tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67771946161167132142024-03-13T07:44:01.676-04:00Free ThinkingMy opinions, philosophies, random thoughts and experiences.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-21448630003668030112012-11-01T23:19:00.003-04:002012-11-01T23:19:38.260-04:00Trickle Down RantI try not to let religious belief or political views interfere with who I am friends with, or how I treat people...but If you believe that wealthy people deserve to pay less taxes then people who are not well off..I lose all respect for you.<br /><br />It's not about the hard working paying for the lazy..its about equality. first of all, taxes pay for everything. everything from our infrastructure to social security for the deserving are paid through taxes. oh and, trickle down economics didn't work the first time. THAT is what the fiscally conservative would like to continue doing.<br /><br />If you feel that the wealthy have the responsibility to create jobs..and that's why they are taxed less, then what exactly makes them NOT responsible when it comes to paying more taxes? Where is the logic in that?<br /><br />How can someone support that while knowing there are single mother's in this world who have worked three jobs while getting assistance and STILL had a hard time making ends meet?<br /><br /><br />Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-72928855722588547192012-10-05T07:38:00.004-04:002012-10-05T07:38:53.479-04:00NaNoWriMoOk, so Hannah finally talked me into participating in <a href="http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/dashboard" target="_blank">National Novel Writing Month</a> this year. It's this November and the goal is 50,000 words by the end of the month. My subject? Atheism of course. While I'm here I figured I'd type out a little synopsis.<br />
<br />
The title?<br />
Leaving The Flock: My Journey To Atheism<br />
<br />
here's a little bit of what's going to be covered (so far):<br />
<br />
<br />
This is a non-fiction book designed to explain my experiences and a
wide range of reasons why I have left the faith of my family. My goal is
to make people understand what atheism is, and to understand why
someone may have this point of view. I want to stress very much that
this is not meant to insult anyone or to be taken as offensive. It is my
own honest reasoning of why I believe(or dont), the things that I do.
So far there will be five sections: Introduction, History, The Bible,
Followers and Final Thoughts.<br />
<br />
The introduction will explain what atheism is, and what common
misconceptions there are about it. I will also describe my own
indoctrination into Christianity, why I am specifically talking about
Christianity even though my same thoughts apply to all religions and why
I would want someone to understand where I am coming from.<br />
<br />
Under the first section ( History) I will be covering things such as the pagan roots of certain traditions, ways in which the religion has spread, Eurocentric ideas, the protestant reformation and of course how each of these things influence my beliefs.<br />
<br />
Under the second section (The Bible) I will be covering things such as how the bible was written/compiled, books that have been added/removed, Bible Stories/Teachings that I find immoral or outdated, Old Testament vs. New, mistranslations (Greek to Hebrew to English), how it is irrelevant today, contradictions, lack of proof/confirmation and inconsistencies from a scientific point of view. <br />
<br />
Under the third section (Followers) I will be talking about how Christian’s view God, views on other beliefs including different sects within Christianity, evil done in the name of god (in real life as well as the bible), indoctrination, miracles (debunking them) and arguments made to prove that there is a god (debunking them).<br />
<br />
The last section (Final Thoughts) I will be relating this to my life, how I see other religions in the same way and how we can have morality without religion. <br />
<br />
I'm adding stuff as I go along so I dont think I'll have too much of a problem reaching my goal. Hannah said she'd help me edit when I am finished, so I'll be putting excerpts up on my blog when they are done. <br />
<br />Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-91531312042223462412012-09-09T09:52:00.001-04:002012-09-09T09:52:37.013-04:00Blind Nationalism you know, It drives me up the wall when I hear people say that people in the military risk their lives for the rights of the common people to vote. It's complete utter bullshit. Our own government denied it's citizens the right to vote, not some foreign threat. If you are a black American man, a woman of any ethnicity, or an 18-20-year-old, you didn't have the right 141, 92, and 41 years ago, respectively.<br /><br />It's equally frustrating when people say that our soldiers are fighting for our rights in general. Under any context it isn't true. We have been at war or in some sort of conflict for almost every year since the revolutionary war. <br /><br />but that was the last real time we have been in a war because our rights have been infringed upon. every war other then a select few...and there has been a lottttttt..have been about foreign policy, or some made up shit like defending ourselves from terrorist by finding the nuclear weapons that arnt there in the first place. i just..i fucking hate that people have this godlike respect for the military branch of government.<br /><br />most people join the army because they need the money, or they cant fucking cut it doing anything else. i know so many people who dropped out of high school..and knocked up some chick..so they went into the army. i know people who are horrible fucking people, who frankly, just wanted to see some combat. its disgusting. <br /><br />that isn't being a patriot..its blind nationalism and we defend that idea when its coming from America, but we are scared to death of the idea if its from somewhere else. if a foreign country are nationalist...communists or anything else WE think we have to defend our selves from it. what the hell is wrong with our country were have have only been at peace for a hand full of decades.the reason for this blind reverence towards our troops? its unavoidable. its easier to make them into a hero then to protest. We just simply dont have to think about it. Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-77921825892070775132012-07-24T14:26:00.004-04:002012-07-24T14:26:53.766-04:00A Little Lesson On Responsiblity In The Business WorldPeople in certain positions need to start taking more responsibility for their choices and actions. I've spent most of my adult life looking for work, and I think this is one of the best lesson's I've learned.<br /><br />I've recently had a job interview for a company that I have prior experience working for. During the interview, the employer was looking into my records and reviews that my previous boss for the same company left for me. <br /><br />Now, when I worked there before, it was my first job and I had no idea how the world of employment actually worked so I think its pretty obvious that I wasn't the best of employees, so..the review was a little negative. One of the comments was that I didn't take initiative and because of that, they took it as me being unmotivated. The thing is though, I did my job..I did what I was told to do. That, in my mind, was my only requirement. I thought it made me a good worker...hell, I even worked more overtime then most people in my position!<br /><br />Had my boss at the time told me any of this..I would have become a better person for it. I would have done better work..I mean, it really would help me in future endeavors. I just feel that since I was unaware of this, it was my boss's job to direct me. I'm not hard to talk to..I DO take advice so..if your my boss and you think I'm not doing something right...fucking tell me. that makes YOU bad at your job...not me. That's just how I feel about that. <br /><br />I dont understand..what's hard about being honest with someone and taking responsibility? I would have taken responsibility for my actions..so why cant you, my direct supervisor? Do your job and direct me. <br /><br />Here is another example:<br /><br />I also hate it (and I've had plenty of experience with this), I hate when you apply somewhere and they tell you they'll call you...then that's it. You dont hear anything. Whenever I hear "we'll call you", I take it as a no for now on because they dont..they dont take responsibility and let you know that you didn't get the job. Instead they leave you hanging. Fuck..I mean, I've only had two places tell me that I didn't get the job..and I respect that a hell of a lot more. I'd rather hear that I didn't get the job, and not get my hopes up. I mean...it means more to me that you told me that I didn't get it. It means probably more to me then if I would have gotten the job anyway!<br /><br />Anyway, the lesson that I've taken away from these experiences is that it is important to be honest with people from the beginning. Take responsibility for the choices you make. Even if you work for a large corporation...please, dont hide behind it. Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-55772472663009649782012-07-19T18:28:00.003-04:002012-07-19T18:28:38.424-04:00Grammar Nazi's Are Annoying.People overlook the actual point you are trying to make just because you make a typo. I've been told its for my benefit..it "helps" me...but look..if you go out of your way to correct me and not even listen to what I'm saying when I'm making a sincere point and I'm not willfully being ignorant; then your just an ass. <br /><br />i have no problem admitting that my grammar isn't the best it can be, but in very many instances, yes...they are ignoring the point. prove that they dont and ill change my opinion.<br /><br />hell, i can understand correcting misconceptions or misunderstandings when it comes to the way you actually express your view..but when it comes to simple mistakes...fixing it doesn't add anything to the conversation.<br /><br />do you get some sort of ego boost when you correct others for such minor mistakes? it might seem helpful to you, but to others you just come off as a pretentious snob.<br /><br />minor mistakes happen; if its from a simple typing error, or a misuse of a word, granted..you should know how to use words, but if its not something that you cant figure out form the context clues, or if i used the word effect instead of affect...then then is when i can see correcting someone.<br /><br />for simple words that are so often misused, really it just means that you have a certain pet peeve that you feel obligates you to be pretentious. <br /><br />If I thought most pages on the internet were the appropriate forum for perfect grammar then I'd be more careful about my writing.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-47767737891770280952012-07-19T18:23:00.002-04:002012-07-19T18:23:42.938-04:00Sexism In The Bible<br />
First let me just say that these are only a few examples, there are other passages that command exactly the same thing.<br />
<hr />
<br />
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. *1 Cor.11:7<br />
(this is pretty self explanatory, woman have to cover their head because they are not as "glorious" as men.)<br />
<br />
...If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days.<br />
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks. *Leviticus 12:2-5<br />
(if a women gives birth to a girl she is considered to be unclean for a longer amount of time). <br />
<br />
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?<br />
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. *Corinthians 11:14-15<br />
(men shouldn't have long hair because it is meant to cover the head of a women. covering, as shown by other passages is shameful.) <br />
<br />
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.<br />
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. *Corinthians 14:34-35<br />
(women are not allowed to speak in church, therefor if they have any questions they must ask their husband afterwords)<br />
<br />
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church *Ephesians 5:23<br />
(it seems the order of importance is christ, men, then women because women are to obey their husband, not the other way around because the husband is the head of the household)<br />
<br />
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.<br />
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.<br />
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.<br />
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. *Timothy 2:11-14<br />
(women are not allowed to teach or have authority over man and must remain quiet. this is because Eve was deceived..not Adam. which is odd considering there are verses in the bible that say that children are not held accountable by God for the sins of their parents; for example Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20).<br />
<br />
he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. *Deuteronomy 22:29<br />
(this verse is about rap. If a man rapes a women he has to pay her father for her hand in marriage. not only does she have to marry her rapist, her father gets paid for it)<br />
<br />
If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. *Exodus 22:17<br />
(not only is a women her father's to give wither she agrees or not, she is bought. A few passages in the bible tell us how much a wife costs. if she is a rape victim its 50 sheckles of silver. There is also a reference to paying with animals if the male suitor can not afford 50 sheckles)<br />
<br />
Genesis 4:19,Genesis 16:1-4,Genesis 25:6,Genesis 26:34,Genesis 28:9,Genesis 31:17,Genesis 32:22,Ex.21:10,Dt.21:15,Judges 8:30,1Sam.1:1-2,2 Sam.12:7-8,1 Kg.11:2-3,1 Chr.4:5,2 Chr.11:21,2 Chr.13:21,2 Chr.24:3,Mt.25:1,Titus 1:6-7 ALL of which men have more then one wife, however, NOWHERE is it mention that a women can have more then one husband.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-71440137080739022712012-06-28T21:58:00.000-04:002012-06-28T21:58:00.822-04:00What Makes America The Best Country In The World?Is America the best country in the world? What makes it the best? Is it all of the freedom that we enjoy? We know that we arnt the only country in the world who has some sort of document that sets up government in a way that protects the citizens rights..and we certainly arnt the only country that has a democratic system..<br /><br />Maybe its the attitude of its citizens. We all support the "American dream". What IS the American dream? The American dream, is being able to make something out of yourself, no matter what social class you come from. Is this really possible, and are there really no other countries like that? <br /><br />I'll use our past presidents as an example. The American dream means that ANYONE could be anything they wanted regardless of class, even the president of the united states. So, why is it that there were only seven out of forty four presidents who were anything less then a lawyer or teacher who ran our country? you might say, but that's ridiculous..all lawyers and teachers arnt successful...No, but do you know how much money it takes to go to school to become a lawyer? More then an average working class person of that time could afford, and that's just not something a lower class citizen could identify themselves with. <br /><br />Speaking of the attitude of our citizens, is a countries nationalism really proof of anything? If that's the case, why is it that we are skeptical of other countries that support blind nationalism? <br /><br />Maybe we are the best country in the world because we do the most good for our citizens. How well are our citizens taken care of? <br /><br />Here are a few figures, that show us how we rank with other countries in the world:<br /><br />7th in literacy.<br />27th in math.<br />22nd in science.<br />49th in life expectancy.<br />178th in infant mortality.<br />3rd in median household income.<br />4rth in labor force.<br />4th in exports.<br /><br />Now, compare that to the things that we lead the world in. Here are two that I am the most ashamed of:<br /><br />1st in incarcerated citizens per capita.<br />1st in defense spending..which is more then the next twenty six countries combined.<br /><br />Now, of course we do have programs such as social security, medicare and medicaid to name a few, but most people will agree that there are aspects of these programs that need reform. <br /><br />Looking at these few examples, I think its safe to say that we dont have the right to call our selves "the best country". Are we a good country? yes, I think everyone should be proud, but at the same time, realize that when there is something to be critical about, the best thing to do is to fix the problem, not ignoring it by blind nationalism. <br />Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-81676661311681356542012-06-28T02:30:00.002-04:002012-06-28T02:30:37.854-04:00Why God's First Words to Adam Was A Lie: By Rosa RubicondiorNow here's a funny thing.<br /><br />Browsing my King James Bible, I came across this curious tale. Maybe you've heard of it. It's the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. It makes you wonder just what sort of god the author was writing about. It soon becomes all too obvious why he was writing it in the first place though - and I do mean he.<br /><br />Firstly, this god is supposed to have created the Garden of Eden, complete with fruit trees for food, and put Adam into it.<br /><br /> Genesis 2:8-9 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.<br /><br />He then tells Adam that he can eat the fruit on all the trees except for the [fruit of the] tree of 'knowledge of good and evil' otherwise he will surely die.<br /><br /> Genesis 2:15-17 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:<br /><br /> But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.<br /><br />So this god has put temptation in the Garden of Eden yet poor Adam does not yet have knowledge of good and evil so he doesn't yet know it's wrong to disobey this god. The words 'set up to fail' spring to mind.<br /><br />But maybe that threat that Adam would die would do the trick, though we aren't told if this god has actually told Adam about death yet, and he can't have heard about it from anyone else.<br /><br />God then makes all the animals and birds, etc, out of the ground, apparently hoping that Adam could use one of them as a 'help meet'<br /><br /> Genesis 2:18-20 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.<br /><br />Okay. So, this god decides to make Adam a 'help meet' and creates a whole lot of birds and animals to see if any of those would do, but fails to make a suitable one - which is strange really, what with being omniscient and having created Adam in the first place.<br /><br />So, he has another go and creates a woman for him. For some reason, although he could create a man from dust and all the animals and birds 'out of the ground', he needs a piece of man from which to make a woman, but that's by the by. Maybe he was losing his touch or the magic was running out along with his omniscience.<br /><br /> Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.<br /><br />Well, obviously! With no knowledge of right and wrong, why would they feel shame?<br /><br />And now the tale starts to get really bizarre, as though it weren't bizarre enough already.<br /><br />Apparently, this god had included a talking, reasoning and cunning snake when he created all the animals and birds 'out of the ground'. It turns out too that this snake knew that the god had lied to Adam before it was even created, but we aren't told how it got this knowledge. Obviously someone must have told it because it wasn't there when the god told Adam the lie.<br /><br />The lie was of course about dying if they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or even touched it (though the god apparently forgot to mention the touching part).<br /><br />So, here we have an incompetent god who tells lies, and a clever serpent who tells Eve the truth. And Adam, who was told personally by this god that he would surely die, decides to take his chances with Eve and the serpent instead.<br /><br />Perhaps he wasn't too impressed by this god either, having seen his bungling over the 'help meet' fiasco. But of course, Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong, so they can't be held responsible for doing a 'wrong' thing, can they?<br /><br />Anyway, they then eat the forbidden fruit, gain the knowledge of right and wrong through some mysterious process, and don't die, just like the serpent says, and contrary to what the god had said.<br /><br />God had lied to them.<br /><br />So, was this knowledge of right and wrong the knowledge that this god is a liar and did Adam and Eve get their morals from a talking snake?<br /><br />But it doesn't stop there. <br /><br />A bit later on, Adam and Eve, who had mysteriously found a needle and thread and made some simple cloths to cover their newly-discovered naughty parts, heard this god walking about in the Garden of Eden so they hid from it.<br /><br />And the god couldn't find them so he had to call out to Adam and ask him where he was.<br /><br /> Genesis 3:8-9 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?<br /><br />They hid from an omniscient, omni-present god!<br /><br />Moving on...<br /><br />And it's only then that this omniscient god discovers that they have eaten the forbidden fruit and now know right from wrong!<br /><br /> Genesis 3:10-13 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.<br /><br /> And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?<br /><br /> And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.<br /><br />So, this omniscient god now needs to be told what happened and falls for Eve's lie. The serpent hadn't deceived her at all. The serpent was the one who told them the truth and the only person who could have told the serpent the truth in the first place was the god. They touched and ate the fruit and didn't die like this god had told them they would; instead they lived, like the serpent had said they would.<br /><br />It was Adam who had been deceived by the god.<br /><br />It all smacks of a set-up to me.<br /><br />But it maybe all becomes clear in the final few of verses of the tale:<br /><br /> Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life<br /><br />So the poor serpent gets punished for doing what he was made to do and for telling the truth which it can only have been fed by the god. And of course, as we all know, snakes eat nothing but dust to this day!<br /><br /><br />Then the sucker punches, and the reason the entire tale was made up in the first place, even at the expense of making the god sound like an incompetent fool and a liar. The god who rigged the whole thing in the first place decides to punish Adam and Eve even though they didn't know right from wrong until after they had done the naughty thing. Not only that, but this was the worst crime imaginable and one for which all Adam and Eve's descendant were to be punished too.<br /><br />And this is supposed to be an omni-benevolent god!<br /><br /> Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.<br /><br />Yep! Women are to be the chattels of men!<br /><br /> Genesis 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;<br /><br /> Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.<br /><br />And the best a man can hope for is a life of toil and drudgery and labouring in the fields.<br /><br />Except of course for the priests and the ruling classes, who just happen to own the fields and need a compliant labour-force who know their place and believe they deserve nothing better from life.<br /><br />And that's the women put in their place too! Sod all that seduction and foreplay stuff and wanting a say in everything! A man should be master in his own house!<br /><br />This is how you can tell that the Bible was written by men for the masters they served and how the god in it is a utility god who is made to be whatever suits the rulers at the time. Later on it will be a brutal, genocidal god, or a capricious, threatening one, or even one who sides with the underdogs - up to a point of course.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-12475262530759206972012-06-28T02:29:00.002-04:002012-06-28T02:29:29.804-04:00Circumcision10 Quick points: pro-circumcision <br /><br />1. The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated that studies suggest that neonatal circumcision confers some protection from penile cancer.<br /><br />2. Circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of urinary tract infections<br /><br />3. The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties<br /><br />4. An inflammation of the glans penis and foreskin is called balanoposthitis; that affecting the glans alone is called balanitis. Both conditions are usually treated with topical antibiotics (metronidazole cream) and antifungals (clotrimazole cream) or low-potency steroid creams. Although not as necessary as in the past, circumcision may be considered for recurrent or resistant cases. Most cases of these conditions occur in uncircumcised males<br /><br />5. Phimosis is the inability to retract the foreskin over the glans penis; authors frequently distinguish between "physiologic" phimosis (or developmental non-retractility) and "pathological" phimosis. The latter is most commonly caused by balanitis xerotica obliterans, for which circumcision is the preferred treatment. The American Medical Association states that circumcision, properly performed, protects against the development of phimosis<br /><br />6. In another analysis, in which 21 studies were included, there was a statistically significant reduction in prevalence of HPV<br /><br />7. There is strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men in populations that are at high risk. Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows a decreased risk of between 38 percent and 66 percent over two years and in this population studies rate it cost effective<br /><br />8. The American Academy of Pediatrics points to a survey (self-report) finding circumcised adult men had less sexual dysfunction and more varied sexual practices, but also noted anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males...but, I see this as a benefit for men with a problem with pre-mature ejaculation. <br /><br />9. Social/cultural conformity.<br /><br />10. It is literally the most common form of surgery that is performed today. with modern methods and anesthesia, there are very few cases of complication.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-42682253954526340622012-06-28T02:27:00.002-04:002012-06-28T02:27:49.378-04:00Quick Thought On EducationThe problem with our country's education is that it is rated 88 in the world. <br /><br />our government would rather spend more money on corporations that boost the economy then to spend money in education...which would help the economy in the long run. A lot of people even feel that it isn't right to spend more on education because it would mean it was some what socialized, and we all know..that's a "slippery slope to communism". <br /><br />we have had so many recent spending cuts in the education department, and teachers are being seen as less important. also, you should look at some of our text books to understand why we care so little about education. also, about textbooks..our adoption committees are too controlled by the parents. they are afraid to tell students the truth because it might go against their beliefs. they are also there to make you feel more patriotic. a lot of people feel better about making our students nationalists. <br /><br />I could go on and on about our education system here in the states. its just..there's so much wrong with it right now and people dont even realize it.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-8261872585023697972012-06-12T23:34:00.003-04:002012-06-12T23:34:58.924-04:00Pledge Of AlleganceIts a violation of the first amendment. it does..no matter how many times a fundie will argue, promote certain religions over another or non at all. Some religion's dont have gods, and those of us who dont believe in gods can tell you...its really the christian god they are referring too anyway.<br /><br />I also feel that little children should not be pledging their allegiance to something that they dont understand in the first place. we should teach our children to strive for a better future, not to blind them with nationalism.<br /><br />also, what is it about conservatives..it seems that they dont want to conserve history at all, but to alter it, or shadow over important things in history that would actually make you think. the mention of god was never in the original pledge, it was never on the dollar, but yet they wont even begin to consider removing them...the conservatives are not conserving anything.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-16082218692560449372012-06-11T23:56:00.000-04:002012-06-11T23:56:00.908-04:00Just A Thought On Birth Controlif you believe sex is a sin, but believe that condoms are wrong...<br />people are still going to have sex because they dont share your view. not letting them get birth control, or not allowing them to use condoms are hurting them, just because it is against your beliefs. actually, not only are you hurting them..you think that its god's will for them to suffer.<br /><br />there is nothing humane or moral about that.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-41756367000993447692012-06-11T23:55:00.001-04:002012-06-11T23:55:12.816-04:00Top 10 Widely Believed Myths10. Pigeons blow up if you feed them uncooked rice<br /><br />Wedding guests are often told to refrain from throwing uncooked rice because of the explosive consequences that it can have on birds, especially pigeons. Ann Landers and The Simpsons both warned us about it, so it must be true. <br /><br /> If rice hurts their insides, then birds are pretty dumb. Did you know that birds eat rice grains during the cold months to maintain a healthy body mass? No bird explosions due to rice have ever been documented. The fact is that birds don't drink enough water to cause any significant stomach swelling due to rice. The no-rice wedding rule really exists to keep guests from taking a tumble. <br /><br />9. Napoleon was short<br /><br />Napoleon’s nickname may have been "Le Petit Caporal," drawings may depict him standing among much taller soldiers and he may have had an inferiority condition named after him (the Napoleon complex), but the truth is Napoleon Bonaparte wasn't short. Napoleon's height was measured in French feet, which listed him as being 5 foot 2 inches. That's short, but using the Imperial system, Napoleon stood at 5 foot 6 inches, an average height for men in his country. What about the nickname? Napoleon was given the "Petit" tag because of his friendly and respectful nature toward his soldiers; and since most of them were above 6-feet tall, that's why he seemed small by comparison. <br /><br />8. If you shave your hair, it returns thicker and faster<br /><br />Despite studies from the 1920s showing the opposite, many men believe that shaving, waxing and cutting hair can accelerate its growth and that the hair will return thicker and darker. In reality, it's one big special effect.<br /><br />For one thing, the hair that we touch, see and style isn't alive. Living hair lies under the skin and scalp, so cutting it won't change the texture or speed that it grows. The fact is you're merely seeing your hair at a different stage. Cutting your hair doesn't change the color either: Since the sun naturally lightens hair, new growth looks darker, but it all evens out in the end.<br /><br />7.The Salem witches were burned<br /><br />In February of 1692, an investigation was launched into alleged witchcraft among citizens in colonial Massachusetts. Over the next year, some 150 people were arrested and 20 of those convicted were executed. Contrary to popular belief, however, the accused “witches” were not burned. <br /><br />While some European laws encouraged burning after death as a way to "cleanse" witchcraft, it was forbidden in Massachusetts -- this ruling was because the judicial system was operating under English law. As a result, the "witches" all died through hanging, except for one: Giles Corey, who was crushed to death for refusing to enter a plea.<br /><br />6. Space has no gravity<br /><br />Since astronauts appear to be "weightless" in space, there is an assumption that space is a place with zero gravity. While there is less gravity in space, the idea that there is none is factually incorrect. <br /><br />There isn't just gravity on Earth, on the moon or even on the sun -- it's all around us. Gravity is responsible for keeping our feet planted on the ground and it's also the way that planets and satellites maintain an orbit. The reason why space allows humans to be weightless is because they are gravitating toward the Earth at the same rate as their ships.<br /><br />5. Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake"<br /><br />“S’ils n’ont plus de pain, qu’ils mangent de la brioche.”<br />- Marie Antoinette?<br /><br />Translated to "If they have no bread, let them eat [cake]," this cruel statement is mistakenly linked to Queen Marie Antoinette. As evidence of its true origin, historians point to two other sources instead: One is 18th-century author Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote of an arrogant princess suggesting brioche for the poor if they didn't have bread. The other potential source for the quote is Marie-Therese of Spain, who allegedly uttered the quote.<br /><br />4. The only visible man-made structure from space is the Great Wall of China<br /><br />The Great Wall of China is one of Earth's architectural wonders. Historians like Richard Halliburton boldly proclaimed that it could be seen from the moon. NASA's Lunar launch proved Halliburton wrong, but the belief remains that from a close orbit, the Great Wall is the only man-made structure visible on Earth.<br /><br />Ironically, the Great Wall isn't very easy to spot from a close orbit of 180 miles -- it's large enough, but its colors don't distinguish it from its natural surroundings. Furthermore, astronaut descriptions and photographs have shown that airports and highways can be seen from orbit as well.<br /><br />3. The inventor of the lightbulb was Thomas Edison<br /><br />Calling Thomas Edison the "inventor" of the lightbulb is false. Although instrumental in developing a commercially successful lightbulb, he did not create it. A closer examination takes us to 1809, when Englishman Humphry Davy created an arc lamp. A decade later, Warren De la Rue built the first sealed lightbulb and in 1840, William Robert Grove lit an entire room of lamps. Unfortunately, the products were expensive with questionable durability. Eight scientists and three patents later, Edison expanded on these ideas to create a longer-lasting, cheaper product. The rest is history, but it wasn't Edison's to begin with.<br /><br />2. Humans only use 10% their brains<br /><br />In the 1800s, scientists debated the overall function of the brain. Out of these debates, William James later wrote about humans only using a small percentage of their brains and the 10% myth was born.<br /><br />Although simple tasks require specific brain areas, anything complicated requires far more than 10% of the brain; magnetic imaging has documented this and scientists are basically in agreement about brain functions. Unfortunately, many psychics still use the 10% myth to promote the idea that they are using more brain power than others. Psychics might be intrinsically connected to some topics, but brain science isn't one of them.<br /><br />1. Men think about sex every seven seconds<br /><br />The belief persists that a new sexual thought enters the male mind every seven seconds. While this statement is commonly mentioned, where science is concerned, it has no factual basis. <br /><br />Many people point to Alfred Kinsey as the origin of this "fact," but even he didn't get that specific. Kinsey concluded in one study that 97% of men thought about sex between a few times a day and a few times per month, with 54% falling into the daily category. While we can debate whether men are more sexually driven than women, the "seven-second" rule is pure fiction.<br />Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-84575669738490431022012-06-11T23:54:00.004-04:002012-06-11T23:54:31.640-04:00Urban Legend About WitchesIts pretty bad when an atheist has to defend paganism, or neo-pagan beliefs like wicca. <br /><br />this is a myth that's been going around the internet for quite some time, and im sick of seeing it. <br /><br />"witches are portrayed with flying broomsticks because many women who were accused of witchcraft were drug users that would put hallucinogens on broomsticks and hold it between their legs to be absorbed by vaginal tissue, sometimes producing a sensation of flying."<br /><br />Brooms ARE used in wiccan traditions, but the real use has to do with creating positive energy. if you actually look into wiccan mythology, special brooms are blessed and made purified to cleanse the area around an altar....you know..like fucking sweep with it.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-74290553133831014042012-06-11T23:53:00.001-04:002012-06-11T23:53:10.211-04:00English Class StoryOur school district was one of the worse in the area. This being said...they set a day were we had to implement math skills in every class.<br /><br />my incident happened in reading class.. the assignment was to manage a budget, in order to plan, and go on a vacation. We were all matched up in teams of two. We had to pick at least two things to do. something educational and something recreational.<br /><br />our educational activity was a trip to the zoo. that part was fine but Myself, and my partner were into fishing, so we decided to plan a fake fishing trip for the recreational part of it. We had everything done, and we were pretty proud of it.<br /><br />on the last day before the project was due, our teacher told us we couldn't plan a fishing trip because it wasn't considered recreational. I was pretty confused..i went home that night, got my fishing hand book that came with my license and showed my teacher the next day. The book clearly said "Pa recreational fishing" on the front cover. She continued arguing with me so I just let it go. so..she suggested a different activity for us. she said horse back riding would be just fine.<br /><br />mother fucking horseback riding....Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-53734330197869054792012-02-02T10:40:00.000-05:002012-02-02T10:40:53.203-05:00Groundhog DayOn the morning of Groundhog Day, February 2, year after year, the entire United States and Canada has their eyes on Punxustawny, Pennsylvania and "Punxustawny Phil". Will the Groundhog see his shadow? Will winter (finally) be over? Millions of people tune in to see, sick of cold weather and ready to bring on spring time, or the dreaded "six more weeks of winter".<br />
<br />
Groundhog Day wasn't always called Groundhog Day. Its roots lie in a much more religious holiday. Candelmas, or more commonly known as the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple, is a Christian holiday stemming from scripture. According to the Gospel of Luke, Mary and Joseph took baby Jesus to the temple 40 days after his birth on December 25. On this day, according to religious law, Mary was to complete ritual purification at the temple and present her newborn son. There, prophets foresaw what he would later become as an adult. In some denominations, Christians leave their Christmas decorations up until this day. To them, it signifies the end of the Christmas season. <br />
<br />
But as with most religious holidays, Candelmas was given its date to coincide with an already celebrated Pagan holiday, to make conversion an easier task. Imbolc, a Celtic holiday, was celebrated on February 1, and was devoted to the goddess Brigid. Brigid was the goddess of healing, smithcraft and poetry. She was said to be associated with sacred flames, and associated with the sun and the coming of warmer days. The Celts believed that on this day, snakes or badgers could perform the same duty as we believe the groundhog performs today. <br />
<br />
The holiday of Imbolc was melted together with the holiday of Candelmas, and February 1st became the Irish Catholic feast of Saint Brigid. Saint Brigid is the patron saint of Ireland, along with Saint Patrick and Saint Columba. Although Saint Brigid was a real person, it is believed that Brigid was not her birth name. She was named after the Pagan goddess to make the transition for converts an easier task. <br />
<br />
Other countries formed their own traditions based upon those practiced in Ireland. In the United Kingdom, the weather on Candelmas day predicts how the rest of the winter will go. If the weather is nice, another storm can be expected, and if the weather is downcast or stormy, winter has been completed. There, it is wolves and bears, not groundhogs, that come out of hibernation to inspect the weather. It is the Germans who believed in the groundhog's prophetic abilities, and early Pennsylvania Dutch settlers brought this belief with them. <br />
<br />
Today, if the groundhog sees its shadow, he will run back into his hole for six more weeks of winter. But where did we get that number? After all, the first day of spring falls on March 21, nearly seven weeks after Groundhog Day. This, however, is according to the current recognized world calendar, the Gregorian calendar. Coincidently, the old Julian calendar, finally abolished by the Russians in 1918, had their equinox landing on March 16, exactly six weeks after February 2. Some historians believe that the differentiation in dates stemmed directly from the confusion during the changing of the calendar year. <br />
<br />
There are many celebrations of Groundhog Day in both America and Canada, but the celebration in Punxustawny (pronounced Pungk-su-tawn-ee), is by far the largest, and most famous. Today's festivities seem silly and light-hearted, but don't tell that to a member of the "Inner Circle"! The “Inner Circle” is the traditional caregivers of Punxustawny Phil, and are seen every year on TV, dressed to the tines in tuxedos and top hats. According to them, since 1887 there as been only one Punxustawny Phil, and every year, Phil drinks a special "Elixer Of Life" that magically grants him seven more years to live. The president of the Inner Circle is said to be fluent in "Groundhogese", and is the only one Punxustawny Phil will give his prediction to. It is the president's responsibility to translate for Phil's adoring public. <br />
<br />
Punxustawny Phil does not live in Punxustawny, in fact, he lives two miles outside of town in a place called Gobbler's Knob. This home is only temporary, however. During the remainder of the year, Phil and his groundhog wife, Phyllis, live in the town library. The members of the Inner Circle take care of Phil and his wife throughout the year until it's time for Phil to make his annual prediction.<br />
<br />
How often is Phil's predictions correct? Well, if you ask the Inner Circle, Phil is right 100% of the time, having predicted an early spring 14 times since beginning his special duties. However, a more accurate number is somewhere around 39%. This year will mark Phil's 114th prediction. If you want to see Phil's prediction in person, Gobbler's Knob is approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes away from Bloomsburg. The celebrations begin at 3 a.m. with a bonfire. The prediction will be aired on live TV at 7:25 a.m., but don't worry if you can't get up that early. Most news stations show Punxustawny throughout the day. Tune in, and enjoy a fun, lighthearted tradition. <br />
<br />
*Writen By Lenore SternerJon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-27248219995321837552011-09-11T00:40:00.002-04:002011-09-11T00:40:41.268-04:0021 Unconvincing Arguments for God(1) Holy Books - Just because something is written down does<br />
not make it true. This goes for the Bible, the Qu’ran, and any<br />
other holy book. It is circular reasoning to try to prove the god of<br />
a holy book exists by using the holy book itself as “evidence.”<br />
People who believe the holy book of one religion usually<br />
disbelieve the holy books of other religions.<br />
<br />
(2) “Revelations” - All religions claim to be revealed, usually<br />
through people called “prophets.” But a revelation is a personal<br />
experience. Even if the revelations really did come from a god,<br />
there is no way we could prove it. As Thomas Paine said, it is a<br />
revelation only to the first person, after that it is hearsay. People<br />
of one religion usually disbelieve the revelations of other<br />
religions.<br />
<br />
(3) Personal Testimony / Feelings - This is when you are<br />
personally having the revelation or feeling that a god exists.<br />
Though you may be sincere, and even if a god really does exist, a<br />
feeling is not proof, either for you or for someone else.<br />
<br />
(4) The “God Part” of the Brain - Some religious people argue<br />
that a god must exist, or why else would we have a part of our<br />
brain that can “recognize” a god? What use would that part of our<br />
brain be otherwise? However, imagination is important for us to be able to predict the future, and thus aids our survival. We can imagine all kinds<br />
of things that aren’t true. It is a byproduct of being able to<br />
imagine things that might be true. As a matter of fact, scientists have begun to study why some people have religious beliefs and others don’t, from a biological perspective. They have identified certain naturally occurring<br />
chemicals in our brains that can give us religious experiences.<br />
In studies of religion and the brain, a new field called<br />
neurotheology, they have identified the temporal lobe as a place in<br />
the brain that can generate religious experiences. Another part of the brain that regulates a person’s sense of “self” can be consciously shut down during meditation, giving the meditator (who loses his or her sense of personal boundaries) a feeling of “oneness” with the universe.<br />
<br />
(5) “Open Heart” - It will do no good to ask atheists to “open<br />
our hearts and accept Jesus” (or any other deity). If we were to set<br />
aside our skepticism, we might indeed have an inspirational<br />
experience. But this would be an emotional experience and, like a<br />
revelation, we’d have no way to verify if a god was really<br />
speaking to us or if we were just hallucinating.<br />
<br />
(6) Unverifiable “Miracles” / Resurrection Stories - Many<br />
religions have miracle stories. And just as people who believe in<br />
one religion are usually skeptical towards miracle stories of other<br />
religions, atheists are skeptical toward all miracle stories.<br />
Good magicians can perform acts that seem like miracles.<br />
Things can be mismeasured and misinterpreted. A “medical<br />
miracle” can simply be attributed to our lack of knowledge of how<br />
the human body works. Why are there never any indisputable<br />
miracles, such as an amputated arm regenerating?<br />
Regarding resurrections, atheists will not find a story of<br />
someone resurrecting from the dead to be convincing. There are<br />
many such legends in ancient literature and, again, most religious<br />
people reject the resurrection stories of other religions.<br />
Modern resurrection stories always seem to occur in Third<br />
World countries under unscientific conditions. However, there<br />
have been thousands of people in modern hospitals hooked up to<br />
machines that verified their deaths when they died. Why didn’t<br />
any of them ever resurrect?<br />
<br />
(7) Fear of Death / “Heaven” - Atheists don’t like the fact that<br />
we’re all going to die any more than religious people do.<br />
However, this fear does not prove there is an afterlife – only that<br />
we wish there was an afterlife. But wishing doesn’t make it so.<br />
There is no reason to believe our consciousness survives the<br />
death of our brains. The mind is not something separate from the<br />
body. Chemical alteration and physical damage to our brains can<br />
change our thoughts. Some people get Alzheimer’s disease at the end of their lives. The irreversible damage to their brains can be detected by brain<br />
scans. These people lose their ability to think, yet they are still<br />
alive. How, one second after these people die, does their thinking<br />
return (in a “soul”)?<br />
<br />
(8) Fear of Hell - The idea of hell strikes atheists as a scam – an<br />
attempt to get people to believe through fear what they cannot believe through reason and evidence.<br />
The only way to approach this “logically” is to find the religion<br />
that punishes you the worst for disbelief, and then believe that<br />
religion. Okay, you will have saved yourself from the worst<br />
punishment that exists – if that religion is the “true” religion.<br />
But if that religion (with its punishment) is not the true<br />
religion – if the religion that has the second or third worst<br />
punishment for disbelief is the true religion – then you have saved<br />
yourself nothing.<br />
So, which religion’s hell is the true hell. Without evidence, we<br />
can never know.<br />
<br />
(9) “Pascal’s Wager” / Faith - In short, Pascal’s Wager states that<br />
we have everything to gain (an eternity in heaven) and nothing to<br />
lose by believing in a god. On the other hand, disbelief can lead to<br />
a loss of heaven (i.e. hell).<br />
We’ve already noted that heaven is wishful thinking and that<br />
hell is a scam, so let’s address the issue of faith.<br />
Pascal’s Wager assumes a person can will himself or herself into<br />
having faith. This is simply not the case, at least not for an atheist.<br />
So atheists would have to pretend to believe. But according to<br />
most definitions of God, wouldn’t God know we were lying to<br />
hedge our bets? Would a god reward this?<br />
Part of Pascal’s Wager states that you “lose nothing” by<br />
believing. But an atheist would disagree. By believing under these<br />
conditions, you’re acknowledging that you’re willing to accept some<br />
things on faith. In other words, you’re saying you’re willing to<br />
abandon evidence as your standard for judging reality. Faith<br />
doesn’t sound so appealing when it’s phrased that way, does it?<br />
<br />
(10) Blaming the Victim - Many religions punish people for<br />
disbelief. However, belief requires faith, and some people, such as<br />
atheists, are incapable of faith. Their minds are only receptive to<br />
evidence. Therefore, are atheists to be blamed for not believing<br />
when “God” provides insufficient evidence?<br />
<br />
(11) The End of the World - Like the concept of hell, this strikes<br />
atheists as a scare tactic to get people to believe through fear what<br />
they can’t believe through reason and evidence. There have been<br />
predictions that the world was going to end for centuries now. The<br />
question you might want to ask yourselves, if you’re basing your<br />
religious beliefs on this, is how long you’re willing to wait – what<br />
amount of time will convince you that the world is not going to<br />
end?<br />
<br />
(12) Meaning in Life - This is the idea that, without belief in a<br />
god, life would be meaningless. Even if this were true, it would<br />
only prove we wanted a god to exist to give meaning to our lives,<br />
not that a god actually does exist. But the very fact that atheists can<br />
find meaning in their lives without a belief in a god shows that god<br />
belief is not necessary.<br />
<br />
(13) “God is Intangible, Like Love” - Love is not intangible. We<br />
can define love both as a type of feeling and as demonstrated by<br />
certain types of actions.<br />
Unlike “God,” love is a physical thing. We know the chemicals<br />
responsible for the feeling of love.<br />
Also, love depends upon brain structure – a person with a<br />
lobotomy or other type of brain damage cannot feel love.<br />
Furthermore, if love were not physical, it would not be confined<br />
to our physical brains. We would expect to be able to detect an<br />
entity or force called “love” floating around in the air.<br />
<br />
(14) Morality/Ethics - This is the idea that without a god we’d<br />
have no basis for morality. However, a secular moral code existed<br />
before the Bible: the Code of Hammurabi.<br />
In Plato’s dialogue called Euthyphro, Socrates asks a man<br />
named Euthyphro whether something is good because God says it<br />
is, or does God announce something to be good because it has<br />
intrinsic goodness?<br />
If something is good because God says it is, then God might<br />
change his mind about what is good. Thus, there would be no<br />
absolute morality.<br />
If God merely announces something to be good because it has<br />
intrinsic goodness, then we might be able to discover this intrinsic<br />
goodness ourselves, without the need for god belief.<br />
Christians can’t even agree among themselves what’s moral<br />
when it comes to things like masturbation, premarital sex,<br />
homosexuality, divorce, contraception, abortion, embryonic stem<br />
cell research, euthanasia, and the death penalty.<br />
Christians reject some of the moral laws found in the Bible,<br />
such as killing disobedient children or people who work on the sabbath. Therefore, Christians must be applying their own ethical<br />
standards from outside the Bible to be able to recognize that these<br />
commandments in the Bible are unethical.<br />
Other animals exhibit kindness toward one another and a<br />
sense of justice. Morality is something that evolved from us<br />
being social beings. It’s based on the selfish advantage we get<br />
from cooperation, and on consequences.<br />
<br />
(15) Altruism - People sometimes say that without a god there<br />
would be no altruism, that evolution only rewards selfish<br />
behavior.<br />
However, it can be argued that there is no such thing as<br />
altruism, that people always do what they want to do. If they are<br />
only faced with bad choices, then people choose the thing they<br />
hate the least.<br />
Our choices are based on what gives us (our genes) the best<br />
advantage for survival, including raising our reputation in society.<br />
“Altruism” towards family members benefits people who<br />
share our genes. “Altruism” towards friends benefits people who<br />
may someday return the favor.<br />
Even “altruism” towards strangers has a basis in evolution.<br />
This behavior first evolved in small tribes, where everyone knew<br />
each other and a good reputation enhanced one’s survival. It is<br />
now hard-wired in our brains as a general mode of conduct.<br />
<br />
(16) Free Will - Some people argue that without a god there<br />
would be no free will, that we would live in a deterministic<br />
universe of cause and effect and that we would be mere “robots.”<br />
Actually, there is far less free will than most people think<br />
there is. Our conditioning (our biological desire to survive and<br />
prosper, combined with our experiences) make certain “choices” far<br />
more likely than others. How else can we explain our ability, in<br />
many cases, to predict human behavior?<br />
Experiments have shown that our brain makes a “decision” to<br />
take action before we become conscious of it!<br />
Some believe that the only free will we have is to exercise a<br />
conscious veto over actions suggested by our thoughts.<br />
Most atheists have no problem admitting that free will may<br />
be an illusion.<br />
This issue also brings up a conundrum: If a god who created<br />
us knows the future, how can we have free will?<br />
In the end, if we are enjoying our lives, does it matter if free<br />
will is real or an illusion? Isn’t it only our ego – our healthy selfesteem<br />
that is beneficial for survival – that has been conditioned<br />
to believe that real free will is somehow better than imaginary<br />
free will?<br />
<br />
(17) Difficulties of Religion - It has sometimes been argued that<br />
because certain religious practices are difficult to follow, nobody<br />
would do them if a god didn’t exist. However, it is the belief in<br />
the existence of a god that is motivating people. A god doesn’t<br />
really have to exist for this to happen.<br />
Difficulties can serve as an initiation rite of passage into being<br />
counted one of the “select few.” After all, if just anybody could<br />
be “saved,” there might be no point in having a religion.<br />
Finally, the reward for obedience promised by most religions<br />
– a heaven – far outweighs any difficulties religion imposes.<br />
<br />
(18) False Dichotomies - This is being presented with a false<br />
“either/or” proposition, where you’re only given two alternatives<br />
when, in fact, there are more possibilities.<br />
Here’s one that many Christians are familiar with: “Either<br />
Jesus was insane or he was god. Since Jesus said some wise<br />
things, he wasn’t insane. Therefore, he must be God, like he said<br />
he was.” But those are not the only two possibilities.<br />
A third option is that, yes, it is possible to say some wise<br />
things and be deluded that you are a god.<br />
A fourth possibility is that Jesus didn’t say everything that is<br />
attributed to him in the Bible. Maybe he didn’t actually say all<br />
those wise things, but the writers of the Bible said he did. Or<br />
maybe he never claimed to be God, but the writers turned him<br />
into a god after he died.<br />
A fifth possibility is that Jesus is a fictional character and so<br />
everything was invented by the authors.<br />
Here’s another example of a false dichotomy: “No one would<br />
die for a lie. The early Christians died for Christianity.<br />
Therefore, Christianity must be true.”<br />
What’s left out of this is that there is no evidence that anyone<br />
who ever personally knew Jesus (if he even existed) was ever<br />
martyred. We only have stories of martyrdom.<br />
Another explanation is that the followers had been fooled,<br />
intentionally or unintentionally, into thinking Jesus was God, and<br />
so they were willing to die for a lie (that they thought was true.)<br />
Another point is that if you believe you’ll end up in a heaven<br />
after to die, then martyrdom is no big deal.<br />
Finally, does the fact that the 9/11 bombers were willing to<br />
die for their faith make Islam true?<br />
<br />
(19) God-of-the-Gaps (Medicine, Life, Universe, etc.) - The godof-<br />
the-gaps argument says that if we don’t currently know the<br />
scientific answer to something, then “God did it.”<br />
God-of-the-gaps is used in many areas, but I’ll focus on the<br />
three main ones: medicine, life, and the universe. You’ll notice that<br />
God never has to prove himself in these arguments. It is always<br />
assumed that he gets to win by default.<br />
Here’s a medical example: A person experiences a cure for a<br />
disease that science can’t explain. Therefore, “God did it.”<br />
But this assumes we know everything about the human body,<br />
so that a natural explanation is impossible. But the fact is, we<br />
don’t have complete medical knowledge. Why don’t we ever see<br />
something that would be a true miracle, like an amputated arm<br />
instantaneously regenerating?<br />
Several studies of prayer, where the patients didn’t know<br />
whether or not they were being prayed for, including a study by the<br />
Mayo Clinic, have shown prayer to have no effect on healing.<br />
(This raises the question of why we would have to beg an allpowerful,<br />
all-loving god to be healed in the first place. It seems<br />
ironic, to say the least, to pray to a god to be cured from diseases<br />
and the effects of natural disasters that he himself created. It also<br />
raises the Problem of Evil: If God is all-powerful and all-loving,<br />
why does evil exist in the first place?)<br />
An example of god-of-the-gaps as it applies to life is<br />
creationism and “intelligent design.” It says we don’t know<br />
everything about evolution, therefore “God did it.” This ignores the<br />
fossil and genetic evidence and also fails to explain the many poor<br />
and sub-optimal “designs” we find in nature. Is “God” an<br />
incompetent or sloppy designer?<br />
The final and most popular example of god-of-the-gaps is the<br />
universe. But to say we don’t know the origins of the universe – if<br />
the universe even had an ultimate beginning – does not mean that<br />
“God did it.”<br />
And, of course, it begs the question: Who created God? If<br />
complex things need a creator to explain their existence, then “God,”<br />
who by the traditional definition is far more complex than the<br />
universe, and is even more in need of a creator.<br />
<br />
(20) “Fine-tuning” of the Earth - Some religious people argue that<br />
the Earth is positioned “just right” in the solar system (not too hot,<br />
not too cold, etc.) for life to exist. Furthermore, the elements on<br />
Earth (carbon, oxygen, etc.) are also “just right.” These people<br />
claim that this couldn’t have happened “by accident,” so a god must<br />
exist to have done the positioning and chemistry.<br />
We should be able to recognize a god-of-the-gaps argument here.<br />
But an even better rebuttal exists. If Earth was the only planet in<br />
the universe, then it would indeed be remarkable that our conditions<br />
turned out to be “just right.”<br />
But most religious people acknowledge that there are probably<br />
thousands, if not millions, of other planets in the universe. (Our<br />
own solar system has eight planets.) Therefore, by chance, at least<br />
one of those planets will have conditions that will produce some<br />
kind of life.<br />
We can imagine religious purple creatures with four eyes and<br />
breathing carbon dioxide on another planet also falsely believing<br />
that their planet is “fine-tuned” and that a creator god exists in their<br />
image.<br />
<br />
(21) “Fine-tuning” of the Universe - Some religious people argue<br />
that the six physical constants of the universe (which control such<br />
things as the strength of gravity) can only exist within a very narrow<br />
range to produce a universe capable of sustaining life. Therefore,<br />
since this couldn’t have happened “by accident,” a god must have<br />
done it.<br />
Again, this is a god-of-the-gaps argument. But beyond that,<br />
this argument assumes that we know everything about astrophysics<br />
– a field in which new discoveries are made on almost a daily basis.<br />
We may discover that our universe is not so “fine tuned” after all.<br />
However, the best rebuttal is that there may exist multiple<br />
universes – either separately or as “bubble universes” within a single<br />
universe. Each of these universes could have its own set of<br />
constants. Given enough universes, by chance it is likely that at<br />
least one will produce and sustain life.<br />
We know it is possible for at least one universe to exist – we<br />
are in it. If one can exist, why not many? On the other hand, we<br />
have no evidence that it is possible for even one god to exist.<br />
Conclusion - Religious people have a tough, if not impossible task<br />
to try to prove a god exists, let alone that their particular religion is<br />
true. If any religion had objective standards, wouldn’t everyone be<br />
flocking to the same “true” religion? Instead we find that people<br />
tend to believe, to varying degrees, the religion in which they were<br />
indoctrinated. Or they are atheists.<br />
<br />
2006, 2007 August Berkshire Sept. 19, 2007Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-39939537997111611602011-09-11T00:35:00.000-04:002011-09-11T00:35:00.323-04:00The “Evidence” for Jesus’ Resurrection, Debunked in One Page By Chris HallquistAmong Evangelical Christians, it’s become popular to claim that Jesus’ resurrection can be proved with historical evidence. This is nonsense. <br />
<br />
Here’s why:<br />
<br />
1. There is no evidence for the resurrection outside the Bible. Non-Christian historical references to Jesus don’t occur until about six decades after the time when Biblical scholars think he probably<br />
died. When these non-Christian sources refer to Jesus’ miracles, there’s no reason to see them as anything more than a report of what Christians of the time believed.<br />
<br />
2. There is little evidence that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, or based directly on eyewitness accounts. Most of what the Bible says about Jesus’ life and supposed resurrection is in the first four books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, (a.k.a. the Gospels). But Biblical scholars now agree these books were originally anonymous, their names added later. The traditional Christian claims about who wrote them is now widely doubted by scholars.<br />
<br />
3. This means that the Gospels can’t be trusted as evidence for miracles. Imagine someone trying to convert you to another religion based on the “proof” of the miracles worked by the religion’s<br />
founder... in the form of a handful of anonymous tracts recounting his life. Would you accept that “proof”? Of course not. Among other things, the stories could just be legends.<br />
<br />
4.One of Paul’s letters provides evidence that a number of people claimed Jesus had appeared to them after his death. But this isn’t proof of a miracle. The passage is 1st Corinthians 15:3-9, and most Biblical scholars agree it was really written by Paul. But again, would you accept similar evidence in favor of another religion’s miracles? The Mormon church has statements signed by several people attesting to miracles that are supposed to confirm the truth of the Book of the<br />
Mormon, but you probably won’t convert to Mormonism based on that. Also, Paul doesn’t tell us how he knows about all these appearances, so we can’t be confident his report is accurate.<br />
<br />
5. Reports that Jesus’ disciples were martyred prove nothing. Reports of the martyrdom of Jesus’ disciples do not occur in this historical record until long after their deaths would have occurred, and accounts sometimes conflict with one another. It could be that most, even all, of these stories are legends. In any case, not only do people sometimes give up their lives for delusions, even outright charlatans have been killed for their claims. Joseph Smith was probably a charlatan, but he died at the hands of a lynch mob. So we can’t rule out deception among Jesus’ followers.<br />
<br />
6. Claims that this or that individual couldn’t possibly have hallucinated are nonsense. Even apparently sane people hallucinate for a wide variety of reasons and under a wide variety of circumstances. We can’t rule this out for people who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.<br />
<br />
7. Even if there were several people in Paul’s day who would have claimed to have all seen the risen Jesus at the same time, their testimony might not have stood up to scrutiny. There have been cases where a group of children have claimed to see the Virgin Mary, and been taken seriously by adults who should have known better. In many of these cases, the children were questioned<br />
individually and their descriptions of what they saw didn’t match, suggesting deception or delusion.<br />
<br />
8. That’s it. Part of me thinks that what I’ve said in this one page is all that needs to be said on the subject. But if you want to know how I back up these claims, you can get my book UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God: Debunking the Resurrection of Jesus. The book also includes a crash course in New Testament scholarship, discussions of faith healing and Biblical prophecy, and plenty of tidbits about the strange beliefs people have had throughout history. It’s available on Amazon, and there’s more information, including links to reviews, on my website, UncredibleHallq.net.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-47116613562473745242011-09-11T00:16:00.000-04:002011-09-11T00:16:42.191-04:00A Few Ridiculous Bible Verses.Exodus 32:9 - 14<br />
<br />
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:<br />
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die<br />
<br />
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)<br />
<br />
"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)<br />
<br />
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)<br />
<br />
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)<br />
<br />
"At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts." (Deuteronomy 15:1)<br />
<br />
"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of the town. They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death..." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)<br />
<br />
"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)<br />
<br />
Daniel 2:21, "he removeth kings, and setteth up kings,"<br />
<br />
Timothy 2:11-15 that the woman is to be silent in the assembly of the church because she was deceived.<br />
<br />
Genisis 3:16 - and the lord god said to the women "I will cause you to have much trouble when you are pregnant and when you give birth to children you will have much pain. you will want your husband very much but he will rule over you".Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-67896161453144219832011-09-11T00:15:00.000-04:002011-09-11T00:15:05.724-04:00Could Jonah survive in a whale?The stomach has several pockets. They are called gastric bags and there are 3. The stomach is the main digestive organ as the killer whale does not chew its prey and does not have salivary glands (which is the first chemical decomposition element of the food). Because the oesophagus is very large, what is swallowed arrives as is in the stomach, or to be more precise, in the first pocket.<br />
<br />
The first pocket, or mechanical stomach is actually a kind of crusher, which will pound and chop the prey, making them more easily digestible. This pocket has no salivary glands though. It’s a kind of post oesophagus. However, the works from Flower & Lyddeker (1891) showed that, occasionally, a small quantity of digestive juices from the second pocket passes on to the first pocket, starting the digestion process. It’s worth noting that pebbles and shells are sometimes found in this mechanical stomach, aiding in the crushing of the food.<br />
<br />
Food is then transferred to the second pocket, the central one which is called the chemical stomach, or main stomach. Hence the walls are thicker and of course with digestive glands. The hydrochloric acid together with the digestive juices will deteriorate the large molecules so they can be absorbed by the mucous membranes of the digestive tube.<br />
<br />
Then comes the last pocket, or pyloric stomach (because it is situated in the pylorus zone, before the intestine). It is a kind of waiting room.<br />
<br />
E. PerkopfJon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-87922859501693585662011-09-11T00:09:00.000-04:002011-09-11T00:09:01.153-04:00Contradictions In The BibleJOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.<br />
<br />
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::<br />
<br />
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.<br />
<br />
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::<br />
<br />
ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;<br />
<br />
MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::<br />
<br />
ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:<br />
<br />
MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::::::::::<br />
<br />
MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."<br />
<br />
LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."<br />
<br />
JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::<br />
<br />
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. MAT 1:6-16 and LUK 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::<br />
<br />
<br />
Judas dying.<br />
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)<br />
<br />
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::<br />
<br />
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.<br />
<br />
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.<br />
<br />
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::<br />
<br />
Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)<br />
<br />
Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::<br />
<br />
<br />
It is indisputable that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is also indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus before 4 B.C., perhaps around 6 B.C. This is an irreconcilable contradiction<br />
<br />
<br />
DT 25:19 "... you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you must not forget."<br />
(That remembrance is now permanently preserved in the Bible.)<br />
<br />
<br />
2CH 13:17 500,000 Israelites are slain in a single battle. (Note: This is more than were lost in any single battle of World War II, and even exceeds the number of deaths that resulted from the dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.)<br />
<br />
<br />
IS 30:26 The moon will someday be as bright as the sun now is. (Note: Until relatively recent times, the moon and the planets were thought to give off their own light.)<br />
<br />
<br />
IS 40:22 The earth is a circle. (Note: The earth is really a sphere, not a circle, and this verse does not imply a sphere as some believers like to infer.)<br />
<br />
<br />
MT 4:8 There is a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. (Note: This implies a flat earth.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
MT 13:41 Jesus will send his angels to purge his kingdom of evildoers and sin. (Note: How did evildoers get into his kingdom in the first place?)<br />
<br />
<br />
MT 4:23-24, 9:32-33, 12:22, 17:14-18, MK 1:23-26, 32-34, 5:2-16, 9:17-29, 16:9, LK 11:14, 4:33-35, 8:2, 27-36, 9:38-42, AC 8:7, 16:16-18 Both physical and mental illness are caused by demon possession and can be cured by exorcism.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
JN 8:51 Jesus says: "... if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
JN 12:34 A crowd of persons (speaking in unison?) asks Jesus a thirty word question.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
2CO 12:2 There are at least three heavens.<br />
<br />
<br />
2CO 12:4 There are things which cannot be told--things which man cannot utter.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1TI 6:10 The love of money is the root of all evil(s). (Note: Some translations emend the text to read, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evils," or something similar, in an attempt to ameliorate an obvious problem. Those additional words are not there in the Greek of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
RE 21:16 The city of New Jerusalem (where the residents of heaven reside) is only about 1500 miles square.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1 Timothy 2:14 (King James Version)<br />
<br />
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Genesis 6:15 (King James Version)<br />
<br />
15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Genesis 32:24-30 (King James Version)<br />
<br />
24And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.<br />
<br />
25And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.<br />
<br />
26And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.<br />
<br />
27And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.<br />
<br />
28And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.<br />
<br />
29And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.<br />
<br />
30And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Deuteronomy 25:5-9 (King James Version)<br />
<br />
5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.<br />
<br />
6And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.<br />
<br />
7And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.<br />
<br />
8Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;<br />
<br />
9Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-84239453064241396032011-09-10T23:59:00.000-04:002011-09-10T23:59:29.604-04:00Bible Teaching and Religious Practice By Mark Twain (from Europe and Elsewhere and A Pen Warmed Up In Hell)Religion had its share in the changes of civilization and national character, of course. What share? The lion’s. In the history of the human race this has always been the case, will always be the case, to the end of time, no doubt; or at least until man by the slow processes of evolution shall develop into something really fine and high - some billions of years hence, say.<br />
<br />
The Christian Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes. For eighteen hundred years these changes were slight - scarcely noticeable. The practice was allopathic - allopathic in its rudest and crudest form. The dull and ignorant physician day and night, and all the days and all the nights, drenched his patient with vast and hideous doses of the most repulsive drugs to be found in the store’s stock; he bled him, cupped him, purged him, puked him, salivated him, never gave his system a chance to rally, nor nature a chance to help. He kept him religion sick for eighteen centuries, and allowed him not a well day during all that time. The stock in the store was made up of about equal portions of baleful and debilitating poisons, and healing and comforting medicines; but the practice of the time confined the physician to the use of the former; by consequence, he could only damage his patient, and that is what he did.<br />
<br />
Not until far within our century was any considerable change in the practice introduced; and then mainly, or in effect only, in Great Britain and the United States. In the other countries to-day, the patient either still takes the ancient treatment or does not call the physician at all. In the English-speaking countries the changes observable in our century were forced by that very thing just referred to - the revolt of the patient against the system; they were not projected by the physician. The patient fell to doctoring himself, and the physician’s practice began to fall off. He modified his method to get back his trade. He did it gradually, reluctantly; and never yielded more at a time than the pressure compelled. At first he relinquished the daily dose of hell and damnation, and administered it every other day only; next he allowed another day to pass; then another and presently another; when he had restricted it at last to Sundays, and imagined that now there would surely be a truce, the homeopath arrived on the field and made him abandon hell and damnation altogether, and administered Christ’s love, and comfort, and charity and compassion in its stead. These had been in the drug store all the time, gold labeled and conspicuous among the long shelfloads of repulsive purges and vomits and poisons, and so the practice was to blame that they had remained unused, not the pharmacy. To the ecclesiastical physician of fifty years ago, his predecessor for eighteen centuries was a quack; to the ecclesiastical physician of to-day, his predecessor of fifty years ago was a quack. To the every-man-his-own-ecclesiastical-doctor of - when? - what will the ecclesiastical physician of to-day be? Unless evolution, which has been a truth ever since the globes, suns, and planets of the solar system were but wandering films of meteor dust, shall reach a limit and become a lie, there is but one fate in store for him.<br />
<br />
The methods of the priest and the parson have been very curious, their history is very entertaining. In all the ages the Roman Church has owned slaves, bought and sold slaves, authorized and encouraged her children to trade in them. Long after some Christian peoples had freed their slaves the Church still held on to hers. If any could know, to absolute certainty, that all this was right, and according to God’s will and desire, surely it was she, since she was God’s specially appointed representative in the earth and sole authorized and infallible expounder of his Bible. There were the texts; there was no mistaking their meaning; she was right, she was doing in this thing what the Bible had mapped out for her to do. So unassailable was her position that in all the centuries she had no word to say against human slavery. Yet now at last, in our immediate day, we hear a Pope saying slave trading is wrong, and we see him sending an expedition to Africa to stop it. The texts remain: it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession - and take the credit of the correction. As she will presently do in this instance.<br />
<br />
Christian England supported slavery and encouraged it for two hundred and fifty years, and her church’s consecrated ministers looked on, sometimes taking an active hand, the rest of the time indifferent. England’s interest in the business may be called a Christian interest, a Christian industry. She had her full share in its revival after a long period of inactivity, and his revival was a Christian monopoly; that is to say, it was in the hands of Christian countries exclusively. English parliaments aided the slave traffic and protected it; two English kings held stock in slave-catching companies. The first regular English slave hunter - John Hawkins, of still revered memory - made such successful havoc, on his second voyage, in the matter of surprising and burning villages, and maiming, slaughtering, capturing, and selling their unoffending inhabitants, that his delighted queen conferred the chivalric honor of knighthood on him - a rank which had acquired its chief esteem and distinction in other and earlier fields of Christian effort. The new knight, with characteristic English frankness and brusque simplicity, chose as his device the figure of a negro slave, kneeling and in chains. Sir John’s work was the invention of Christians, was to remain a bloody and awful monopoly in the hands of Christians for a quarter of a millennium, was to destroy homes, separate families, enslave friendless men and women, and break a myriad of human hearts, to the end that Christian nations might be prosperous and comfortable, Christian churches be built, and the gospel of the meek and merciful Redeemer be spread abroad in the earth; and so in the name of his ship, unsuspected but eloquent and clear, lay hidden prophecy. She was called The Jesus.<br />
<br />
But at last in England, an illegitimate Christian rose against slavery. It is curious that when a Christian rises against a rooted wrong at all, he is usually an illegitimate Christian, member of some despised and bastard sect. There was a bitter struggle, but in the end the slave trade had to go - and went. The Biblical authorization remained, but the practice changed.<br />
<br />
Then - the usual thing happened; the visiting English critic among us began straightway to hold up his pious hands in horror at our slavery. His distress was unappeasable, his words full of bitterness and contempt. It is true we had not so many as fifteen hundred thousand slaves for him to worry about, while his England still owned twelve millions, in her foreign possessions; but that fact did not modify his wail any, or stay his tears, or soften his censure. The fact that every time we had tried to get rid of our slavery in previous generations, but had always been obstructed, balked, and defeated by England, was a matter of no consequence to him; it was ancient history, and not worth the telling.<br />
<br />
Our own conversion came at last. We began to stir against slavery. Hearts grew soft, here, there, and yonder. There was no place in the land where the seeker could not find some small budding sign of pity for the slave. No place in all the land but one - the pulpit. It yielded at last; it always does. It fought a strong and stubborn fight, and then did what it always does, joined the procession - at the tail end. Slavery fell. The slavery text remained; the practice changed, that was all.<br />
<br />
During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.<br />
<br />
Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch - the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything. At Salem, the parson clung pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand. In Scotland the parson killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring, with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand.<br />
<br />
There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.<br />
<br />
It is not well worthy of note that of all the multitude of texts through which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the mistake of obliterating a good and useful one? It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-81288680090413289952011-09-10T23:57:00.002-04:002011-09-10T23:57:47.301-04:0021 Common Logic Errors1. Ad Hominem Argument An argument that counters another’s claim or conclusion by attacking the person, rather than attacking the argument itself. (Latin, “against the man.”) A specific example of the Genetic Fallacy which assumes that an idea is not true because of its origin. E.g., a Democrat (or Republican) has a idea, therefore, it must be bad. (Also called the Fallacy of Irrelevance.)<br />
<br />
2. Argument from Antiquity An argument is true because it has been held for a long time. Related to the Argument from Numbers, the argument that because many people think something is true, it is true (also known as the Argument Ad Populum).<br />
<br />
3. Argument from Authority Stating that a claim is true because an authority (person or group of people) says it is true.<br />
<br />
4. Argument from Final Consequences A claim is true because of a purpose or outcome that is served (or vice versa). Also known as a Teleological Argument. E.g., “evolution cannot be true because accepting it will lead to immorality.”<br />
<br />
5. Argument from Ignorance The claim that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.<br />
<br />
6. Argument from Personal Incredulity Because you, personally, cannot understand or accept a proposition it is, therefore, not true. Often coupled with a False Dichotomy (see below) as in “I don’t see how the eye could have evolved, therefore, God did it.”<br />
<br />
7. Begging the Question or a Tautology A statement that hinges on A=A (or A=B therefore B=A), which is simply restating the premise. For example, “he is unintelligent because he is stupid” or “only a criminal would commit a crime; the fact that criminals commit crimes is proof of this.” (Tautology, literally a repetition.) The “proof” is a restatement of the premise.<br />
<br />
8. Confirmation Bias Noticing only the facts that support your thesis but ignoring those that do not.<br />
<br />
9. Confusing Correlation with Causation Assuming cause and effect for two variables because they are correlated. E.g., “heroin addicts drank milk as a child, therefore, milk causes heroin addiction.” This is similar to the Post-hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy (see below).<br />
<br />
10. Confounding the Unexplained with the Unexplainable Because we do not currently have an explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable or that it requires a paranormal/supernatural explanation.<br />
<br />
11. False Continuum The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation between two extremes, the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful. E.g, because there is a fuzzy line between science and pseudoscience they are the same thing. Related to the Slippery Slope (see below).<br />
<br />
12. False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of possibilities to only two.<br />
<br />
13. False Premise An incorrect/untrue underlying assumption. Often found in an argument that is otherwise logically consistent but which leads to a false conclusion.<br />
<br />
14. Inconsistency Applying specific criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others.<br />
<br />
15. Moving the Goalpost A method of denial by arbitrarily moving the criteria for proof, acceptance, or rejection out of the range of whatever evidence currently exists or is agreed upon.<br />
<br />
16. Non-Sequitur This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premise. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists. (Latin, “doesn’t follow.”). Really, all logical fallacies are non-sequiturs.<br />
<br />
17. Post-hoc Ergo Propter Hoc This fallacy follows the basic form of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B. This argument assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related. (Latin, “after this, therefore because of this.”)<br />
<br />
18. Slippery Slope The argument that a position is not acceptable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But, moderate positions do not necessarily lead down a slippery slope to the extreme. Careful here: Reductio Ad Absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd"), a form of argument in which a proposition is disproved by logically following its implications to an absurd conclusion, can be a valid argument.<br />
<br />
19. Straw Man Arguing against a misrepresentation or over-simplification of the position actually held by an opponent.<br />
<br />
20. Special Pleading (Ad Hoc Reasoning) The arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to amend them so that they appear valid. E.g., “ESP doesn’t work in the presence of skeptics.” A subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize.<br />
<br />
21. Tu Quoque To reject a position because someone (inconsistently) holds it. Also called an Appeal to Hypocrisy. Person 1: “Smoking tobacco is bad for you.” Person 2: “You smoke, therefore, your argument is invalid.” (Latin, “you too.”)Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-50599361983226481122011-09-10T23:54:00.000-04:002011-09-10T23:54:10.538-04:00Random: 80's metal making a comeback.Does anyone else think metal bands from the 80's just shouldn't be putting out new albums anymore? I mean...the metal scene has changed a lot in 20 years. Dont get me wrong, I LOVE Megadeth and Metalica, they are huge influences in my playing, but maybe they should just keep their dignity, reap what they've already sown, and fade away while they are still respected. Could you imagine a tour like Megadeth opening for Asking Alexandria/Miss May I? even bands like All That Remains and Atreyu, which are more melodic would be awkward to see with them.Jon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777194616116713214.post-88847854389010857262011-08-22T02:56:00.000-04:002011-08-22T02:56:49.399-04:00Natural Burial"gasp! I know what I want to do when I die!" You probably dont hear this phrase very often...esp. from a 23 year old. For some reason, while browsing the internet after a long day at work, I was thinking how much a standard funeral costs and how harmful to the environment it can actually be. I actually really care about the environment and I think I'd like to do whatever I could to be cleaner and live better for our planet...for later generations. <br />
<br />
As I am looking around on the web, I stumbled on what is called "natural Burials". A natural burial is well...as natural as you can get. Ya dig a hole and chuck a body in it I suppose. There are also pine boxes that are allowed to replace lacquered wood and metal caskets.<br />
<br />
That doesn't sound very um...socially exceptable, is it even legal?<br />
<br />
of course, here are the requirements:<br />
<br />
If there is an outer case around the coffin, the uppermost part of the outer case must be deeper than 1.5 feet from the natural surface. [28 Pa. Code 1.21(a)]<br />
<br />
If there is not an outer case and there is just a coffin or just the body with no coffin, then the item buried must be deeper than 2 feet from the natural surface of the ground. [28 Pa. Code 1.21 (b)]<br />
<br />
If the death was not from a contagious disease, no state law requires a casket or vault.<br />
<br />
The Cemetery Law at 9 P.S. 10 provides "It is unlawful to use for the burial of the dead any land the drainage of which passes into any stream furnishing the whole or any portion of the water supply of any city except beyond the distance of one mile from such city." Thus, check with the local sewage enforcement officer as to the distance a septic system must be from a well and apply similar distance between the well and the grave site.<br />
<br />
Now, you might ask you're self..why would you want such a barbaric thing done with you're self? Isn't that what they used to do in the days before we knew what the hell we were doing? Is it even safe for everyone to be around a dead body in a hole in the ground? The answers are yes for both. We did used to bury everyone this way. well.. why have things changed? I assume mostly because of status symbolism and being egocentric, because if you think about it, burying people this way is very bad for the earth. Also, the only person who worries about a cement vault is someone like Adam West in the episode of Family Guy were the Mayer is afraid of a zombie apocalypse. <br />
<br />
think about it though, *Each year in U.S. cemeteries, we bury 827,060 gallons of embalming fluid, which includes formaldehyde; 180,544,000 pounds of steel; 5,400,000 pounds of copper and bronze; and 30 million board feet of hardwoods, including tropical woods. . . Cemeteries turn beautiful places into a monoculture of gravestones—really a landfill of embalming chemicals and cement. Then backhoes, lawnmowers, and tree pruners put diesel emissions into the air and pesticides and fertilizers into the water.<br />
<br />
Then there's the costs. A traditional funeral can be a very expensive undertaking. According to the National Funeral Directors Association, the average cost of a funeral as of December 2006, was $7,323. That figure included costs for a casket and an outer burial vault, but not for a cemetery plot, which adds an additional $500 to $5,000 or more, depending on plot size, location, cemetery, and amenities such as monuments and perpetual care.<br />
<br />
OOOk...so, then cremation is the way to go. That's gotta be better for the planet right? That's what I thought too...but actually:<br />
<br />
*Cremation is more cost-effective than a traditional burial, but has its own adverse environmental impacts. The biggest issue is fossil-fuel consumption during the cremation process. A single cremation uses the same amount of energy as is consumed driving 4,800 miles (7,700 kilometers). Total energy expenditure for all cremations performed in the U.S. each year could instead be used to propel someone to the moon and back 85 times. <br />
Another environmental issue with cremation is that it is a source of air pollution and of highly toxic mercury emissions – primarily from dental amalgam fillings. An estimated 1,000 to 7,800 pounds (450 to 3,500 kilograms) of mercury is released annually in the U.S. by cremations. Of that, 75% becomes airborne where it can be breathed in by all of us. (Mercury emissions could be reduced by changing cremation practices, but that would increase costs for operators and therefore consumers.) In addition, crematoriums may be responsible for as much as 12% of all dioxins in the atmosphere – a serious carcinogen and mutagen formed when chlorinated compounds are oxidized.<br />
<br />
Some but not all cremation remains are subsequently buried in a memorial setting. In cases where they are not, many people feel deprived of the opportunity to visit a special place to honor the departed loved one.<br />
<br />
So, whats another reason to do things, um...naturally? Well, it's all about giving back to the earth. You came from nature...dust and god's breath if you're one of them christian folk, so why not go back from whence you came? It's all about the circle of life! *cue lion king music*.<br />
<br />
alright alright, I think I get it but its still kind of weird. How do you go about doing something like that anyway?<br />
<br />
here's the deal:<br />
<br />
1) If you have your own rural land, check your local zoning laws for rules on home burial. It is allowed in most states. You can be as natural as you want on your own land. In Pennsylvania, a burial must comply with the state’s “depth of grave” requirements as mentioned earlier. <br />
<br />
2) Forgo embalming. It is never routinely required by law for funerals and its unlikely that any cemetery requires it for burial.<br />
<br />
3) If the idea of not being buried in something is odd enough for you, Select a wood casket or cardboard box—or shroud—for burial. There are no laws requiring particular types of caskets—even if you encounter resistance from the funeral director or cemetery.<br />
<br />
4) If the cemetery won’t let you skip the vault, you can choose a concrete grave box that has an open bottom to let the body come in contact with the earth—or invert a concrete grave liner and use the lid for something else. <br />
<br />
I've made up my mind at 23 years old after work one night. It's certainly they way to go to help a little at a time with the environment, after all..I've been going "Green" before it was a popular fad. Have YOU giving this issue any thought? Perhaps you should.<br />
<br />
Next on the list, A living will! juuuuust kidding. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* Compiled using statistics from the Casket and Funeral Association of America, Cremation Association of North America, Doric Inc., the Rainforest Action Network, and Mary Woodsen, Pre-Posthumous Society).<br />
*Is Cremation any Greener? http://www.greenburialpittsburgh.org/WhatIs.htmlJon Heimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341870292080052761noreply@blogger.com0