had a change in leadership.</p> <p> </p> <h3>Save the world…</h3> <p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S36wvaAiOII/AAAAAAAABC0/oIAaXT3S1E8/s1600-h/480px-Ben_Bernanke_official_portrait%5B1%5D%5B5%5D.jpg"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: 0px" title="480px-Ben_Bernanke_official_portrait[1]" border="0" alt="480px-Ben_Bernanke_official_portrait[1]" align="left" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S36wvsZKtZI/AAAAAAAABC4/BY1GowbsbWg/480px-Ben_Bernanke_official_portrait%5B1%5D_thumb%5B3%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="101" height="125" /></a> While a rescue plan was in the works prior to the current administrations takeover, the massive recovery plan that was finally delivered was more in line with the Democratic approach to controlling the markets. There were obviously some companies that were allowed to fail while others were provided with the government’s financial support. Thus the bubble did not burst but was severely deflated. And with the wisdom of the Democratic leadership they have continued to pump resources into the market, print money, take interest rates to an all time low and even go so far as to force the restructure of some of the manufacturing sectors former giants. </p> <p>Now we find ourselves with an economy that still resembles a “half bubble” but now has so many holes in it that even with all the stimulus packages and bailouts they do not stop the downward trends. The bad news there is that we will not be able to readjust the market until it reaches a flat plain and has the opportunity to reset “normal” rates, operating practices and trustworthy risks engagements. The government is simply postponing the inevitable.</p> <p> </p> <h3>No, look over here…</h3> <p><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S36wwDmSwoI/AAAAAAAABC8/j06H-N4STWo/s1600-h/barack_obama-779027%5B1%5D%5B4%5D.jpg"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: 0px" title="barack_obama-779027[1]" border="0" alt="barack_obama-779027[1]" align="right" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S36wwQWhKeI/AAAAAAAABDA/81U4CFHDx0I/barack_obama-779027%5B1%5D_thumb%5B2%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="149" height="113" /></a> With the almost certain failure of the healthcare reform and the economy still deflating the leadership in Washington seems to want to resurrect some of the old campaign promises along with a lot of activity to show the American people that they are focusing their attention on the unemployment rate and job creation.</p> <p>While I do believe they should be putting energy into proposed unemployment strategies and job creations there are a couple of critical points that should be observed.</p> <p>1. The government cannot create jobs outside of government controlled jobs. (Police, Firemen, Military…) There are programs that have in the past created mass public works projects but these are providing jobs through private industry. Thus showcasing the only real job creation is in the private sector and can only be controlled by the private sector. Primarily the small business.</p> <p>2. With the implosion of the markets and the economy it leaves us with a surplus of manufactured goods and a services industry failing because the customer base no longer has expendable income. Regardless of how much money the government prints or stimulus packages they offer, the fact of the matter is this overwhelming surplus of goods has to be adjusted before any real progress can take place.</p> <p>What this translates into is that the unemployment will not see any relief until the surpluses are adjusted. (Sold off, sold out, discarded…) And the markets cannot adjust until the manufacturing sector has recovered to a sufficient position that Wall Street has confidence that a real adjustment has been made to a “new normal” and a base for rebuilding is realized.</p> <p>The administration has also resurrected the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) issues with the military. While I fully support this activity it comes at a very suspicious time. I believe the President has lost some of his base with the GLBT community and now simply wishes to garner support with some of the smaller individual groups who supported him in his campaign. I am not saying the administration does not find this issue important only that the timing makes me suspect their motive.</p> <p> </p> <h3>Next steps…</h3> <p>I am predicting another change coming. With the upcoming elections I believe the balance of power will once again shift. I personally believe this is a good thing. In the current structure the Republican representation is so off balance that they have little say in anything that happens and when you have no say you have no responsibility or “skin” in the game. This is not only bad for having a balanced team, it reflects bad on the Republican minority when all they can do is oppose any solutions offered by their liberal counterparts.</p> <p>Some of the most productive periods in our government’s history have been when the balance of power was close to neutral. One of the biggest handicaps this President has had to endure is the overwhelming takeover of the government by the Democrats due to the complete disarray the previous administration let the American people with. If my expectations and predictions are correct, the next two years of this Presidents time in office will be much more productive than his first.</p> Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-55276162181825409332010-02-15T09:27:00.001-08:002010-02-15T09:27:29.307-08:00Where in the world is Chad?<p>I find myself spending more time on FaceBook than running around the blogs.</p> <p>I would like to extend an open invitation to anyone who wishes to join the conversations.</p> <p>Chad S Wilson on FaceBook</p> <p>Peace, Chad aka TK</p> Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-12480067034219158872010-02-11T10:15:00.001-08:002010-02-11T10:15:51.115-08:00Bankers “Tax” a bad idea<p>I am having some serious issues with administrations current move to address the public outrage over Banker Bonuses.<a href="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S3RJVVICKVI/AAAAAAAABCk/q7fvGJ45LY0/s1600-h/bank3%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="bank3" border="0" alt="bank3" align="right" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S3RJVilD4sI/AAAAAAAABCo/C-H3ZDab16k/bank3_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="204" height="137" /></a></p> <p>This all started with the bail out. Thanks to the nonsense the republican legacy left us, and the current administrations acceptance of the proposed bailout plan we find ourselves in a situation where there is no answer.</p> <p>I fully support free markets, a global economy and everyone’s right to screw things up. I would much rather see the banking industry unregulated and defending for itself over more government controls. The part of this story that makes my ears bleed is that once the controls were lifted by the last administration they turn around and bailed out the very people who screwed the whole thing up in the first place.</p> <p>You have to pick a side. It is a free market and that means free to fail, or a controlled and regulated market that remains stagnant. Simple as that, there can be no in between. </p> <p>This latest escapade with wanting to “Tax” the banks has got to be one of the most ludicrous ideas I have yet to see out of this administration. They actually think this will punish the financial industry? Or at least they think the public is stupid enough to think that it will.</p> <p>Let me break it down for you…</p> <p>Any taxation applied to the banking industry, regardless of the motivation, will simply be passed on to the consumer in higher rates and banking fees. Thus the end result is the government is taxing us without representation through a tax levied on the banking industry. The banks are not being punished. We are! And we are buying into this song and dance because someone told us “Those bankers have to pay.”</p> <p>Pay attention people, it will all come back to your pocketbook sooner or later.</p> <p>- Peace, Chad </p> Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-21933964895661967592010-01-10T13:55:00.001-08:002010-01-10T14:05:28.423-08:00What Atheism Is<h4>An except from a book <em>in progress</em>… “Atheism - Being Happy Without Artificial Influences”</h4><p>For the purpose of clarity and understanding one must provide a common ground on which to converse. This book is using the definition of atheism to mean; without theistic belief. </p><p>Am I a “true” atheist?<a href="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S0pMt6C6GOI/AAAAAAAABCc/U6OIH4W4O0A/s1600-h/automotivator%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px" title="automotivator" border="0" alt="automotivator" align="right" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/S0pMuYrcoTI/AAAAAAAABCg/EeCcV20Q-iY/automotivator_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="161" height="244" /></a> </p><p>What exactly is a true atheist? I have seen this descriptor on other labels and always find it interesting. I get a lot of mail that I would qualify as hate mail from my writings and blogging. That is nothing new but when I point out that this mail comes from people who profess to be Christian I almost always get the same response. “Well, they are not a true Christian.”</p><p>Someone recently informed me that if I were a true atheist I would dismiss all religious teachings because they are based on a false premise. I believe this to be short sighted and even a bit close minded. I bring this up because this seems to be just another way to draw a line in the sand and say “we are special” or “we are right and they are wrong”.</p><p>I believe that Jesus, Buddha and even Mohammed had some great ideas. Promoting peace and love is always a great idea. When they or someone else throw in the nonsense about condemning others for their beliefs is where the whole thing gets side tracked. Well that and the fact that they teach a philosophy based on make believe characters or that you will be condemned for eternity after you die if you don’t follow their rules.</p><p>So what is a true atheist or a true Christian? Simply put it is a way by which we distinguish ourselves different from others who claim some common group, principle or idea. This allows one to still lay claim to some label yet discard the pieces we don’t agree with. Or put another way, it is an easy way to discount someone else for their particular belief or ideology.</p><p>From a psychological point of view, most of us like to think we are unique individuals with our own thoughts, ideas and personalities. While this may be true at some level I would argue that we are all the same in more ways than we are different. At a base level the majority of the human animal will want the same things. Food, shelter, good health, pursuit of happiness etc, etc… We all want to be happy. We all want to be loved and we all want to think we have some individual thought or idea that no one else has. </p><p>I certainly am not the first to claim the title of an atheist. I certainly am not the first person to think that religion and deities are based on myths. I am simply vocal about what I think. I recently have taken the position that if someone wishes to tack on the qualifier of “true” to any label they are unwilling to accept some particular view point of stance that is being provided and by using the adjective of “true” they have employed a short cut to discount whatever they do not agree with. </p><p>In our daily lives we are drawn to things we like and we veer away from things we find less than interesting or admirable or even with which we disagree. We find ourselves with so many different religions in the world that are based on a relative few or even single source of information because large groups of people wanted to separate themselves from some particular point of view or focus on one particular piece of teaching. The question that always seems to plague me when I look at this type behavior is’ why not take the parts that you disagree with out or the teaching or doctrine?</p><p>I am of a firm opinion that no single source of information has all of the best answers for any one particular situation. I would suggest and practice utilizing every source of information one can find to provide ideas and input into what should be the best possible answer to any number of questions or scenarios you encounter.</p><p>There is a lot of focus on the changes in our society regarding the homosexual lifestyles around the globe. This focus is caused by two primary groups, the Christian and the Muslim communities. Some might say that the focus is because the gay and lesbian agenda is pushing the boundaries of our socially accepted behavior, but I would point out that this is not the true because if it were not for the Christian and Muslim doctrine this would be a non-issue.</p><p>If you find yourself in one of these groups and you personally have no problem or issue with someone who is gay or the gay community wishing to have the same rights and opportunities as the heterosexual community, I would ask why not remove that from the teachings? Why would you continue to support a group or organization that you do not agree with or the doctrine, information, or bylaws that any one groups subscribes too?</p><p>Case and point, we have a local mega-church here in Houston that present a message of love, caring and devotion to a deity that they only use flattering descriptors to identify. Their leader/pastor always displays a positive and very well refined message that will focus on the positive aspects of their god and how those should be examples of how one should live their lives. They have even separated themselves from other Christian teachings by claiming the title of nondenominational.</p><p>Their pastor even publishes books on living a positive life and using the teachings of their loving god as a guide to do so. If information is positive and does not promote discrimination or violence in any way then I can support such a teaching. The fact of the matter is that this teaching is based on a single book that does not provide for a positive message as a whole. If you review this book in an objective light the less than positive information completely outweighs and positive conclusions one could glean from its pages.</p><p>So why keep this text as a basis for any philosophy? Why not edit the information to reflect the current culture and socially accepted norms and incorporate any additional philosophies the group might find as positive, supportive, or productive? Yes I am being a bit rhetorical. There is in fact a project underway by a Christian conservative group to do just that, edit the bible. Not being of a socially conservative nature I am not sure I will care for this version any more than the last but they are physically removing the information they do not agree with.</p><p>So what is atheism? If you do not subscribe to any theology or deity by definition you are an atheist. We may have differences of opinion on a whole range of ideas thoughts or teachings but if you and I lack a god, we are both atheist, no editing required.</p><p>More to come…</p><p>- Peace, Chad aka TK</p>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-90776897882325076812009-10-27T14:22:00.001-07:002009-10-27T14:22:51.471-07:00Evangelical Atheist<p><img style="display: inline; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px" align="right" src="http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u203/The_Atheist.jpg" width="162" height="257" /> In a discussion today, I was asked why I spend so much time talking about or promoting atheism and why an atheist would be “preaching” against Christians. If I don’t believe in God why do I spend so much time discussing the topic? I do get this type of inquiry often and felt compelled to address this question.</p> <p>It is well known that the Christian and Islamic religions engage in efforts to proselytize others to their theological belief system. When my friends see my websites or Facebook pages they naturally draw a conclusion that I am engaging in the same activity as they, only in reverse.</p> <p>My primary goal in my communications mediums is to simply explain what atheism is and how we live our lives without any deities and answer questions or more importantly correcting misinformation someone may have picked up. To a Christian or a Muslim it may appear that I am engaging someone to “recruit” new members into our way of thinking. I personally have observed some atheists who “evangelize” the atheist experience in a way that promotes atheism.</p> <p>I however am not engaged in an effort to recruit new members, I simply encourage people to question and dismiss information or beliefs I consider to be false or more often than not harmful or dangerous. It is not that I want to convince you that you shouldn’t believe in something outside of yourself, just stop supporting and engaging in activities that give credence to people within those belief systems that are oppressive and or destructive. In most of my writings and information sharing I find myself dispelling myths or misconceptions about atheist more than anything else.</p> <p><img style="display: inline; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px" align="left" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3412/3278628958_98fc1329dd.jpg" width="115" height="146" /> My interests have always been in the human animal, its psyche, its social interactions and the anthropological or sociobiological aspect of how and why we are here in this place and in this time. Having a very objective point of view of humans and the other living creatures on this planet simply fits very well with an atheistic belief system. </p> <p>What I do try to promote is critical thinking and a holistic approach to any information one may encounter. If I told you that trolls lived under bridges and if you are not careful they will jump out and take you away, there is simply no logical reason to <a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/SudkqlhY3TI/AAAAAAAABCQ/9ay5GYA2l7E/s1600-h/troll%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="troll" border="0" alt="troll" align="right" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/SudkqgqyPkI/AAAAAAAABCU/hn8hRHH3Yzc/troll_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="144" height="244" /></a>believe me. If you told me to prove my statement and I offered no facts or evidence to support the claim then you have no reasonable expectation to accept the information as true. If I then tell you that you have to prove to me that there are no trolls living under bridges you would simply dismiss my statement and go about your business. The skeptical approach to this and any information is what I am promoting. </p> <p>From a critical thinking point of view, theism in general is an easy target. But I strongly encourage everyone to engage in reasonably critical or skeptical thinking with every piece of information they encounter. Not to the point that it becomes a philosophical quagmire such as “No one could actually KNOW that the sun will come up tomorrow” But to a point to where simply taking someone at their word is not the norm</p> <p>- Peace, Chad aka TK</p> Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-71609636635684417252009-09-18T08:59:00.001-07:002009-09-18T15:09:32.086-07:00Sex Education the people who harm our children<p><img style="DISPLAY: inline; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" title="Birth Rates by State" alt="Birth Rates by State" align="right" src="http://bluree.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/capt57d18ca157e2453bb66afdf11a5b870fteen_births_fix_gfx135.jpg" width="313" height="270" />I received a text message the other night from a friend whom informs me that she has just learned; from her son, he was instructed to sit through a sex education presentation at his school. </p><p>My first thought is great, I fully support giving kids the information and facts around sex education. The more you know the easier it is to make reasonable and rational decisions when the time comes.</p><p>Now for the punch line. This was an abstinence only program.</p><p>I then asked if there was a notification sent to parents prior to this “presentation”. My friend informed me that she had not seen any such permission slip or request or letter announcing this would be taking place. To be perfectly clear, I would not stop my child from attending such a presentation, I would simply provide them with all the facts ahead of time and then follow up afterwards with questions and answers. I want my children to be fully informed and educated on all points of information, especially the false points so they may recognize them in the future.</p><p>As most of you know I tend to lean toward rational, logical, and reasonable approaches to knowledge, and information. I of course disregard or am suspicious of information that does not have any supporting evidence for a claim. We (society) know from the facts and studies conducted that abstinence only programs fail to achieve what they are designed to do. (stop children or young adults from engaging in sex) they are, in my opinion blatantly putting our youth in danger because they refuse to even acknowledge factually sex education information regarding how one may protect one’s self from sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies.</p><p>This seriously makes me nocuous to think someone would intentionally withhold information from someone that could potentially help protect them or prevent something that could be devastating to our youth and their families.</p><p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-11-abstinence-only_N.htm" target="_blank"><img style="DISPLAY: inline; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" align="left" src="http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/09/08/sexedx.jpg" width="156" height="181" /></a> Starting with the Adolescent Family Life Act of 1982, conservative Christians have been able to push through an agenda that has crippled sex education in America. </p><p>Obama is the first president in over a decade to say that we must teach our children the facts about their bodies and the options they have should they choose to be sexually active; Obama-as usual-is right on the mark.</p><p>Thankfully President Obama has cut funding for these types of programs and restored the rational approach to education that will actually teach our children something of value.<a href="http://www.aimforsuccess.org/home.asp" target="_blank"><img style="BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px" border="0" align="right" src="http://www.aimforsuccess.org/images/fat_01.gif" /></a></p><p></p><p></p><h2></h2><h2></h2><h2></h2><h2>From one of the websites… </h2><blockquote><p>“Aim For Success: America's largest provider of sexual abstinence programs.</p><p>Aim For Success is an independent, non-profit, educational organization that promotes a lifestyle of excellence by encouraging the development of self control, self respect, and self discipline. Through live presentations students are encouraged to develop strong, responsible character as they deal with sexual pressure.</p><p>Through Aim For Success presentations, students learn the wisdom of committing to be sexually abstinent until marriage. Parents are inspired to raise responsible children who know their choices have consequences. Teachers receive creative ideas on how to implement the abstinence message into their classrooms.”</p></blockquote><p>So let’s be perfectly clear on what the facts are and how reality works in our children's lives.</p><p><a href="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pihhr/files/SexLies_Stereotypes2008.pdf" target="_blank"><img style="BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" border="0" align="left" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH1LMnAg5BevxzsqW3zbDUE7noas4XbhOIDaYckRcJ5v8s9v3S7Fs57oRz4mazkUQBrsm5IWg7ZOwvC90fuUPsI4Sdb_W8rPNZKlnyexvvsDJMrHWowIDrqPtO3VPa1-gwSLElU9Bi_DoG/s320/SexLies.jpg" /></a> Studies published in a special issue of the online journal Sexuality Research and Social Policy by the University of California Press reveal that abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education programs fail to change sexual behavior in teenagers, provide inaccurate information about condoms, and violate human rights principles.</p><p>In sum, the articles show that abstinence-only programs contain medical inaccuracies, fail to help young people to change behavior, and conflict with ethical standards. Abstinence-only programs violate young people's right to accurate information—and also teachers' and health educators' rights to answer questions and provide medically accurate information. Many states have now refused to participate in the federal program (25 states as of August 2008) citing concerns about efficacy and accuracy of abstinence-only programs. The federal program provides funding for abstinence-only education and restricts information about contraception and other aspects of human sexuality.</p><p>If you have children, I would strongly suggest reading the full report</p><p><a title="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pihhr/files/SexLies_Stereotypes2008.pdf" href="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pihhr/files/SexLies_Stereotypes2008.pdf">http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pihhr/files/SexLies_Stereotypes2008.pdf</a></p><h2></h2><h2>Texas and her conservative social order</h2><p><a href="http://rackjite.com/archives/3875-Abstinence-Only-Program-fails-Texas-Students.html" target="_blank"><img style="DISPLAY: inline; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" align="left" src="http://rackjite.com/graphics/guntexas2.jpg" /></a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Normally I would say beware if your child’s school district is teaching something that doesn’t use the most current information or is based on something completely ridiculous like teaching intelligent design in science class. But this… this is down right malice and harmful to our children.</p><p>In his book, <u><em>America’s War on Sex</em></u>, Marty Klein agrees that Abstinence Only programs don’t protect kids from disease, pregnancy, or broken hearts. That’s because they aren’t effective at postponing sexual involvement or at making kids safer when they do have sex…so abstinence programs don’t help kids.</p><p>But they do benefit adults—both emotionally and financially. “Abstinence programs help [adults] convince themselves that kids are less sexual than they really are. They get to maintain the <strong>illusion</strong> that kids aren’t doing it, are going to stop doing it, or aren’t going to start.” It makes some parents feel better to say that because my child doesn’t know about condom use, birth control or STI’s, they won’t be sexual.</p><p>And it is this emotional cowardice and flagrant dismissal of the parental responsibility that seriously gets under my skin.</p><p>This is a horrible false logic that screams at us when you look at the statistics:</p><ul><li>In 2001, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy published a review called <em>Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy</em>. It concluded that “the evidence is not conclusive about the impact of abstinence-only programs,” and that “there do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with reasonably strong evidence that they actually delay the initiation of sex or reduce its frequency.” </li></ul><ul><li>In 2005, <em>The Journal of Adolescent Health</em> found that teens who pledge abstinence until marriage are more likely to have oral and anal sex than other teens who have not had intercourse. </li></ul><ul><li>In 2007, a long awaited, federally mandated study that began in 1997 concluded that abstinence only programs do not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom. </li></ul><ul><li>Of late, many states have begun to reject federal funding for abstinence only programs, or create a hybrid version that allows for full sex education </li></ul><p></p><p></p><h1><span style="font-size:130%;">Grow up and take responsibility</span> </h1><p>You know and the youth of our nation know that sex is one of the most wonderful things on this planet. They see it in ads they see it on television and in movies. They talk about it with their friends and they hear some of the most absurd stories about it that you could imagine.</p><p>Our youth are a lot smarter than most people give the credit for. Having a conversation with your children about sex and the responsibilities of engaging in the activity is not only the right thing to do it is the ONLY thing to do. Talk your kids, they need to understand the responsibilities and the consequences of their decisions regarding decisions to have sex.</p><p>Lastly, talk to your school administrators, and leaders. Tell them you do not want abstinence only curriculums to be presented as the primary source of sex education in your schools.</p><p>Peace</p><p>Chad/TK</p>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-36343961754342821902009-08-16T10:05:00.001-07:002009-08-18T12:52:58.179-07:00God in a cage, and two people of whom I am sure the Christians are proud<p>Some people want to put the Christian God in a cage, and they want it to be part of the exhibits at the Tulsa Zoo.</p> <p><img src="http://www.annafalling.com/anna%20blog%20logo.jpg" /></p> <blockquote> <p>Republican mayoral candidate Anna Falling said Tuesday that putting a Christian creationism display in the Tulsa Zoo is No. 1 in importance among city issues that also include violent crime, budget woes and bumpy streets.</p> </blockquote> <p>Mrs. Falling apparently thinks that creating new exhibits at the Tulsa Zoo is more important than any other of the current issues with which our country is being bombarded.</p> <p> I know, next let’s push for a flat earth exhibit at the Smithsonian! Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.</p> <blockquote> <p>"It's first," she said to calls of "hallelujah" at a rally outside the zoo. "If we can't come to the foundation of faith in this community, those other answers will never come. We need to first of all recognize the fact that God needs to be honored in this city." </p> </blockquote> <p>But what about all the other gods? Shouldn’t they be honored too?</p> <blockquote> <p>Falling's campaign has been overtly Christian-themed. But she said she wants to embrace people of all religions, not alienate them.</p> </blockquote> <p>Oh, ok that makes me feel better. At least you aren’t alienating all the other gods. Wait, why did they all of a sudden decide they needed a Christian God exhibit at the Tulsa Zoo?</p> <blockquote> <p>The exhibit was thought to calm down those who felt one religion was being honored over another because the elephant exhibition includes a statue of the Hindu elephant-headed god Ganesha.</p> </blockquote> <p>Ah, so the Zoo was showing favoritism to the Hindu religion. Now I get it. But wait, wouldn’t the simple answer be to just remove the other statue?</p> <p>I also wonder if the Zoo’s architects were thinking “Oh you know what? We can put a statue of Ganesha in the elephant exhibit and everyone will just think it is really cool, but we will really be promoting Hinduism. Oh we are so smart!”</p> <p>Mrs Falling continues…</p> <blockquote> <p>"We will also look for people who want to characterize the origins of both man and animals in a way that honors Judeo-Christian science that proves God as the creator," she said. </p> </blockquote> <p>WHAT? What Judeo-Christian Science? There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian Science. There is Science and everything else is NOT science. And as far as proving that “God as the creator”, you first have to prove there is a God. Shesh, she can’t even make a fallacy free argument.</p> <p>She continues…</p> <blockquote> <p>"I'd love to be able to visit with them," she said, adding that there's common ground. "I know God loves them. I love them. This is an opportunity for us to be able to be friends and make a difference in this community." </p> </blockquote> <p>Why you condescending little…. You know your god loves them? The common ground is your god loves them? Do you even know who the other gods are? Do you care if they love you? Do you care if someone else doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of your god? Mrs. Falling, now you just made me sick at my stomach.</p> <blockquote> <p>Controversy over having a creationism display at the zoo dates to 2005, when it was proposed by Dan Hicks, a Christian activist. </p> <p><img style="display: inline; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;" src="http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2005/050610_a13_onema38279_a13zoo10.jpg" width="209" align="right" height="152" /> </p> </blockquote> <p>As it turns out, Mr Hicks was visiting the Zoo with his son and, while enjoying all of the sites and letting his son gain knowledge of the animal kingdom, they happen to visit the chimpanzee habitat and ran across a bit of information that just didn’t seem to fit into Mr. Hicks way of thinking.</p> <blockquote> <p>The sign said something to the effect of: "The chimpanzee is our closest living relative, branching off from a common ancestor four million years ago." </p> <p>Hicks complained that the sign offended his beliefs, and zoo officials eventually removed it. </p> <p>"I think the zoo staff believes evolution is truth," he says. "And they think I'm an absolute nut." </p> </blockquote> <p>Well Mr. Hicks… if believing that the earth is only six thousand years old and that humans and dinosaurs lived together in the same time period on this planet, I think that qualifies you as a nut.</p> <p>As it turns out, Mr. Hicks also provides services to the community…</p> <blockquote> <p>Hicks, who lives in Tulsa, gives creationist-centered tours at the zoo, and last week he spoke to the media against a gathering of gay people and their supporters at the zoo. </p> </blockquote> <p>So Mr. Hicks also provides a scientifically debunked OPINIONS of how the earth was created while providing tours of the Zoo AND speaks out against gay people. I take back my previous comment Mr. Hicks. You are not a nut, you are an idiot.</p> <h2>Conclusion</h2> <p>If you are a Christian apologist you should know that these are the people making the headlines. These are the people who are representing themselves as Christians and disseminating information they believe to be true. Regardless of your position on the issue of creationism, these people are representing themselves as Christians and that reflects on all Christians. </p> <p>Personally I think everyone with the exception of the young earth creationist should be upset;</p> <ul> <li>If you are not a Christian, then obviously Mrs. Falling and Mr. Hicks are pushing their singular point of view on both city government and the Zoological Scientific community. </li> <li>If you are a believer of a differing religion, then your religion is being rejected in favor of another. </li> <li>If you are a non-believer, then religious views are being pushed upon you without your consent. </li> <li>If you are a political advocate, then you should be upset that someone is AGAIN attempting to inject “church” into “state”. </li> <li>If you are a republican, then you have a lunatic claiming/representing your party.</li> </ul> <h3>My Opinion</h3> <p>Recently I have been accused (again) of not being accepting and understanding of other peoples views or opinions. Hmmm. Lets see, if someone told you that trolls lived under bridges and they would get you if you didn’t hold your breath when you drove over a bridge, would you begin holding your breath every time you traversed a bridge? If someone said they were Jesus Christ and they had returned to earth for the second coming, would you believe them? (David Koresh)</p> <p>Of course you wouldn’t. Those people are mentally disturbed at best or complete idiots at worst. I don’t suffer fools, and I don’t have a problem calling an idiot for what they are.</p> <p>Don’t push religious nonsense into our schools and communities, and I won’t push logical thinking and scientific process in your church. And for the sake of all that is sane, don’t let morons like these two get into positions of power or influence.</p> <h6 align="right">Sources</h6> <h6 align="right"><a title="http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=262&articleid=20090812_11_A11_Republ227159&allcom=1" href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=262&articleid=20090812_11_A11_Republ227159&allcom=1">http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=262&articleid=20090812_11_A11_Republ227159&allcom=1</a></h6> <h6 align="right"><a title="http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=050610_Ne_A13_Onema38279&archive=yes" href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=050610_Ne_A13_Onema38279&archive=yes">http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=050610_Ne_A13_Onema38279&archive=yes</a></h6> <h6 align="right"><a title="http://www.examiner.com/x-8948-Dallas-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m8d15-Tulsas-mayoral-candidates-creationist-incentive" href="http://www.examiner.com/x-8948-Dallas-Atheism-Examiner%7Ey2009m8d15-Tulsas-mayoral-candidates-creationist-incentive">http://www.examiner.com/x-8948-Dallas-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m8d15-Tulsas-mayoral-candidates-creationist-incentive</a></h6> <h6 align="right"><a title="http://annafalling.wordpress.com/" href="http://annafalling.wordpress.com/">http://annafalling.wordpress.com/</a></h6>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-3010095940366941342009-07-26T12:16:00.001-07:002009-07-26T12:16:46.667-07:00Hypocrisy for the Masses<p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/Smyrm0S6xFI/AAAAAAAABBw/8sJo7CGEQ60/s1600-h/image%5B7%5D.png"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="image" border="0" alt="image" align="right" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/SmyrnYMkACI/AAAAAAAABB0/ilx2xZedFq4/image_thumb%5B3%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="244" height="196" /></a> The republican party is almost to the point of looking like a script from the Keystone Cops (see circa 1912 – 1917 film archives).  For the political party that has classified itself as the party of morals, character and traditional belief. It appears to be the party of comic relief, at best and at worst, a hypocritical grandiloquent machine that is crashing and burning.</p> <p>How many government officials have been caught in moral high ground battle? <font size="1"><strong></strong></font></p> <p><font size="1"><strong>And these are just the ones I am aware of who have been caught. I do suspect many others who have yet to be discovered.</strong></font></p> <ol> <li>Senator David Vitter R-La (2007) Caught in a scandal involving a Madam. And he is still in office I might add. What does that say about the “good” people of Louisiana who kept him in office? A right wing Republican who campaigned on “Family values” and was fully active in his church because he is “a man of god” . In a most recent story that can only be classified as purposeful Irony Vitter accused his current opponent Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) of having a “Love fest” with fundraisers at a Martha’s vineyard fund raiser.</li> </ol> <p> </p> <ul> <li>Gov Mark Sandford (R-NC) (2009) His escapade to South America to be with his mistress while railing against, gay marriage and campaigning on “family values.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <ul> <li>Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) (2009) Who had an extra marital affair with a staffer and who’s family paid money to the woman’s family almost a hundred thousand dollars because they were concerned about them in these hard economic times. (WTF?)  AND who says he has no intention of resigning. Again I am sure making the good people of Nevada proud. The one thing that makes me laugh is he doesn’t seem to profess the whole “man of god” crap that most republicans seem to spew.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <ul> <li>U.S. Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss) Pickering was in Congress and living in a Christian facility for lawmakers on C Street near the U.S. Capitol. He retired from Congress in January and joined a lobbying firm. Of course the obviouse joke here is the “Christian facility”. At least this guy had the decency to leave the house of representatives and take a job working for a consulting (lobby) firm in Washington. LOL</li> </ul> <p> </p> <ul> <li>US Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fl) Resigned in 2006 over sexual text messages and emails sent to male congressional pages. I will give him credit for his support of hate crime bills. (no wonder, he’s gay) and his introduction of legislation on protecting children from child pornography predators. My issue was he touted the whole Catholic Christian “holier than thou” nonsense the Republican party has been screaming for years. “We ‘the Republicans’ are a party of God”</li> </ul> <p>OK, whatever, Hypocrite.</p> <ul> <li>Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) arrested for homosexual lewd conduct in the men's restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on June 11, 2007.</li> </ul> <p>and last but not least…</p> <ul> <li>US Rep. Dan Crane: (R-Ill) Married, father of six, received a “100% Morality Rating” from Christian Voice. Had sex with a minor working as a US congressional page. On July 20th, the House voted for censure of Crane, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct.</li> </ul> <p>OK I know Crane was from the 80’s but he is one of my favorites just because of the “100% Morality Rating” </p> <p>Now don’t get me wrong… Democrats get caught in scandals too. And the irony there is that they seem to get caught in scams that involve greed. Democrats who are always claiming to fight for the poor and neglected are chasing money, and the Republicans who have all the money are chasing sex. Interesting don’t you think?</p> <h2>Let he with no sin cast the first stone</h2> <p>I’m claiming no moral high ground here and those who know me know I live my life according to my rules or the rules of law. Ok most laws. My issue here is it has been proven over, and over, and over again, that you CANNOT legislate morality. and second anyone who claims the moral high ground better damn well know who they are placing in their leadership positions. </p> <p>Lastly, the only morals that others have that even remotely concern me are the ones that affect my interaction and well being in our society. I couldn’t care less who you are having sex with, but you damn well better not be doing something to harm me or others.</p> <p> </p> <p>Peace</p> <p>Chad</p> Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-51901692430623676772009-07-18T12:36:00.001-07:002009-07-18T12:36:06.915-07:00Mythology<p><a href="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/SmIkJMzYBBI/AAAAAAAABBo/E0qifOs09bw/s1600-h/clip_image002%5B4%5D.jpg"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: inline; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: 0px" title="clip_image002" border="0" hspace="12" alt="clip_image002" align="right" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/SmIkJiJppOI/AAAAAAAABBs/oxJDPby3lW4/clip_image002_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="125" height="180" /></a>On a recent vacation we stumbled across an old used book store. We love books, and especially old books. I enjoy old books because they provide a glimpse into the past and what we as humans may or may not have found to be true at the time.</p> <p>J found a book <i>Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology</i>. It was published in London in 1959. For the most part the book is simply what it says in the title, an encyclopedia. What caught my attention was one of the opening paragraphs.</p> <p><i>“Mythology is the study of whatever religious or heroic legends are so foreign to a student’s experience that he cannot believe them to be true. Hence the English adjective ‘mythical’, meaning ‘incredible’; and hence the omission from standard European mythologies, such as this, of all Biblical narratives even when closely paralleled by myths from Persia, Babylonia, Egypt and Greece” and of all hagiological legends. “</i></p> <p>Of course the part that I find interesting and most amusing is that the author admits to Biblical narratives closely paralleling other hagiological legends, but then states they will not be documented in this book.</p> <p>The introduction continues;</p> <p><i>“Myth has two main functions. The first is to answer the sort of awkward questions that children ask, such as: ‘Who made the world? How will it end? Who was the first man? Where do souls go after death?’ The answers, necessarily graphic and positive, confer enormous power on the various deities credited with the creation and care of souls – and incidentally on their priesthoods.”</i></p> <p>The author specifically points out that the questions come from children. This would lead one to imply that once grown a person would not be asking such questions because reason and logic would provide the correct answers to replace the childish fairytales. Second the author specifically labels the questions as awkward. I find this interesting simply because it would be the grownup answering them and at some point the adult should have obtained the correct answers which they could then provide to the child thus rendering them “non-awkward” I’m not sure why this author finds these questions to be awkward.</p> <p>The author continues;</p> <p><i>“The second function of myth is to justify an existing social system and account for traditional rites and customs. “</i></p> <p>This would lead one to believe that a society is using the myth to justify something that is not reasonable. If something is reasonable and serves a purpose then no justification should be required. </p> <p>Conclusions;</p> <p>One thing I have always maintained is that religious books should not have a separate place within book stores or libraries. At best they belong in a subsection of philosophy but I would rather see them shelved in the fiction section or a section for mythological studies.</p> <p>The Biblical mythologies and all the documentation associated with them should be regarded with the same reproach and skepticism as is given to every other story of fancy and frivolity. For the most part the Jewish Torah, the Muslim Qur’an, and the Christian Bible are horrific accounts of human indecency inflicted by man upon man, with all the credit given to an imaginary monster. The perpetuation of these myths does little more than provide support and justification to the priesthoods that preside over said myths.</p> <p>It is time to put away the childish things…</p> <p>Peace</p> Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-87791672882544846362009-07-12T16:51:00.001-07:002009-07-18T08:19:37.001-07:00Do you know your commandments?<p><img style="DISPLAY: inline; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" align="right" src="http://fl0wer.net/files/illuminati_commandments.jpg" width="153" height="204" /> This posting is a follow up to my previous blog “Your god is a moral adolescent”.</p><p>I did not specifically call out the “Ten Commandments” simply because there are questions regarding their origin and what other cultures influenced them. A majority of people in the US would claim to know the Christian Ten Commandments. And, based on my experience and reading, it appears that most of them are wrong.</p><p>I’m always amused by people who stand up and claim that our society was founded on the Christian belief system and that our founding fathers constructed our constitution around the Christian commandments.</p><h2>Point No. 1 –</h2><p><strong></strong>First amendment battles continue to rage across the US over the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places. Christians argue that they are a part of our western heritage that should be displayed as ubiquitously as traffic signs.</p><p>Congressman Bob suggest that the Columbine massacre wouldn’t have happened if the Ten commandments (also called the Decalogue) had been posted in the high school, (this guy is an elected official?) and some government officials have directly and purposely disobeyed court rulings against the display of these ten directives supposedly handed down from on high.</p><p>Every Decalogue you see, from the 5,000 pound granite behemoth inside the Alabama State Judicial Building to the little wallet cards sold in Christian book stores, is wrong. You might say, “Really?” Yep you can look it up for yourself. Get out your King James Version, turn to Exodus 20:2-17. You will see the familiar list of rules about having no other gods, honoring your parents, not killing or coveting and so on. At this point, though, Moses is just repeating to the people what God told him on Mount Si’nai. These are not written down in any form (as described by the King James Bible. The other Christian versions are the essentially the same with some wording variations.).</p><p>Later, Moses goes back to the Mount, where “God” gives him the “tablets of stone” with rules written on them (Exodus 31:18). But when Moses comes down from the mountain lugging his load, he sees the people worshiping a statue of a calf, causing him to throw a tantrum and smash the tablets on the ground (Exodus 32:19).</p><p>In neither of these cases does the bible refer to “commandments”. In the first instance, they are “works” which “God spake,” while the tablets contain “testimony”. It is only when Moses goes back for the new tablets that we see the phrase “ten commandments” (Exodus 34:28)</p><p><i>Personal side note here – When you give your child something important and he/she pitches a fit and breaks said important thing do you turn around and give them another one? </i></p><p>In an interesting turn of events, the commandments on these tablets are significantly different than the ten rules Moses recited for the people, which would lead one to believe that either Moses’ memory is faulty or his “god” changed its mind.</p><p>So you may say “what are the commandments given to Moses by his lord”? In case you don’t want to look this up in Exodus 34:13-28, they are;</p><p>I. Thou shalt worship no other gods.</p><p>II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.</p><p>III. The feast of unleavened bread thou shall keep.</p><p>IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.</p><p>V. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the first fruits of wheat harvest and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.</p><p>VI. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.</p><p>VII. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven</p><p>VIII. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning.</p><p>IX. The first of the first fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the lord thy god.</p><p>X. Thou shalt not seethe (churn or boil) a kid (i.e. young goat) in his mother’s milk.</p><p>Now the question that immediately comes to mind is;</p><p>The so called creator of the universe is speaking directly to his creations and giving them the 10 most important things they should know to live their lives and this is the list? Seriously! This list is a joke, and oh by the way, there is nothing there about killing, adultery, stealing, or being honest. So the “real” Ten Commandments don’t even offer any socially redeemable advice either - in my opinion, of course.</p><p>It appears that the guys who wrote the bible really should have thought this through a bit more. And yes we know they were guys because we have evidence of their social structure of that time period and of that culture.</p><p></p><h6 align="right"><u><em>Reference Notes:</em></u></h6><h6 align="right">· Point one reference <a href="http://www.disinfo.com/">www.disinfo.com</a> publishing <i><u>100 things you’re not supposed to know</u></i>.</h6><h6 align="right">· King James Version of the Christian Bible</h6><h6 align="right">· My blog; <a href="http://positiveatheist.blogspot.com/2009/04/your-god-is-moral-adolescent.html">http://positiveatheist.blogspot.com/2009/04/your-god-is-moral-adolescent.html</a></h6><h2>Point No. 2 – </h2><p>There are other, and much older, social rules by which to live your life. AND, they actually give guidance on how one should interact with his / her fellow human beings. </p><p>I offer the example of the Samurai moral code, the Bushido code of conduct, the wisdom and serenity of Confucianism or Buddhism, or the ten commandments of Solon. All of these are older than Christianity and seem to have a much better grasp on the things that should be important to one leading a “good” life.</p><p>Personal Note – You cannot mandate morality or “clean living” - these virtues are only relevant to the person or social code of conduct as guidelines. I do not wish to pick up the debate here, but there are levels or degrees of all codes of conduct and only the individual can decide what is appropriate for them. (Yes, there are social orders that must be obeyed for a society to flourish and mature. In this case I am speaking only of one’s own personal growth or maturity.)</p><p>In case you aren’t familiar with any of the previous mentioned “commandments” or codes of conduct, I offer you a sampling for your review.</p><p>Ten Commandments of Solon;</p><p>1. Trust good character more than promises.</p><p>2. Do not speak falsely.</p><p>3. Do good things.</p><p>4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.</p><p>5. Learn to obey before you command.</p><p>6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.</p><p>7. Make reason your supreme commander.</p><p>8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.</p><p>9. Honor the gods.</p><p>10. Have regard for your parents.</p><p>The Seven Virtues of a Samurai;</p><p>1. Rectitude (義, gi)</p><p>2. Courage (勇, yū)</p><p>3. Benevolence (仁, jin)</p><p>4. Respect (礼, rei)</p><p>5. Honesty (誠 makoto, or 信 shin)</p><p>6. Honor, Glory (名誉, meiyo)</p><p>7. Loyalty (忠義, chūgi)</p><h3>In conclusion;</h3><p>My point is that the Christian’s bible versions of the social commandments is at best a list of things that will ensure one celebrates the changing of the seasons and, at worst, was a poor list of items that is useless to anyone after the invention of pasteurized milk and modern farming techniques.</p><p>Lastly, if you are going to call for the inclusion of the biblical Ten Commandments in anything you need to, at least, know what you are talking about. The list that everyone is so excited about being in our public buildings is not the commandments that the Christian god carved in stone for Moses. </p><p>Now if you are going to defend the “commonly known” commandments and disregard the list that was supposedly presented to Moses in stone, then I would ask you; </p><p>1. Where does your god inform you that you can pick and chose what parts of the bible to abide by, and </p><p>2. Which ones you can discard as irrelevant?</p><p>OR one of my favorite defenses of the apologist,</p><p>3. That it was a written in a different time and social structure than our own and thus is not relevant.</p><p>The Christian bible will offer an occasional stone of wisdom. The fact is that this wisdom in every instance I am aware of, was already concluded, refined and practiced, or can be taken independent of its source. In both instances the bible serves no purpose.</p><p>While Thomas Jefferson’s version of the bible managed to strip away a lot of the nonsense contained in the King James Bible, I would argue that the Christian bible’s sadistic, barbaric and grotesque representation of the human condition and its god, in and of itself should disqualify it from any further use.</p>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-48094849457525105022009-04-25T10:35:00.001-07:002009-04-25T10:35:07.531-07:00Your god is a moral adolescent<p><a href="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/SfNJyVLKZTI/AAAAAAAABAk/rdwzBXgKqOc/s1600-h/cry-baby-girl-face%5B4%5D.jpg"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="cry-baby-girl-face" border="0" alt="cry-baby-girl-face" align="right" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ibtOB5V3B6U/SfNJyqdC9WI/AAAAAAAABAo/s7z4w-LbLSo/cry-baby-girl-face_thumb%5B2%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="184" height="244" /></a> I recently had a discussion with someone regarding freewill, consciousness and determinism. This in turn led to morality and the social orders that influence said morality. Consciousness and determinism I’ll save for another time, as that is a long discussion in and of itself.</p> <p>After the discussion, I had gone back to catch up on some reading on the study of morality and its evolution. This inevitably leads to more discussions with my theist friends and their concepts of their gods.</p> <p>Several points to make here…</p> <p>1. Throughout the history of man there have been more than two hundred and fifty recorded gods. Each and every one of them has some variation on a set of standard moral objectives. </p> <p>2. Moral edicts provided by these gods seem to tie in very closely to the current moral maturity of the person / people collecting the information.</p> <p>3. Religious text or tenants are usually non-evolutionary and may never be updated or changed, as the particular god is seen as all knowing or omnipotent.</p> <h3>Concerning moral evolution</h3> <p>Per Lawrence Kohlberg, there are six commonly accepted stages of moral evolution. Kohlberg’s work is an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived of by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget and is as follows:</p> <p>Stage 1 – Blind Egoism</p> <p>Stage 2 – Instrumental Egoism</p> <p>Stage 3 – Social Relationship Perspective</p> <p>Stage 4 – Social System Perspective</p> <p>Stage 5 – Contractual Perspective</p> <p>Stage 6 – Mutual Respect as a Universal Principle</p> <p>Now it should be pointed out that some sociologists argue that individuals define their “personal” moral judgments while disregarding the interest of others. This is achieved by ignoring social laws, the human rights of others or any ethical value outlined by a standard social order or those of their gods.</p> <p>For the purpose of this discussion, I will focus on the social order and perspectives. We all know, based on personal experience, we can manipulate any personal moral or ethic to justify any action we have either engaged in or wish to engage in. See “cognitive dissonance.”</p> <h3>Setting the stage</h3> <p>Now that we have the established base, we can draw conclusions on the moral maturity of our society and the moral maturity of religious doctrine.</p> <p>My current position is that the religious doctrines I am familiar with, and study, all originate sometime prior to or during the Bronze Age.</p> <h3>Argument</h3> <p>My argument is – having your moral values dictated to you from information that is known to be derived from a social order that is, at best a stage 3 maturity level, is not only counterproductive, it is illogical.</p> <p>1. Religious doctrine was constructed during a time when the moral maturity was less than the social maturity of our current social order. This is assuming that the goal of a socially conscious group is to advance to the highest moral stage. </p> <p>Religious doctrine = less than desirable moral maturity goal.</p> <p>2. Religious doctrine, according to theists, is not allowed to be modified or changed.</p> <p>Religious doctrine = infallible and reliable</p> <p>3. Current social order, while not perfect, is at a higher level of maturity than religious doctrine. Assuming that this is a true statement, it provides evidence that the previous variable (No. 2) is no longer valid.</p> <p>Current social order = higher moral maturity than religious doctrine</p> <p>4. To achieve a goal of a higher moral maturity level, a society must modify or discard lesser level moral directives.</p> <p>Religious morals being less than desirable = should be discarded or modified</p> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>Current social moral maturity is more advanced than any religious doctrine currently known to man. Therefore, any moral construct based on religious doctrine should be discarded in favor of a higher level of moral maturity.</p> <p>Based on a simple matrix, it can be demonstrated that the moral maturity of each religion currently in practice may be compared to all other religions and the current social order / maturity level of our society. This leads one to identify “the best” moral guidelines.</p> <p>I, then, conclude that the current social maturity of our social order is at a higher level to that of any current religious doctrine and, thus, religious morals outlined by said doctrine should be discarded.</p> <p>Please feel free to poke holes in the argument. I am always interested in creating fallacy-free arguments and positions. I look forward to your feedback.</p> Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-89733541102300040392008-05-24T07:06:00.000-07:002009-04-27T13:48:21.306-07:00Emotions, Reason, and No God Required<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSd1fhfhixwGQtOT8q9C-RJoax4yyk_we2GO5l8T-Tq7QXTKywku8Aai-PS8YKKbbpF9T7ndtHOA083-2zosGs3loYgfwCqJNxZ7sT7RVEe1pzRjJI4rQxpIQK3FfuWyxKION6Ll1gA6sM/s1600-h/Iron+Heart.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5203948315531531522" style="margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; float: right;" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSd1fhfhixwGQtOT8q9C-RJoax4yyk_we2GO5l8T-Tq7QXTKywku8Aai-PS8YKKbbpF9T7ndtHOA083-2zosGs3loYgfwCqJNxZ7sT7RVEe1pzRjJI4rQxpIQK3FfuWyxKION6Ll1gA6sM/s320/Iron+Heart.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>In a recent discussion I met someone who is recovering from an emotional trauma. As you would expect this person is very upset but moving on to a point in their life where they are finding some peace.</div><br /><div><br />In a completely separate conversation I was discussing emotions, rational decisions and the human element with regard to making decisions and how emotions influence them. While there are theories ranging from David Hume to Max Scheler regarding emotions and their use, it is my observation that regardless of their usefulness we must acknowledge their persuasion on our lives.</div><br /><div><br />If we understand, then we may begin to examine how to use them to our benefit or hold them in check when their purpose is detrimental to rational judgment or logical outcome.</div><br /><div><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:130%;" >Emotional terrorism</span></div><br /><div><br />People lie every day. I believe all lies are contrived as deception in one way or another, most lies provide only minimal harm and most are engaged to spare feelings. Some lies are used to hide and some are intended to be malicious.</div><br /><div><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:130%;" >What does this have to do with anything?</span></div><br /><div><br />As I have stated before I believe theology is nothing more than mankind’s first attempt at philosophy. It is obvious to some that it failed, but to others it holds great truths and guides their lives beyond reason. I believe theism is simply a lie that has been perpetuated over time because it serves a purpose. That being to provide comfort (sparing someone’s feelings) and used to control. I believe most humans have no grasp of atheism simply because they would never be able to physically handle the impact of the theory of chaos. The simple emotion of fear is too strong to overcome.</div><br /><div><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:130%;" >My point…</span></div><br /><div><br />Your emotions are extremely powerful, especially ones concerning love and the heart. Regardless of your theological beliefs or lack thereof I strongly advocate close protection of said heart. When you find a heart that is willing to share with you and you with them, be even more vigilant in how you handle it because someone else has placed a very precious thing within your care.</div><br /><div><br />Using your god as an excuse to destroy someone else is not only a cowardly act, but one that is most despicable in deed itself. Claiming that you are governed by your god and then blatantly engaging in acts that contradict your god’s laws not only makes you a hypocrite, but a morally bankrupt individual. </div><div><br />From the atheist point of view you and you alone are responsible for your decisions and the emotions that guide you. Guard your heart at all costs, but when you find the one with whom you can share it the benefits are bountiful. If you are hurt it is not the fault of a god, it is yours and the person with whom you trusted.</div><br /><div><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:130%;" >Beware the cliff; it is a long way down</span></div><br /><div><br />I observe people in relationships where it is obvious to me that underlying tensions are present. I am often offended when I hear derogatory comments made by a person regarding someone whom they profess to love. I have a friend who would refer to his wife as “the old lady” when I questioned him about it he laughed and said, it’s just something people say, it is a term of endearment. I honestly fail to see how anyone could make such a comment about someone they care so deeply about that they would marry them. And by the way, this same person will go to church every Sunday and claim to be a Christian. That just makes me sad.</div><br /><div><br />Your words as well as your actions impact all those around you. Obviously they impact emotions, both yours and other people. If you are in a relationship where someone is constantly “jabbing you in the ribs” or “kicking you in the shin” emotionally, it will not take much to push that relationship over the cliff. Keep your eyes open, burying your head in the sand or avoiding a discussion will only lead to a detrimental end.</div><br /><div><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:130%;" >In closing…</span></div><br /><div><br />I take complete responsibility for all my actions. I take complete responsibility for control of my emotions and whom I share them with. If I am hurt by another individual I may ridicule them for not being civilized or not engaging in ethical behavior, but in the end it falls to me to recover, understand and learn from the experience. There is no god required to be a better person in the end.</div>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-13251301025800905102008-05-10T06:55:00.000-07:002009-04-27T08:03:27.786-07:00Love thy Atheist?In a story published in the <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1048981_love_thy_atheist_neighbour">Manchester Evening news</a>, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor instructs everyone…<br /><div align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/res/158.$plit/C_71_article_1048981_image_list_image_list_item_0_image.jpg?08%2F05%2F2008%2018%3A20%3A59%3A047"><img style="width: 68px;" alt="" src="http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/res/158.$plit/C_71_article_1048981_image_list_image_list_item_0_image.jpg?08%2F05%2F2008%2018%3A20%3A59%3A047" border="0" height="73" /></a></span></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size:130%;">"Love thy atheist neighbor"</span> </div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"></div><div align="left">Well thank you father for being so… <em>Christian</em>???</div><div align="left"><br />I had a discussion not too long ago with a friend who commented; “look what good work all the Christians are doing, building play grounds for kids, helping the homeless, giving to shelters…” The big issue I have always had with putting a label on kindness is just that, you are putting your label on something that doesn’t require a label.</div><div align="left"><br />We all have good intentions, thoughts and desires. We all have some really ugly ones too. The difference is that some humans listen to one side and some to the other. The theist is always quick to point out that this is simply their God or their Satan. I maintain it is even more simple than that. It is simply human nature. There really are good people and bad people. Sometime circumstances drive the nature; sometimes the human overcomes the circumstances. The bottom line is, you are either good at heart or you are not. (I believe most people are, but a bit misguided)</div><div align="left"><br />People who build playgrounds and give generously of their time are generally doing it because they are good people. They don’t need a label to show why they are good. I know many atheists who are much more generous than I and they do all the things you would associate with a kind hearted person. The difference is the Christians have good PR people. They gather all their friends together (I suspect a few atheists are in there as well) and then tell everyone to “smile for the picture”. Now to be perfectly fair...it should be pointed out that Atheist are quick to point out how they too are helpful. <a href="http://www.atheistvolunteers.org/">Atheist Volunteers</a></div><div align="left"><br />So what happens if you take away the label? In the perfect world; when there are no religions, what would all the children be left to play in the dirt? Would the homeless be left to fend for themselves? The obvious answer is “NO”. All of the same kind hearted people would do the same things they are doing now.</div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"><div align="left"><a href="http://www.atheistvolunteers.org/"></a></div><br />In a discussion between and atheist and a theist I heard the atheist ask “if you have irrefutable evidence today that god absolutely did not exist, would you start rapping, pillaging and killing.” The theist answered “Well sure, why not?” So for this person his religion was the only thing making him a “good person”. At the conclusion of the conversation the atheist told the theist, “I hope you stay in church for the rest of your life!” I agree. Not only was the theist psychotic but obviously an idiot.</div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"><a href="http://www.atheistvolunteers.org/"></a></div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"><br /><strong>Bottom line…</strong><br />Be kind to everyone <em>PERIOD</em>! Because you are the guardian of your kind heart and you don’t have to be a god, or worship one, to offer a helping hand.</div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"><a href="http://www.atheistvolunteers.org/"></a></div>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-35708006044118580122008-05-02T11:44:00.000-07:002008-12-02T11:31:05.799-08:00Christian Social Graces<a href="http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/news.aol.com/newsbloggers/media/nb-lg-dinesh-d.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 160px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 130px" height="192" alt="" src="http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/news.aol.com/newsbloggers/media/nb-lg-dinesh-d.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>I try to keep up with most of the news / information going on in the world as it relates to Atheism or Theism in general. For the most part it is the usual noise in the system. Well I ran across a headline that did not strike me as noise.<br /><br /><a href="http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/04/27/atheist-bashing-week/">Atheist Bashing Week</a><br /><br />It took me a moment to digest this simply because I could not believe what I was reading from a posting that is supposedly a Christian apologist. Some of these guys can really make some claims or statements and apparently get away with it. (Remember Kent Hovind?)<br /><br />So my first response is, Mr. D'Souza you are being very offensive in making a statement such as this. If you feel you have not been offensive in this statement I would like to request that your next blog be on Jewish radio host Dennis Prager with which you participated in a debate, and call it JEWISH BASHING WEEK.<br /><br />I have dismissed Mr D’Souza as nothing more than a regular guy who is using Christianity and right wing politics to drive his on prosperity. This reminds me of someone else like that. Anne Coulter!<br /><br />Well now my keyboard has burst into flames from typing the name Ann Cou… </div>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-15954733385037375412008-04-28T08:49:00.000-07:002008-12-02T11:32:46.903-08:00Watered Down ReligionThere are two things about the “religious type” that have always bothered me. Besides the fact that a large majority think they have the answers and you just need to be enlightened.<br /><br />1. Nowhere in any religious text, that I can find, does it tell a practitioner they are free to pick and choose which laws, rules or commandments they wish follow.<br />2. Nowhere in any religious text, that I can find, does it tell the practitioner they are free to modify, adapt or change any laws, rules or commandments for any reason.<br /><br />This includes the common excuse that there was a different social structure when the holy scriptures were written. If their god was so powerful and omnipotent wouldn’t he / she have taken that into consideration before allowing someone to put it in a book with this God’s name on it?<br /><br />So some of my biggest questions are;<br />1. Why do people water down, thin out or dilute their religious doctrine when they are so forceful in beating up others with it?<br />2. Why do people not see the hypocrisy in this practice?<br />3. How do people read two guiding principles, one placed right after the other, and they follow one but not the other?<br /><br />I can only hypothesize. My current thinking is most people simply cannot follow every single rule outlined in the religious text. Thus they pick and choose which ones THEY deem to be the most important. This selection process then allows them to build their arguments (e.g. With the exception of some sects of Hinduism, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God.) while ignoring all the other directives outlined on the very same page from which they selected this one.<br /><br />Another hypothesis / observation is some people simply cannot bear it. They see a lot of inconsistencies within the text, they do not have answers as to why, but they simply want to carry on in their faith. (Regardless of how irrational that sounds.)<br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5194325999863889218" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8GONXvw1OHeVmJbW_sYMJqfUpcLg3VdvpwB5vokhPpf3UlAXgE9PBbLp9mDc6V50tnM4k8D9k-ieuXyMdJP4k70HlVZw0mlRDCSYhPh9TFXHU5plflDiYCBTbB0KbHksX9_gxfOddUbda/s320/wr_logo.png" border="0" />Now let us add a different spin; “<a href="http://www.reliefjournal.com/">Relief – A Quarterly Christian Expression</a>”. In their self-described words they even admit to what I have always seen as the biggest faults within religion.<br /><blockquote>“Relief: The amazing truth in life--there is a place outside of desperate pain,<br />anxiety, and self-loathing. “Peace that passes understanding” has become<br />cliché, but we can’t deny the truth of it.”<br /></blockquote><br />It is the religion itself that causes the desperate pain, anxiety, and self-loathing. In my opinion the peace only comes after you realize that the whole thing is a bunch of bunk. As an old saying goes, “if you are carrying a heavy load, just set it down.”<br /><br />I have seen some comments or write ups about the site and how they are accepting and publishing letters and articles from all walks of life. (Not just Christian) Some see this as progress and progressive. I can’t say I agree with this perspective simply because of the two big issues I have. So not only are the people of the “Relief” publication watering down their religion, they are still absolutely 100% wrong.<br /><br />This does not mean we cannot or should not communicate and have discussions. Communication is always a good thing. It simply needs to be understood that the approach to their version of religion is still just another approach and they still have not obeyed the directives of their God.<br /><br />In closing – Every single religion I have found is domineering and oppressive to its followers and creates the perfect space in the human psyche for self-loathing and destructive thoughts or addictions. No matter how you slice it, there still is nothing peaceful, wonderful or good in any religion.Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-13242682831357816442008-04-25T20:00:00.000-07:002008-12-02T11:33:12.112-08:00Idiots and T-ShirtsThis is one of those that on the surface seems cut and dry, but I would think it is a bit more difficult than just free speech.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-anti-gayt-shirt,0,7656342.story" target="">Court says Ill. student can wear anti-gay T-shirt at school</a><br /><br />What if the shirt said "Be Happy, Not Black" or "Be Happy, Not Retarded"?<br />You may say "Well Sexual orientation is a choice, people do not chose their skin color or mental capacity."<br /><br />If you think this, you did not pay attention in psych class.<br /><a href="http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html">American Psychological Association</a><br /><br />The difference is, you chose your theological belief system, you don't choose your skin color or your sexual orientation. I will protect free speech. I do not protect racism, bigotry or narrow minded idiots who base their belief system on fairy tails.Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-75363254844286681002008-04-25T10:07:00.000-07:002008-12-02T11:33:33.935-08:00God's Girls<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3AQ6o5TAZapIldf-ETSnEno-Fex9V_R6UOZuCLWv8CjzyH0tYGtPLWbJ19UgKnPYi6kfppJuxju1ciH6gx9nk9mPipPqtgFZCyGLR_iI-7397bI0sl31BqvD1qy0IcaGb-3D69fkQC7sZ/s1600-h/GodsGirls.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5193233849810058530" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3AQ6o5TAZapIldf-ETSnEno-Fex9V_R6UOZuCLWv8CjzyH0tYGtPLWbJ19UgKnPYi6kfppJuxju1ciH6gx9nk9mPipPqtgFZCyGLR_iI-7397bI0sl31BqvD1qy0IcaGb-3D69fkQC7sZ/s200/GodsGirls.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>I ran across this site when I was searching for "god's laws and women" I had to blog it just because I thought this was hilarious that it showed up under that search string. I wonder how many religious zealots find this site by mistake and THEN BOOKMARK IT?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">WARNING</span> - This site contains nudity.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.godsgirls.com/"><span style="color:#3333ff;">God's Girls</span></a><br /></div><div>Note - Direct Competitor to The Suicide Girls, Hence the reference</div>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-28120152387028962852008-04-25T08:36:00.000-07:002008-12-02T11:33:59.100-08:00Walking with your MateI recently had a discussion regarding the roles and responsibilities of individuals within a relationship. This discussion was prompted by a comment about the organization Promise Keepers. If you are unfamiliar with them see <a href="http://www.promisekeepers.org/">here</a>.<br /><br />The basic philosophy behind promise keepers is that men are the leaders in a relationship and women should follow them. This of course is based on the instructions outlined in the Jewish Torah, Christian Bible and the Islamic Qur’an. Which as we all know was very heavily influenced by the culture of the period.<br /><br />For the sake of this diatribe on PK and their version of how relationships work, I am going to completely ignore the whole women’s movement and equal rights angles. My position is to use common sense.<br /><br />So my first observation is that a relationship is not limited to a male and a female, but I will stick with the Homo-sapiens species for the time being. Second, I would surmise how the relationship works is based exclusively on the personality types of the individuals involved. You can also include the motivation for the formation of partnerships but that is a much bigger discussion.<br /><br />My common sense tells me, if I love someone and wish to be in a relationship with that person we must have an understanding of what the definition of a relationship is and what is initialed in maintaining said relationship. It is my observation that a great number of people never do this because they make assumptions based on social norms and what they “see” on the outside world. When a relationship begins to have issues is usually when people begin to question the choices.<br /><br />First point – Who is the leader, you can’t have a team without a leader. WRONG, you can. The reality of it is that one person will have a more dominant personality (cleric) and the other a less dominant or even submissive (phlegmatic). This will usually determine who will take on the leader role and it has nothing to do with anything ever written in a theologian text.<br /><br />My second point (and my biggest issue with the PK / religious teaching) by placing this requirement in a “holy book” AND building a religious movement around it is both destructive and irresponsible. By putting a model out there that is based on nothing more than testosterone and the male ego you are setting people for self loathing psychoses and unneeded stress within any relationship.<br /><br />Case and point If a male is a phlegmatic personality type he will not fit in the model that has been outlined by the religious rhetoric. Constantly reminding him and beating him up about not fulfilling a role that his creator has designed for him is suppose to be constructive how?<br /><br />Think, people THINK. Something that is so controlling and condescending as religion would only provide a foundation for self destruction or if we are lucky abandonment by those who follow / believe.<br /><br />And people wonder how someone could ever be an Atheist… ARE YOU KIDDING ME?<br /><br />It is my sincere wish that you are building a meaningful relationship on love, trust and communications and it has nothing to do with any of that religious drivel.Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-8125032466095166082008-04-22T13:18:00.000-07:002008-12-02T11:34:31.307-08:00Gay AgendaHere we go again with the xtians jumping up and down about the day of silence in our schools. (The day of silence is a passive protest designed to call attention to bullies and discriminatory actions against the GLBT community)<br />The day of silence is organized by GLSEN, (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network)after Lawrence King a 15-year-old student from Oxnard, California, who was shot and killed in class on February 12 by a 14-year-old classmate because of King’s sexual orientation and gender expression.<br />See Link here<br /><a href="http://www.dayofsilence.org/">http://www.dayofsilence.org/</a><br />So they (the xtians) say that their rights are being trampled on because the “gay agenda” is being forced on students in schools. And what is the gay agenda? Tolerance and acceptance!<br /><br />I have one very simple question for all you xtians out there who say that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says it is. The bible also tells you how to train, keep and trick slaves into being loyal to you but you ignore all of those rules. How is it you can pick and chose which rules in the bible to follow and which ones to ignore?<br />The answer is you can’t because the xtian bible does not give you permission to do so. Therefore you are not only sinning by not following all the rules you are a hypocrite for condemning someone for one rule while you obviously break others.<br /><br />So a word to all the xtrians out there who say they want a truthful conversation about the day of silence. How about you get all your “truths” in line and THEN you can have a grown up conversation about what really is the truth.Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-62385884231608965072008-04-18T08:46:00.000-07:002008-12-02T11:34:57.501-08:00They Lose Another one<p align="left"><span style="color:#000066;">Jason Beghe Leaves Scientology.</span> <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/images/365473/4_21_beghe450.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://www.foxnews.com/images/365473/4_21_beghe450.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />I find it interesting that the fact someone changed their mind about a philosophy gains so much publicity. But I am glad to see he was thinking for himself. </p><p align="left"><br />Scientology Losses a member.<br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352069,00.html">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352069,00.html</a><br />And if you wish to hear it first hand.<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZvmvlZM1gw&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZvmvlZM1gw&feature=related</a></p>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-28078272720822411292008-04-16T18:33:00.000-07:002008-12-02T11:35:25.578-08:00Difficult to be a gentlemanIn the following story, the obvious <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">villain</span> is the subject of the article. Simple enough, one man easily discounted. The problem arises when you <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">know that</span> he is the leader of a county, put there simply because of a blood line. The Second issue is my own country agrees with him.<br /><br /><a href="http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/04/04/interfaith-union-to-vanquish-atheism-human-rights.htm">http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/04/04/interfaith-union-to-vanquish-atheism-human-rights.htm</a><br /><br /><br />WOW<br />Sometimes people make it very difficult to be a gentleman.Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-54520640471264883782008-04-15T09:41:00.000-07:002008-04-15T09:44:09.203-07:00Hitchens Vs. HitchensI find this to be a bit more entertaining than providing any real arguments. So enjoy and laugh.<br /><br /><a href="http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2008/04/hitchens-vs-hitchens-on-god.html" target="_blank" s_oidt="0" s_oid="http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2008/04/hitchens-vs-hitchens-on-god.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Hitchens</span> Vs. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Hitchens</span> on God</a><br /><br /><a href="http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2008/04/hitchens-vs-hitchens-debate.html" target="_blank"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Hitchens</span> Vs. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Hitchens</span> On The War</a><br /><br />If you want a serious debate on <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">deities</span> or war, Google search. There are far better examples of real debates.<br /><br />Peace<br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">TK</span>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-45794695754491645492008-04-15T09:37:00.001-07:002008-04-15T09:40:46.858-07:00Expelled ExposedIt appears that a lot of people think that Ben Stein has now completely lost his mind. Obviously I do not agree with much of what Ben <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">believes</span>, but now it looks as though he has gone and upset even those who might support him.<br /><br />Have a look<br /><a href="http://www.expelledexposed.com/">http://www.expelledexposed.com/</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/#synopsis">http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/#synopsis</a><br /><br />I think Ben has missed that the general population has become more intelligent.<br /><br />Peace<br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">TK</span>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3702287521277642170.post-12323293551784053632008-04-13T09:00:00.000-07:002008-04-25T08:38:57.496-07:00Walking with an Atheist<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoQfpmN-bzq5SZHHIR32gK3gXukkQKIlbbfEyTX0UP7hp2VuVDQ-yvo_O1es9nhBLMSEnQk1CLxjUUU0eQgPG5wjtCQda7luKAQ33iFMVM8uibGEpALVWKnCydhhhAkJDAuLxeNN6o1yF9/s1600-h/ampelmaennchen.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5192535561142172882" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoQfpmN-bzq5SZHHIR32gK3gXukkQKIlbbfEyTX0UP7hp2VuVDQ-yvo_O1es9nhBLMSEnQk1CLxjUUU0eQgPG5wjtCQda7luKAQ33iFMVM8uibGEpALVWKnCydhhhAkJDAuLxeNN6o1yF9/s200/ampelmaennchen.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />This is an outline I started as part of discussions with theists and the conversations I have with them. This information provides what I believe to be my viewpoint of both atheism and the answers to common questions theists have regarding why I do not believe there is an Existential Being.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#330099;"><strong><em>Part One - Truth, Facts, Gnosticism and Post Modern Philosophy<br /></em></strong></span>Truth has been the subject of debate throughout the history of philosophy. As long as there have been thinkers there have been opinions about what constitutes truth, the definition and rules used to identify truth when you run into it etc. The questions have always been; is truth subjective, objective, absolute, or even relative.<br /><br />One of my biggest pet peeves with Christian “catch phrases” is when they say, Jesus is the truth the light and the way. I’ll give you the light and the way part. I don’t necessarily agree with it, I can see how a "believer" may make that statement. But TRUTH?<br /><br />So hang on a minute there Mr. / Mrs. Theologian. While I do subscribe to the post modern philosophical definition of truth, the underlying definition is that truth is based on facts. Theology is based on faith. Faith and fact to not mix and never shall they meet. While some may claim that Jesus is THEIR truth, my issue is they still have not provided facts on which to base that statement.<br /><br />For more information on truth and how we think please see the following;<br /><br />1. Truth – A Guide by Simon Blackburn. It is a short read but will give you plenty to ponder if you are of a mind to do so.<br /><br />2. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge by Robert Audi. This one may take a bit longer to read but gives a good foundation for further discussions on philosophy.<br /><br />As a naturalist in both science and philosophy I do base my perception of the world on reason and logic. In doing so I also work very hard to build arguments that support this process and are free of fallacies and faulty reasoning. As such the knowledge that I do consider myself to hold, I do so because it is reasonable and logical to do so.<br /><br />I do not go to the woods and poke a bear with a stick because it is not reasonable or logical. Unless being mauled to death is your objective. It is this same reason I do not search for a god. It simply is not reasonable. Theology offers no logic or reason for practical use or explanation.<br /><br />“Atheist are arrogant because if they say there is no god then they are claiming to know everything.”<br /><br />I have always loved this statement by theist. First I have always seen it as an emotional response to a position or statement. It reminds me of someone’s little sister or brother being told to do something and them responding with, “Well you just think you know everything don’t you Mr. Smarty pants!”<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#333399;"><strong><em>Who claims what</em></strong></span><br />For the purpose of clarification let’s get the ball in the right court when it comes to claims of knowledge.<br /><br />A theist is an individual who accepts that the claim of a god is true (Any claim for any god).<br />Atheism or an Atheist literally means “one without theism”.<br /><br />So with regard to theism there is only one position. “A god exists”. From the standpoint of belief there are two positions. I ether accept (believe) the statement is true. Or I reject (do not believe) the statement to be true. By rejecting the statement it does not put me in a position to offer a different statement, I simply do not accept the theist statement to be true.<br /><br />Assuming we can agree on what the definition of what a God is, a logical conclusion must fall on one of the two clams to be true. (You accept or reject the claim that a God exists) But just because someone does not hold a belief to be true does not mean that they must hold the opposite to be true. I simply say I do not believe you when you tell me that a God exists. This is the reason why the theist’s claim that atheism requires “more faith” than theism is a false statement.<br /><br />I would also assume a theist claim to “know” there is a God puts the theist in the position to overcome an additional claim of arrogance.<br /><br />1. First you state that you know a god exists. (Regardless if you claim to know this through faith or carnal knowledge.)<br /><br /><p><br />2. By saying that your God is the correct God you have asserted that all the other theologies of the world are wrong. Which says you have knowledge of all the other theologies both past and present.<br /><br />So it is the Theist who is arrogant.<br /><br />As an Atheist not only is it a complete LACK of arrogance, it is the complete and total opposite. Because I do not except your explanations of “God did it” it leaves me free to continue to ask questions without making any claims of knowledge.<br /><br />If you ask me “how did we all get here?” I can point to a lot of scientific evidence we have collected throughout the history of mankind that provides some explanations and builds more questions, but the honest answer is “I do not know”. Thus I will keep searching for the answer and if scientific history is any guide, someday we will know.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">And just for the record…</span></em></strong><br />I am by definition a Strong or Gnostic Atheist. Based on the facts presented by philosophical, logical, empirical and mathematical arguments, I believe not only is there not an existential being but there is no reasonable argument to even entertain the idea of one possibly existing. This does not stop me from examining evidence that someone brings; it does, however, mean that I believe I have heard, read, or have knowledge of every possible argument an apologist has offered thus far.<br /><br />I would also offer that there is no reasonable evidence why anyone should even consider the Christian God to be true, just as there is no reasonable evidence to go looking for the Locke Ness Monster, or hunting for trolls under bridges. I would not stop you if you wanted to look under every bridge in the world to prove the point, but it is not reasonable to do so because there is no evidence to support the proposition in the first place.<br /><br />My contention is with anyone who wishes to intrude or mandate others also believe in their God and follow rules that they think are relevant because their God dictates. As I said you are free to go look for trolls under bridges, but the minute you tell everyone that all bridges must be closed on Sunday because everyone should be looking for trolls, we have a problem.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;"><em><strong>Obeying Gods Laws</strong></em></span><br />I do hear from many Christians who say they witness or share “the good news of Jesus” because their bible instructs them to do so.<br /><br />1. I have two fundamental issues with these type theologians.If you are doing something because your religious text tells you to, shouldn’t you be doing everything your religious text is telling you to do?<br /></p><p>The reasonable answer is yes they should. In all of the major theologies of the world, I have yet to find any instruction in any book that tells the follower they are free to pick and choose which rules and laws they want to follow and which ones they do not. AND I am not aware of any instruction or passage that allows for any of the rules to be modified or changed because they do not coincide with modern social concepts or beliefs.</p><p><br />2. In the top three major religions of the world not one is a positive message. Most Christians or Muslims will tell you that the positive message is eternal salvation. Well first of all there is no such thing, second their text and theology is both repressive and discriminatory, not to mention violent and destructive. Not only is there no good news, it is destructive and misleading and manipulative. It serves no purpose other than to control and give power to those who claim that they are simply leading people into the fold of God’s flock.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;">Ray Comfort and Other open mouth idiots</span></em></strong><br />Honestly I have to laugh when I see or hear people like Pat Robertson, Ray Comfort, Jerry Falwell and the likes. I don’t even have to build arguments against them; they do it for all of us. You say “Now TK that isn’t a very positive thing to say.” My response is, well they make it hard for me to say anything positive about them. Would you care for some examples?<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Jerry Falwell</span> </p><ul><li>If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.<br /></li><li>I had a student ask me, "Could the savior you believe in save Osama bin Laden?" Of course, we know the blood of Jesus Christ can save him, and then he must be executed.</li><br /><li>I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!</li></ul><p><br />Scary huh… oh but wait it gets better! </p><p><span style="color:#ff0000;">Pat Robertson</span><br /></p><ul><li>We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over.<br /></li><li>We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective -- to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties.... By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA<br /></li><li>There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.<br /></li><li>The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening.<br /></li></ul><p><span style="color:#ff0000;">And just for fun… Ray Comfort</span><br /></p><ul><li>Bananas – The Atheist Nightmare. (Ray comfort claims that bananas are the perfect design and because they are a perfect design, atheist can’t refute that they were of an intelligent design and therefore there must be a god.) My response… BLAH HA HA HA HA HA!<br /></li><li>Ray Comfort has published something called the Evidence Bible – Irrefutable evidence for the thinking mind. I have yet to get my hands on a copy of this, but just the title alone makes me laugh. IN my opinion this guy is nothing but a charlatan and swindler.<br /></li><li>I see Ray Comfort to be extremely ignorant, ill-informed, or dishonest. For the life of me I cannot figure out why anyone would listen to a word this man says. </li></ul><p>If you seriously believe that any of these people, or anyone else who trying to tell you how you should live your life, are trying to help you, you need a serious wake up call and start engaging your brain to recognize reality and a little bit of common sense.</p><p>And No, Atheist are not trying to tell you how to live your life. We are advocating that people use their brains and engage in a little bit of critical thinking. Logic and reason will show you how to live your life.<br /><br />More to come…<br />Peace<br />TK</p>Chad Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09527579552656695605noreply@blogger.com0