Religion may be a evolutionary opiate.There is a theory (hypothesis) that the tendency to have magical beliefs may be an evolutionary niche that played a role in our evolutionary survival. Magical thinking gives people hope in an otherwise apathetic cruel world. It may have helped early human endure and cope with harsh survival hardships and statistically cruel adversities. What believers really seek to find through religion is a sense security, order, purpose. It is the hope that there is an answer to the “why” of their existence (sometimes a miserable one). They want to feel special enough for a deity to concern him/herself with their obviously insignificant lives; Insignificant from the overwhelmingly large perspective of the universe. A person’s life may affect other people, his immediate environment, in very rare occasions mankind and our planet. But outside this picoscopic blue oasis the significance of their lives is nonexistent. The universe carries on unaware of our existence.

The believer’s desire is understandable, even skeptics wonder about these things. Shit! On some level we all seek some kind of validation to our existence. Subconsciously, I delude myself with the idea that I am special. However, I’m just another very curious self-aware human; One of many of our species; not exactly the same as the rest, but not very different. These false ideas help me emotionally tussle with failure, adverse circumstances. I delude myself with the prospect of an incredibly bright successful future to motivate myself, knowing full well many of my fantasies will not come true. I could fall ill and die. I could fall victim to some life altering event. A jagged frozen blue turd can fall off and airplane and land on my throat or I could just fail miserably. There is no destiny, no guarantees. The universe has no bias towards or against me. The only guarantee is that someday I will die.

It is normal for individuals to feel like they are destined to someday enjoy glory, wealth, happiness, success, peace, pleasure, a sense of fulfillment etc. These are delusions in contrast to statistical reality. Most people don’t become wealthy, glorious, and successful. Many die young, poor, under miserable conditions; work their entire lives earning meager livings with little satisfaction. Most don’t become what they dreamed they would grow up to be. Many achieve their goals, but the satisfaction is short lived or not as pleasurable as envisioned. Many, who were on the road to glory and success, living dream lives, die before their prime. But if we were to be so blatantly honest, realistic and pessimistic with ourselves I suppose we would all be overdosing on Percocet and Valium. There is plenty to be depressed about. A little Intentional self deception helps us deal with what would otherwise be overwhelming.

A very common example of this conjuration we play with ourselves occurs when a loved one passes away. To try and cope people sometimes say things like “He gone to a better place now”, “we will see her again when Jesus comes”, “I know I’ll see him in heaven” or “She is in heaven smiling down on us”. Yet our emotions defraud us and contradict our statements. We cry and grieve like we will never see them again. Deep down we are well aware death is an end and the likelihood of ever enjoying that person’s company again is nil. This is the reason why many religions, if not all, concern themselves with an afterlife. They help believers cope with the prospect of their own mortality.

So I wonder if religion is an expression of a somewhat necessary “brain generated delusion” that evolution has provided the human species. None the less, this particular expression of an otherwise useful evolutionary niche, is past its prime in many ways, and is retarding humanities progress.

Not to my surprise, but not what you would expect from people who pride themselves in being just and moral, I received responses attempting excusing this gods behavior and forcefully circumventing the little thought needed to come to a rational conclusion. What is amazing is that, if I were to have told them that Sadaam Hussein made these statements they would have had him unearthed, revived and hung him again. But since their god made these statements, Killing babies and making your daughters into sex slaves was perfectly acceptable.

My point here is that I believe, based on my own religious experience as a reverends son, most believers are first taught what to think of the bible and God before they even read it. They have already been convinced of a conclusion or told what to think of the bible as they read the bible. They are told that God is always good and just, and that God is always right. When something in the bible is incongruent with this or reality, they will be told to refer to the previous assumption, pray to God for revelation, it is a mystery that only god knows, not to attempt rationalize Gods infinite wisdom just have faith and other similar bullshit. They are told how to interpret the bible as if it is not written in plain English. You are told what to think versus reading the bible without bias and arriving at your own conclusion. They totally subvert opportunity for rational thought and indoctrinate members into a delusional mindset. Questioning of God’s judgment is a sin and the virtue of impervious faith is most pleasing to God. No matter how much you are suffering or how shitty your existence is, you are told God cares about you, and if you continue serve him, he will compensate you after you die. You are told if you don’t serve him, when you die, God will make you suffer for eternity and make them wish you were really dead. When the believer dies after a life of intellectual slavery, it is too late, he has been swindled out of money, time and a sane rational lifestyle.

The right question to ask when analyzing any claim is “why should I or anyone believe?”. It is not your job to refute every claim made. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. A claim is not “true until proven false”. This is backwards. A claim is only deemed true when proven true. How could we otherwise determine truth?

The premise of my argument is that truth can only be verified by evidence. If there is no evidence to support a claim then there is no reason to believe it is true. Then the argument digresses into what constitutes evidence. What quality and quantity of evidence is sufficient to reasonably justify belief? That depends on the claim made. Is it ordinary or extraordinary in nature.
If you claim to own a dog, it would it is reasonable for me to take your word as true because it is a fairly ordinary claim and of little importance or ramifications. Dogs exist and plenty of people own them. Dogs are very easy to obtain.

However, if you claim that you own a dog that poops 24k gold pretzels on command, I may try to reserve judgment on your character or your mental health, but I would surely require a significant amount of evidence of great quality prior to believing you. I would want to see it with my two eyes, repeated over many times. I would want scientist to investigate and determine if the dog itself is producing the gold or are you abusing your dog by placing gold pretzels in its rectum. I would want scientist to explain how exactly the dog is able to defecate gold. As well as determining how in the world does he make it into the shape of a pretzel? A gold limacon evacuating canine would have great scientific ramifications and is very extraordinary in nature. This is practically unbelievable from the perspective of the human experience.

If we were to objectively judge the claim that “God exists and is the cause of all existence” by the same standards that we judged the claim of a gold pretzel defecating dog, we will likely come to the conclusion that there is more evidence for a the gold defecating dog than for God’s existence; Evidence for the existence of dogs, feces, pretzels, pretzel shaped poop and gold all exist. Evidence for god however… Nil. Nol. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nashingu.

If there is no evidence of god’s existence then the universe being his creation is equally unsubstantiated. This is why faith is the corner stone of many religions. For example, Christian dogma emphasizes faith that can move mountains. As if saying’” if you believe strong enough it will come true”. It innately disregards the importance of evidence as a means of justifying belief because its claim is not substantiated by evidence.
Because most of earth’s human population believe in deities, the claim that god exists seems ordinary. It gives the illusion that this belief is substantiated because it is perceived to be common knowledge. Therefore, the claim is treated as ordinary despite being an extraordinary one. Not much evidence, if any, is requested by people before the claim is accepted as truth. Religious belief circumvents the standard by which people normally evaluate claims.

Now as far as my general statement, “God is a delusion” refers to beliefs correlated with religion, that are unsubstantiated and or contradicted by well establish knowledge. The most common example is the bibles 7 day creation myth. It claims that all life on earth, as well as earth in its current form, was created by a god. Despite the plethora of evidence supporting scientific explanations for the evolution of earth and life (physical, geological, paleontological and biological), Christian creationist insist the creation myth is truth. If you notice most arguments against evolution merely attempt to discredit it but never provide scientific evidence for the creation myth other than quoting the bible. The closest thing to a scientific argument is intelligent design which is a merely a sophisticated version of creationism and is actually antiscientific in nature. This is merely one example of many that abound.

If someone believes a claim despite contradicting evidence it can be said he/she has a delusional belief because it is not only unsubstantiated but contrary to proven truths. People who believe in deities usually do not make habit of challenging claims by evaluating the evidence that supposedly substantiates it, and therefore they are prone to believe falsehoods or delusions.

I encourage you to ask me questions, analyze my statement, and do your own research. Question everything.

A few days ago I had a discussion with my father. While conversing we came upon the subject of morality. He mentioned that he believed that the majority of people, who are atheist, are so because they don’t want to live morally. I was offended and shocked that my father could make such a thoughtless statement. The statement assumes many fallacies. One, morals are exclusive to Christians and created by God; Two, atheist lack morality; Three, atheism and morals are correlated. I am not attempting to express scorn towards my father; I love and owe him too much to do so. My conversation with my father is only what motivated me to write this blog. The statement my father made is all too common and while I don’t consider my father a bigot, his statement expresses the sentimental prelude to it.

First and foremost, morals do not exist because God dictates them. In fact, it can be concluded by the bible that the Christian God does not abide by the moral codes he is given credit for creating. Thus, it can be inferred that God is not even an example of a moral being. Many of Gods laws and commands are immoral. Now take in mind that this god is supposedly perfect and incapable of committing errors. For example, Slavery, God condones slavery and abuse of slaves:

· When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

· When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

· Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

· Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

· The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

You can bring the lame duck ancient Asian culture argument, but if God is perfect and is who dictates what is moral, then morality is absolute, transcends culture and is universal. Slavery is immoral but God condones it. God also condones and has ordered the killing innocent children and babies in the Old Testament:

· Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

· “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.  Show no mercy; have no pity!  Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.  But do not touch anyone with the mark.  Begin your task right here at the Temple.”  So they began by killing the seventy leaders.  “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded.  ”Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill!  Go!”  So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

· When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it.  They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

What moral ground would God stand on to argue against abortion? The answer is none what so ever. This is a devastating blow to the argument that morals are godly. It is obvious that if God is capable of immoral actions he is as morally flawed as a human. Taking your moral queue from a person who apathetically kills innocent children and is an advocate of slavery is at the very least disdainful. So how could being a Christian make you a good person? It doesn’t and quite the opposite can be said.

If Christians follow God’s example and his commands then they are not by default moral people. Morality is not only, not exclusive to Christianity, it is not derived from God. Being a Christian can only make you as virtuously as the god you adore. The Christian god not only lacks ethical virtue but can be said to be wicked.

That being said, Atheists are as capable of being as moral as any righteous person. Statistically Atheist can be said to be more moral that the religious. In general, people are usually arrested and convicted of violating moral codes (rape, abuse, murder, stealing, fraud, .etc). A 1997 study by the Federal Bureau of Prisons showed that 0.21% of the prison population was atheist. This in is in contrast to 35% Protestant, 39% Catholic, and 7% Muslim. Now, take in mind that according to the 2001 ARIS study by The City University of New York, the non- religious make up 14.1% of the U.S. population, while Protestants make up 52%, Catholics 24.5%, and Muslims 0.5%.

If morality was in any way correlated with religious beliefs the statistics above would at least hint to a relationship. However, the numbers spit in the face of the religious mans moral ego. Godlessness does not produce wicked people and, statistically speaking, the non-religious are virtuous. However, if righteousness is not correlated with religious views, then atheists cannot claim ownership either. This brings me to argue against the next fallacy.

Atheism is in no way correlated with any particular preconceived moral perspective. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. An Atheist has found no reason or evidence that compels him/her to believe in the existence of deities. That is all there is to say about atheism. Any other attribute forcefully adhered into the definition of what an Atheist is, is mere bigotry or flattery. Atheist can be just as ignorant as some Christians (though studies have correlated mediocre levels of education and lower I.Q.’s to the likelihood of religious belief) and just as moral or immoral.

So what are morals and where are they derived from? Morals are rules of conduct that groups of people agree to live by for the general well being of the individuals that coexist in the group. It has been though deep thought (philosophy) and experience that humans have developed ethical codes of conduct. However, since religion and culture have been inseparable throughout human history and since deities were ignorantly attributed with controlling and creating everything in the universe, morality and piety were confused as one. This has created the illusion that religious belief and morality are related.

The truth is the origin of morality in social creatures is based on the ability to empathize with other individuals. This is the ability to put oneself in another’s place and imagine how an action or event affects him/her. The result of this thought process is ethical reciprocity, better known as the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”. You treat others as you wish to be treated in hopes that others in your group reciprocate your behavior. If everyone in the group reciprocates each other’s ethical behavior then the group increases its chances of living pleasantly. Ethical reciprocity also strengthens the group’s cohesiveness and cooperation with one another allowing it to function efficiently as a unit. Morals are a convenience, and from an evolutionary perspective a survival niche.

However, morals are observed when they benefit our survival or at the very least do not jeopardize it. The following metaphoric dilemma was given by ecologist Garrett Hardin. Suppose there is a life boat, in the middle of the ocean, with 50 people on board, with room for 10 more souls but only enough food and water for 50. There are hundreds of swimmers surrounding the boat pleading to be rescued. If you take on ten more souls everyone will die, and no one stand a chance of surviving. What is the ethical thing to do?

In this circumstance, empathetic behavior will put everyone’s survival at risk. The normal moral standard shares the same fate as the struggling swimmers in this scenario, because no one benefits from attempting to save swimmers. My point here is that morals are circumstantial. Morality has to be judged in context with the situation, keeping in mind all that are affected, and the severity and scope of the suffering or evil done.

In conclusion, morals are arbitrary ethical codes of conduct determined by human discretion, and observed by people in societies for its beneficial qualities. There is no correlation to gods or piety, especially when the god worshiped has a poor sense of what is ethical. Statistically, religion and morality are not in any way related. Atheism by definition indicates no moral perspective. Therefore saying that “an atheist chooses not to believe in gods in order to live immorally” is akin to saying “baseball players choose not to be football players in order to kill kittens”. It is absurdly illogical and false.

Even in the face of an impending doom of ecological destruction, economic perils, heightening of global tensions leading toward a “Nucular” war, and a seriously failing educational system; where the governing party has done nothing but hastened the degeneration of our habitat, our society, our government, our liberty, our economy, and peace; America’s cholesterol rich hearts and phlegmatic minds are enchanted by an ignorant hockey MILF they can associate with.

In these days in time, America needs an intellectual superhero, a vibrant charismatic powerhouse that can mobilize this country’s people and the world in the right direction. Yet the American people are pondering electing a dull elderly physically impaired man, who brings nothing new to the table, who is supposed to understand our days in time and our future but can’t comprehend how operate a fucking user friendly PC! He has a 10% chance death from acute old age in the next four years leaving us with an ignorant religious wacko hockey mom for a president who will be tasked with filling three lifelong Supreme Court seats. What real choice do people with half a brain have? You have to be stupid or a masochist to vote for the McCain-Palin Ticket.

So if you like Bush in a skirt and lipstick on pigs , vote and elect Sarah Palin the MILF. You won’t get laid but you will be fucked!!!!

If we assume God is all-good and always acts justly and morally, then genocide is also moral and just. In the Christian God’s eyes, the merciless killing of an entire race (Men, Women and infants) as punitive measure for the transgressions of one man, is moral and warranted. Imagine Hitler a moral icon. What would Hitler do (WWHD)? All Hitler would need to excuse his gruesome genocide, is one crooked Jew.

Since the Christian God is assumed to be all-knowing; he must have known that Adam would sin before creating humanity. So God was looking forward to torturing you for eternity. Not only that, he looked forward to having his only begotten son, Jesus, beaten to a pulp and crucified. His own son!!!

This Gods total apathy towards human suffering, more accurately phrased, lust for human suffering, can only be deemed as evil. To say “God is love” and “God loves you” is absurd and deceitful.

Frankly, if you get your morals from the god of the bible, you’re basically an evil piece of shit.

Are all men really of equal worth? What supports this belief? What is a man’s worth based on? I don’t believe that all men are of the same value. This is a myth. This idea is really part of our social contract. We promise to treat each other as if we were of equal worth. This compromise is to everyone’s benefit. I like it but the argument for it is weak.

Some thing’s worth or value is a function of another’s perspective. To who is it valuable? Something’s value is correlated with its usefulness and necessity. Usefulness and necessity are also dependent on the circumstantial situation at hand. Because of these truths there can be no absolute standard for worth and it can never be said that all things always have the same worth, including humans.

In social animals there is usually a hierarchy. Inherently in a hierarchy there is no absolute equality between members of the group. Humans are social animals. We function best in groups, so naturally there will always be a hierarchy. Thus there is no real equality. Even from the groups perspective a lazy or nonproductive member cannot have the same worth as a fruitful one.

In the wild the animals whose design allows it to best exploit its environment and survive lives on, while the worst suited for the environment die off. In this sense there are no equals. Every animal is not identical to the next, and in most cases even within its own species (even bacteria mutate). Therefore if humans in comparison with each other are not identical in design and abilities, how can it be said that they have equal worth?

This phrase (all men….) in the Declaration of independence was meant to express that contrary the feudal system in Europe (where the King and nobility ruled), Americans believed that your families class or wealth should not dictate your worth in society. The Kings of Europe were said to have divine rights. Our founding fathers believed that if according to Bible, we were all created in God’s image, we were of equal worth. Well, since there is no evidence for a God, nor is God relevant in what really dictates social class (wealth & power), this founding argument for equal worth is not worth much. Besides being in the likeness of a God doesn’t infer equality among men. The bible itself condones of slavery.

Equal worth among humans is a delusion that helps maintain a cohesive, stable, productive society. If we all share in this delusion we will feel better about ourselves and our society. It is a functional delusion.

We currently live in a world where information is vital to people as well as governments. I asked myself, who would be interested enough in reading another human’s thoughts to develop this technology? Well, our government is currently in the business of ease dropping on human communications foreign as well as domestic, with the pretense that it is its “moral” obligation to “protect” it’s citizens (though I suspect it is in the business of protecting itself and its interests). This technology would be a marvelous addition to their surreptitious arsenal of privacy despoiling weapons.

This would be the ultimate invasion of privacy. This would be the equivalent of God knowing your every thought and judging you on them. The religious masses should not abhor this idea because they live with this paranoid thought daily and accept it passively. However this thought should startle the rationally inclined and those who value free thought.

If this technology is to be introduced into a society I believe it will be through the judicial system. It is easier for the public to accept the invasion of their liberties if there is a moral excuse. Everyone empathizes with the families of victims. However not everyone has the intuition to rationally analyze in depth and weigh the consequence of forfeiting a liberty even if the cause seems superficially just. This concept of relinquishing liberties in exchange for security, or the enforcement of moral codes, is similar to placing iron bars on all your house windows and doors. You’re relatively safe but you don’t realize that in keeping unwanted intruders out you have also enclosed yourself in a cage. Worse so however, because you are not just forfeiting your freedom, you are also giving up your children’s without their consent.

This whole idea brings up the question of whether or not morality trumps an individual’s freedom. Do we really want to live in a world where morality is the absolute? Do we really wish to live in a world where morality is enforced by any means necessary including invading your thoughts. One might argue that if you are a law abiding citizen you have should have no fear of this. But what if the law is evil?

What is right or wrong? Morals are arbitrary ideas. We all agree to abide by laws (moral codes) in order to keep a common peace and escape the nasty, brute realistic term of “survival of the fittest” that the rest of the wilderness abides by (” eat or be eaten”). Morals are artificial conditions human society abides by; and our government’s purpose is to ensure the enforcements of these conditions. We surrender our innate terms for survival, to do whatever to whomever in order to ensure our survival, for a passive submissive but enjoyable life. The moment this mutual understanding between individuals does not reap any benefits or jeopardizes our survival, we revert back to our primal instincts (take “looting” during Hurricane Katrina as example). Morality is circumstantial, it is not an absolute. Otherwise wars would never be fought.

What is the function of liberties? The liberties societies agree on protect the individual’s interests and keeps life pleasurable. Liberties act as checks that keep a balance of power between society’s interests and the individuals. What if the Government becomes corrupt and oppressive (imagine that farfetched idea)? What if you are under the control of an oppressive majority? Wouldn’t you like the ability to protect yourself and your interests? We all do and so did our forefathers. They agreed to respect the liberties we enjoy today.

Liberties protect us from the same selfish and apathetic aspect of human nature that we form governments to guard us against. So in my opinion morality does not trump liberties. This is not to say that liberties are absolute. The two must exist harmoniously in order for the individuals in the society to live pleasant lives. One should not be allowed to take absolute precedence over the other. It is the will of the group versus the will of the individual. The two are interdependent. Liberties must be held as something sacred in most circumstances in order protect the individuals that make up the whole of society. This is because Society’s collective happiness is directly correlated to the individuals. Morals can only authentically and fruitfully exist in free societies where people of good nature consciously agree to live by social codes in order to mutually enjoy their benefits’. Laws otherwise are the will of despots and enforced by immoral oppressive regimes. This is why protecting individual rights is vital.

So when would it be right to read a person’s thoughts? Should we not hold our minds as sacred? This of course is a speculative futuristic idea, but the fundamental underlying concept is a very real dilemma.

Well, if you’re an atheist then you must naturally find some falsehood in the Christian claim for the existence of their God. You can argue it philosophically or through science. It’s really easy to find fallacies and contradictions in their belief on your own, there are so many.

First off you have to know that it is the duty of the person making a claim to prove it, not the person in disbelief. So logically the first argument is there is no evidence of their God.

They make scientific claims that God is the creator of everything in the universe and argue in particular earth’s creation. Since referring to the bible as evidence would be a circular argument, they either use the philosophical argument called “the watch maker argument”, whose author is William Paley or the psudoscientific of “intelligent design”. The” watch maker” is the origin of “intelligent design”, a very old argument put to rest long ago disguised as science. He compares the complexity of a watch to that of the universe and thus since a watch has an intelligent maker (humans) so must the universe. Paley’s argument was thoroughly put to rest by another philosopher named David Hume, 40 years before Paley even wrote it. Paley’s biggest mistake is in the comparison of the two. If comparing two objects, the strength of your argument relies on how similar the two items are, thus this argument is considered very weak. You can obviously notice how disparate the two are. Secondly, he fails to realize that one can obtain similar results from different causes. For example, you can die from a viral infection or in a car crash. Very different causes same result. So there is an obvious error in presuming the universe and a watch have similar causes. This argument is seen in many versions; many replace the watch with paintings of the Mona Lisa or a Coke-Cola can. They will say things like “it’s obvious something intelligent created this”. However the fundamental errors are the same. This is a very brief summary; you should go more into depth.

Since we live in the age of science and information, the biblical account of creation can be put to shame. Of course, the theory of evolution is the most opposed to by Christians because it is the most threatening to their entire dogma. Not just because it proves the bible is an unreliable source of information and not the word of an all knowing God, but because it supports the idea that we are here without the aid or over sight of a deity. No need for a God to explain our origins. It also takes away from the anthropocentric view of Christian religion. We are not the reason why the universe exists and it does not exist for us. Humans are not any more special in origin than any other animal. We were not created in God’s image and frankly there is no heavenly purpose to life other than the one you give yourself, not to mention how impersonal God would be if despite the evidence he existed. It also obliterates their dogma; with out original sin what need for Jesus is there?

Genetic and geographic evidence both support evolution and rebut creation. Different animals fossils are specific to different layers of earth. Each layer of earth is equivalent to a specific time period in earth’s history. Humans are found in the upper most layers indicating that they arrived later in earth’s history. If the biblical account of creation were to be true, all animals should be found in all the different layers since they were all created relatively simultaneously. Which is why the biblical creation myth does not prove true and is why human remains are not found alongside a dinosaurs’. Genetically we are almost identical to chimpanzees and bonobos. We share 98-99% similar DNA with them, implying we shared a common ancestor. This does not mean we came from monkeys, it means we are evolutionarily related. Just like you and you cousins share a common relative. There is a plethora of evidence sustaining evolution and refuting creation, check them out. Don’t be scared by “intelligent arguments”, like “there is no instance where genetic information is added to DNA sequence in any natural process”, “there aren’t any transitional fossils “or “evolution has never been witnessed”. These are false, check out www.EvoWiki.com for reference. Most of the time, Christians are ill informed or repeat lies and misconceptions of evolution. Know your shit if you don’t want to look stupid and leave Christians with the illusion that truth has triumphed. Remember that the fallacy they live by is: if you can’t explain or answer a question, they are right by default. Which is a warped assumption since the burden of proof is on the person making the claim; it’s not your burden to prove God doesn’t exist. There are stock piles of science that refutes biblical claims.

Thirdly most common argument is that of morality. Where does morality come from? What is moral? Again if you can’t answer they assume they are right by default. These philosophical questions were addressed by Plato in his classic work “Euthyphro” (www.wikipedia.com ), where Socrates is famously quoted as asking “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious? Or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” In Greek, piety meant more than just religious devotion; it was more along the lines of justice and morality. The second part of the question is called the “God command theory”, implying that an action is deemed moral or virtuous merely because God says so. In which case, any action can be moral regardless if it is unjust and causes undeserved pain and suffering. There is no clear way of defining what is moral if this is the argument made, there is no reference to judge actions by, one is even unable to judge if God is all-good or evil. This way of thinking has been adopted my Islamic terrorist who defend their actions as righteous because God approves it in the Koran. The first half of Socrates question implies that God approves of morality because of its intrinsic virtue, meaning that morality exists independent of God’s judgment. This allows us to define morality by use of reason. If this is true, what need for God is there?

A general rule of thumb for knowing what moral is “The Golden Rule”, “do onto others as one would have others do onto you”. Of course Christians would claim that this is biblical and thus commanded by God. But the Idea transcends religion. In essence this has its origin in empathy, In other words, placing oneself in another person’s place. This is not original to Christianity; in fact it’s not even original to the human species. Primates such as chimps, gorillas and bonobos have been observed as showing this trait. There is an account in Frans de Waal’s book “Our inner ape”, where a bonobo rescues a bird that had flown into the wall of his enclosure. The bird was in shock and could not fly. The bonobo gently picks the bird up and climbs to the top of a tree and releases the bird. The bird falls but the bonobo continued to look after the bird, protecting it from a younger curious bonobo until the bird regained its motor skills and flew away.

Another account in his book is that of an 8 Year old gorilla coming to the aid of a 3 year old boy who has fallen into her enclosure and was injured. The gorilla runs to the boys rescue, cradles him in her arms and begins to pat his back; later giving the boy up to Zoo attendants. The truth is empathy is a trait we have inherited from our evolutionary ancestors. We are predisposed to empathetic behavior, but our environment, circumstance, and culture influences are behavior. Also empathy is not an absolute we are also able to be apathetic and cruel. Morality is much more complex of a subject and the Golden rule is much too general to encompass all our social scenarios. This is where philosophy and reason play their part is solving the moral conundrums that plague our world. In all honesty morality is a highly debated subject by philosophers. There are debates such as Utilitarianism versus individual rights. However the ground work has been accomplished through reason not divine intervention.

Last but not least is a classic argument specific to the monotheist Judeo-Christian religions. Their belief is that of God who is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent. There is an obvious discrepancy in this absolutist view of God. We live in a world full of evil, which is defined as undeserved pain and suffering inflicted by other humans as well as natural disasters like famine and volcanoes. If God is all-good then how can he allow evil to exist. Either he is not all good or he is not powerful enough to stop it. It is either one or the other but he logically cannot be both. This concepts brings about questions like “if God is all-powerful could he make a mountain he could not move”, if he can’t make one he is not all powerful and if he can’t move it he is not all powerful. Similar questions can be asked about his “all-knowing” mind.

The truth is Christians rarely come up with original arguments. They repeat the same old mistakes they made in the past. Unlike science that is always expanding its knowledge of our universe, this religion is stagnant and encapsulated in the same old rhetoric and presumptions. Don’t be surprised if you find yourself shaking your head, rolling your eyes and yawning in a debate. I call their faith a delusion because they maintain their belief despite of overwhelming evidence and rational ineptitudes of their dogma. They lack the ability to be objective and self-reflective. Reality is relative to what they want it to be and not what it actually is. Some compartmentalize their faith, as I once did; the laws of logical reasoning expire at the gates of their faith.

I wish you allowed for comments, oppressing free speech already? lol. First off, the idea of socialism is not a natural one. Nature’s law is survival of the fittest. Natural selection provided the method by which humans evolved as a species to what we are now. Life was never meant to be fair. Why do humans seek equilibrium when nothing about our universe is static? Our earth is not a static environment; it is in constant motion and perpetually changing. We live in a dynamic universe. Socialism strives to make everyone equal. We are not all equal, species are not all equal, and the forces that drive our universe are not all equal. Some of us are smarter than others, some of us are stronger than others, some faster, some shorter, taller, fatter, agile, astute. To pretend everyone is in the same class is ridiculous. We are not all in the same class. I believe in the fair treatment of people, but fair does always mean equal treatment.

Like different species of animals who have found their evolutionary survival niche, so have the rich. They have chosen to use their wits versus a workers brawn. People make the rich as fat and lazy snobs. Well most that I have encountered are not fat, and lazy they are not. To stay on top you can’t be stagnant, you have to be progressive. The working class hates on the rich because they envy them. They wish they didn’t have to toil in the soil and sweat unlike the rich. They wish they enjoyed the same prosperity. Since they don’t, socialism, like crabs in a can when one reaches the lip of the can another yanks it down, is an attempt to strip the wealthy from their harvest, as to relieve themselves from the sense of inadequacy by artificially making everyone equally adequate. This is something to the likes of killing your opponent if you can’t compete with him.

While I don’t believe we are in the same class, I do believe everyone should have similar opportunities. This is what makes the United States so appealing to the rest of the world, there are endless opportunities. Virtually anyone here can get a higher education. But do we all? Usually the poor lack education not because they can’t but because they choose not to. It is a lot easier for most after high school (if they finish that); to get nine to five jobs rather than to work hard at a higher education related career or founding businesses. If there is no job available to them, then criminal hustles like drug dealing, prostitution, and theft is what they resort to. Some say they have no choice, but life itself is full of choices. Everyone makes choices and is accountable to themselves for the choices made.

Money is not what separates the wealthy from the impoverished, it is education and knowledge. I think what can narrow the gap between the rich and the poor is education. Socialism to me seems to be an artificial way of fixing the problem. It treats the symptom (money), versus the addressing the cause (education and opportunity). A pretty reliable stat is the uneducated have plenty more children than the educated. Children being the major priority in most parents’ lives, the opportunities to escape poverty diminish with an every child.

And frankly, some people have a lot more drive and will than others when it comes to success. The truth is these ambitious people are the movers and shakers of society. Without competition no one would have the need to do things better. This allows for a dynamic progressive society. Like animals compete in the wild, humans also compete with each other, resulting in the fittest design surviving. Likewise, competition in a society bring out the best, not just business wise, but in ourselves. Adversity separates the weak and the obsolete from the best suited for a task (life). As humans we have a need to feel good about ourselves. We feel good when we achieve. We feel good when we are the best or at least talented. Nothing refines talent like competition. It is a natural pressure that pushes us to excel like hunger.

So before we blame and chastise the rich, blaming others for our problems, let’s self-reflect on what we can do better. For one instill the importance of an education in our working class children and secondly be more active in politics and government. Societies only change if the people that constitute them want to and care to make a change.

About guns, criminals in jail don’t have guns, yet they find very creative ways to end life or injure. Before guns people still murdered each other just the same. But that’s not my point. There is a reason why our founding fathers placed that clause in our social contract. It is a “just in case” clause; just in case government becomes oppressive (which by the way its on its way to being). Guns are a means by which the people can rebel and protect themselves from oppression. Many misuse freedoms, the 911 hijackers misused many of our liberties. Do we now strip everyone from these freedoms and rights for safety reasons, like the patriot act blatantly does? As Americans we stand for liberties and rights, this is who we are, our very identity. We are a free society (supposed to be at least). Would you choose an oppressed and safe life over a free life? Life is full of dangers; we don’t live in kindergarten class where everything is child proof. Life by its very nature is dangerous and unfair, period. Survival of the fittest is the only rule that applies.

If poverty is the problem, then let’s fix poverty. If un-education is a factor of poverty, let work on that. Treating the symptoms never cures the illness.