The narcissism of the small difference.

I am writing this to vocalize and illustrate some of the shortcomings and oddities of human nature that is represented everywhere, even through my space.
It seems both inevitable and irrational, with things such as my space, that humans focus so much on what Freud called “the narcissism of the small difference.”

I found it both odd and revealing that within the “religion” category there was both atheism and agnosticism, both of which are not religions. I also found it odd that the category was titled “religion” and not something more appropriate such as “worldview” or “metaphysics” for that would be the more inclusive and acceptable category. For what does it say of those that do not subscribe to religion and/or the notion of holding “religious” views when they must describe their “religion” and religious views in a one word response? This seems rather shallow and exclusive to me. Not to mention the plethora of religions that the category neglected to include in the first place.
I do not hold to a religious view of existence and I consider my worldview to be a euproxophy not religious, I hold to humanist principles and more succinctly with the secular humanist viewpoint. This worldview of secular humanism is not a religion and it is not accounted for within the category, which I feel is exclusive and too preoccupied with “the narcissism of the small difference.” Being that I am wholly concerned with humanist principles and that the majority of my views and beliefs align with secular humanism this also means that I am an atheist, which to me is a moot point being that it cannot be definitively proven either way at present time. I am hesitant to claim myself an atheist in the open public for numerous reasons, the largest being that atheism is not a coherent worldview or metaphysics, it is merely an epithet used to describe ones disbelief in supernatural entities and forces. I am also hesitant to claim that I am an atheist because the mere word “atheist” seems to be bound to immorality, perversion, heresy (which ironically translates to “choice”), foolishness, corruption and a seemingly endless slew of nefarious characteristics. I certainly wish that atheism did not carry the negative baggage that it does but two thousand years of dogmatically institutionalized castigation and defamation is certainly not easily quelled.
I do affirmatively consider myself an atheist rather than an agnostic and this is both intentional and designed. I find there to be insufficient evidence for any sort of supernatural entities and/or forces, not only that but I find sufficient evidence that these entities and/or forces are not needed when describing and understanding existence and that sometimes, maybe even the majority of the time, such notions actually impede and obstruct further progress in such understandings. I simply cannot ascribe to a belief that claims that there are forces, or a single force, that is both conscious and undetectable that “created” material existence and looks out for natural mechanisms in any way, shape or form. I reject the notion of god in all the various forms that it has comprised but some would like to say you must remain agnostic regarding god, for god may be the underlying totality of all existence that binds everything together, be that supernatural or not. My problem with that is that this seems to undermine the very definition of god, which necessarily consists of a supernatural entity/force and such supernatural definitions are those of which I reject. One must be careful to define and describe the god in question, for if one must remain agnostic regarding a Christian definition for the fact that one cannot demonstrate the falsehood of such a notion then one must also remain agnostic regarding the Greek and Roman gods, which one would likewise not be able to demonstrate the falsehood thereof. We are really all atheists I just do not make an exception for the monotheistic supernatural entity/force of Christianity. For Christians are surely atheists regarding Hindu gods and Zoroastrianism’s god, again, I merely reject them all equally.

Oh, what a tangent this “religion” category got me into.

I also had a hard time seriously answering the ethnicity category. For this category always illustrates the human instinct to relegate an individual into a racially discriminatory subset. I was forced to choose white/Caucasian which, again, seems both odd and exclusive. I find my “ethnicity” or “race” to be just as human as the next persons, I would much rather label myself as “human” rather than “white” or “Caucasian” both of which are fraudulent descriptions. White is not a color let alone a race and I also have no relation to the Caucasus and no belief in the outmoded ethnology that had produced the category. Should it not go without saying what “color” one is by their picture? Does it really matter what ones color is if indeed they haven’t a picture? If one is either “Asian” or “black” is that really a difference that is consequential? Are they not both humans retaining the very same genetic material? Again a prime example of what Freud called “the narcissism of the small difference.”

Legalization

I have been embroiled in numerous debates recently one of them regarding logic and the other the legalization of “illicit drugs”. I would like to post about the idea of legalization.

I, being a libertarian and a realist, believe that it is both unconstitutional and impractical to not only prohibit certain, discriminately selected, substances but to wage an all out war on them. It is unconstitutional to revoke the rights of private citizens in such a gratuitous, and oddly selective, manner. It creates, and has created, one of the world’s most heinous black markets in history ruled by gangs, mobs and terrorists.

The number of overdoses and health related toxic injuries greatly increases when you prohibit a specific drug forcing those that seek its use to attain it through the black market. Where there is a demand there is a supply and despite any effort to curb either the demand or the supply of certain drugs both steadily go on, if not increasing. When you relegate the supply of a drug that is in high demand to the clandestine and criminal elements you are effectively ensuring that the drugs offered are poorly produced and are of highly dangerous qualities. Drugs that are produced in a clandestine manner are replete with contaminant chemicals and toxic precursors that increase the drugs danger and the user’s health risks. Simply put drugs are far more dangerous when they are prohibited.

Some argue that legalizing and regulating illicit drugs would effectively send the use of them sky ward, I find that the opposite would be the likelier scenario. If one were to observe drug treatment center statistics and trends one would undoubtedly notice that the majority of addicts and abusers that occupy such centers are those that use and abuse illegal drugs. The majority of individuals that inhabit treatment centers and rehabs are there for illicit street drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroine, phencyclidine (PCP), etc. These are the drugs that people are supposedly doing less of because of prohibition. Then you have the individuals at treatment centers, at a far lower rate, for alcohol and prescription drugs (such as oxycontin, valium, vicodin, xanax, etc.). The drugs that are legal and regulated by the federal government have fewer addicts and abusers.

Our current jail systems are overwhelmed and under funded for the prohibition of illicit drugs. Many of the jails are full of individuals convicted of a drug related crime (mainly simple possession). Then there are the outstanding numbers of felons that occupy jails for heinous crimes such as grand theft and homicide that are drug related. Making it a crime to sell, buy or posses certain drugs greatly increases crime. If a cocaine abuser could readily purchase cocaine, that has been produced cleanly and regulated safely, they would not ever face the need of reverting to crime to fuel and pay for their drug.

Some also claim that the strain that legalizing certain drugs would have on healthcare and the taxpayers would be too great. The current war on drugs costs taxpayers an annual 40 billion dollars. This sum of money, no longer being thrown away in the name of a war on drugs, could easily be relocated towards programs such as healthcare. Not to mention the enormous revenue that would be produced by selling and taxing the drugs.

Also certain illicit drugs that so many people are appalled by and would never like to see legalized are already sold, bought and possessed for medical purposes. Cannabis sativa being the most commonly known case, however, far fewer people are aware that methamphetamine is being used for legitimate and legal medical purposes. Methamphetamine is a schedule II substance which means that while it is illegal within the United States to buy, sell or posses this drug without a DEA license or prescription that it is legal to buy, sell and/or posses this drug with a DEA license or prescription. Methamphetamine is currently being used by Americans all over this country for legitimate medical purposes and the regulation and distribution has not been a problem. The pharmaceutical name for methamphetamine is Desoxyn. Granted the regulation and distribution for medical drugs is different but not so entirely different for there to not be a logical inference.

In summation it is unconstitutional to deem certain substances illegal (and to erode private citizen’s constitutional rights and liberties) and the war on drugs that we now have the displeasure of waging is one of the most costly and damaging policies of our government. Prohibiting substances (as the prohibition of alcohol so readily proves) simply creates far more problems than it resolves.

I don’t believe that smoking cannabis sativa or opium on a regular basis is a wise decision but neither is smoking nicotine or drinking alcohol and it is my firm belief that all of these substances should be legal and that those that wish to use them should be able to do so. Only a country that is unconcerned with true freedom and liberty would make such substances illegal.

What is Secular Humanism?

To me secular humanism is the embrace of life here and now. It is the act of ceaseless inquiry into the world’s mysteries and life’s uncertainties. It is the unwillingness to surrender to superstition, supernaturalism, and any form of theism without proper evidence for support. It is the act of searching out answers and finding truths through scientific knowledge and methodology. It is understanding that there is no room for supernatural explanations for phenomena witnessed in life, that there is a natural and scientific way of understanding such phenomena, and that when we reached the limits of scientific understanding we must be willing to accept that we cannot yet understand such phenomena while refusing to accept supernatural explanations without any evidence for support. It is the knowledge that what we cannot understand or explain today may surely be understood and explained in the future and to wait for this day rather than subvert science and embrace irrationality in any form of supernaturalism. To me secular humanism is saying yes to life here and now. It is the progress achieved and looked forward to. It is the undying empathy, unconditional positive regard, and general concern for the well being of other people and life in general. It is holding responsibility for ones own actions, it is holding ones self accountable. It is a rational moral code and guideline for ethical conduct. It is the endeavor to remediate the world’s ills, create a more peaceful world and existence and attempt to make a cohesive and tranquil world-state.
To me secular humanism is the challenge to bring about the best of your abilities, to actualize your potential and develop your potential to the highest significance possible. It is sharing the love of life with others, enjoying the company of acquaintances and loved ones while having the pleasure to do so.
It is the realization that we are all members of the immense human race; that we all share a common humanity, this being enough reason to support and protect one another. It is defending human rights when violated or in jeopardy, whether defending black culture from racist white supremacy, championing women’s equality in a sexist ‘mans world’, fighting for homosexuals equality in an ever volatile homophobic environment, to simply upholding common civil liberties gone amiss. It is making the most out of what you are provided with, it is making the most of the wonderful opportunity that you are afforded by having life. It is the knowledge that life is more precious and delicate than we sometimes believe it to be.
To me being a secular humanist means understanding that there is no spiritual realm or supernatural existence, and that when you die there is no continuation of yourself in any form. It is the knowledge that you are a physical body and that your conscious awareness and personality are extensions of this physical body through the highly complex and advanced human brain, that when you die this organ will deteriorate and dissolve hence your conscious and personal existence will cease to exist. This knowledge, to me, means that I must make the most of my life now while I have the fantastic opportunity to do so. I shouldn’t waste my time and opportunity, I shouldn’t look towards the sky and hope for better days, I must make the better days come about for myself with my own ability and power. When negative situations happen or obstacles are faced, I should not pray to a supernatural force that does not exist and sit back hoping this force will intervene on my behalf, rather I should actively go out and attempt to rectify and improve the negative situations or overcome the difficult obstacles with my own human ability.
To me being a secular humanist means making the most of life here and now, being the best person that I am capable of becoming, helping others strive to be the best that they can be; working to help create a citadel of peace and beauty upon this earth, striving to help people and life in general live a more satisfying and tranquil life. To me secular humanism is everything that I know, value, respect, cherish, and love; it is a way of viewing life while at the same time engaging in life in the most practical and positive way possible. To me secular humanism is championing human ability, reason, and compassion; secular humanism is saying yes to life.

Gun control

I recently realized that my blog has become, or rather always has been, exclusively about religion and this was not my original intention. I wanted to have a blog about all of the important issues including politics, science, religion, culture and society; religion being but one of the many. I believe that I will maintain an almost exclusive interest with religion upon this blog, for that represents my personal interests well but I would like to introduce some politics.

A fellow atheist asked a group of us what our views were regarding gun control, I was the first to respond stating that I do not have a solid stance and that the issue is far too complex to say “no guns” or “guns for everyone.” But as the dialogue continued and as I read along from the sidelines I witnessed the discussion become increasingly ideological and I began to see that I did, in fact, have some solid views regarding the issue. The dialogue became a debate largely between an individual that, though passive, owned a gun and claimed it was merely for protection. There were then two dissenting voices claiming that owing a gun for any reason let alone for protection was extravagantly unjust. Both sides had begun to regress into fairly indefensible and irrationally extrapolated hyperbole. The discussion had ceased being rational and was now becoming just as diabolically ideological as the religious extremists around the globe.
Here is a quote from one of the anti-gun advocates: “Then why not carry a conceal weapon wherever you go? Why draw that line? Do you have a bomb shelter? Do you wear a mask to protect yourself from airborne toxins?” – Obviously going too far. Owning a firearm for protection against armed assailants and intruders seems fairly different from owning either a bomb shelter or an airborne toxin mask. This quote is but one minor example of the rhetoric that was being waged from both sides, it had also become somewhat emotionally charged.
I then decided that I did have something to offer the discussion. This is what I had to say:

“I am most likely never going to own a firearm and I don’t really see the necessity for an individual to own one but those that are going to argue into the abyss of pettiness and insignificance that one should never own a weapon for any reason seems both trivial and frivolous. If you do not like guns, that is great do not buy and own a gun but it seems disturbingly anti-American and anti-libertarian to infringe upon ones individual and private life in such a gratuitous way that is not adequately justified. It seems morally condescending and is analogous to the complaisant patronizing that the “morally superior” religious extremists continually engage in.

I do not care for destructive machines of death, which firearms most certainly are, but I also see the necessity of them in the military and police forces and I surely believe that it would be unconstitutional to revoke the rights of an individual due to the moral outcry and contemptuous ideology of either the religious right or the utopian left.”

Scientific progress despite religion

In the past I had come across a blog that had written a piece about evolution and its beneficial impact on humanity. Undoubtedly and most unfortunately some religious zealot full of pious indignation decreid the piece and began to spout religiousity as if his very stream of consciousness had began to retch uncontrolably. I then posted a moderate and unbiased response that refused to scrutinize or even consider the vitiole that permeated his mindless rant, which was most likely not his own but a regurgitation of what he had been indoctrinated to believe and say by his “religious leaders.”

This is what I said:

Science has provided humanity with such ‘natural miracles’ as modern medicine and all of its discoveries such as antibiotics, the development of vaccines, modern techniques of surgery, anesthesia, pharmacology, and biogenetic engineering. I could go on and on about the great discoveries, inventions, and innovations that are the direct product of science but that would encapsulate far too much space. Science has improved and impacted virtually every aspect of our lives and not even the pious Amish are able to avoid modern science and technology. The religious zealots that decry evolutionary science and modern psychology surely wouldn’t dare decry the innovations produced from such sciences. Through evolutionary biology we have developed advanced sciences such as genetics, phylogeny, and increased our knowledge within virtually all other sciences such as molecular biology and theoretical psychology. Evolution has extensive support for it through most of the various sciences; there are volumes upon volumes of scientific research and testing that support evolution through sciences such as biology, paleontology, archeology, geophysics, geology, theoretical psychology, genetics, planetary science, and phylogeny to simply name a few. To decry either evolutionary science or psychology is to illustrate ones inherent ignorance and inability to reconcile ones ‘faith’ with that of science (how dejected).Now in light of all that science has provided humanity what has religion given us? The answer to this will undoubtedly vary from person to person but the best they can assert is that religion provides comfort and the hope that life will be better in a suspected afterlife. The real answer is that the best religion has given us is a blind and misguided sense of the world, the worst it has given us is continual bloody “holy wars” as in crusades, pogroms, and jihads; it has fostered hate, bias, ignorance, slavery, murder, genocide, tyranny, poverty, and evil (to use religious language). Religion has effectively improved absolutely nothing where as science has and will continue to do so despite religious opposition.

Violence and Peace

I recently encountered a few atheists that were rejoicing in the church burnings that have made the news recently they went so far as to celebrate violence itself. I was taken aback by the ignorance and aggressiveness that was on display and even encouraged.
One individual claimed that they have always wanted to burn down a church and now they see how easy it is, they claimed that the news was "fucking awesome" and that all churches should be burned down. In response I said:

While I am completely unimpresed by religious belief and find what goes on inside a church to be lame I completely denounce arson. Burning down Churches is a very destructive and negative thing to do. If it turns out to be atheists then we have all been tainted by the morose actions of one or a few individuals. Who ever is going around and burning down any building for any reason is a criminal and an idiot, I really hope that this cannot be linked to atheism.

There was then discussion about violence and there were individuals claiming that they enjoyed violence, that it was necessary and that they would not hesitate to be violent. I then said:

I have found no reason to resort to violence and I find no reason for anyone else to do so. The only situation that I could foresee myself using violence would be if I, or those in my company, came under violent attack and physical force was needed to counter the situation.
Violence is a manifestation of our primal instincts and animal urges that should be overcome. We are afforded a highly advanced conscious awareness that is unequaled within the animal kingdom, we would do well to actualize our potential and harness our characteristics to the fullest extent possible. Violence is a characteristic of our lesser evolved ancestors and those that embrace such depravity have not yet fully grown into the human race. Humans have the ability to abolish needless and senseless violence and when one does not do their best to rid themselves of such animal behavior they endanger everyone.
To me violence is a form of irrational ignorance and I deplore both irrationality and ignorance so it is natural that I oppose violence. Being a secular humanist I believe that violence is never the answer and that one should use the power of their mind to resolve conflicts. We cannot afford to accept mindless violence and aggressive animal behavior.
While we deplore the violent Muslim reaction to the Muhamad cartoons we must also deplore the burning of churches. We must oppose not only religious violence but violence against religion, both are unacceptable. We need to promote peace, acceptance, tolerance and intelligence; only then will we know anything of true freedom.

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” – Isaac Asimov

“You never need an argument against the use of violence, you need an argument for it.” – Noam Chomsky

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.” – Mohandas Gandhi

“Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.” – Albert Einstein

“Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

“Peace is the virtue of civilization. War is its crime.” – Victor Hugo

“All we are saying is give peace a chance.” – John Lennon

Hindu extremism

I have noticed that many atheists, nonbelievers and secularists spend a good deal of time rebutting the irrationality of the religious. Here in the US and abroad the majority of attention is given to Islam, Christianity and Judaism (in that order) but I have always maintained that all religion regardless of it’s inherent passive neutrality is just as capable of producing extremism as are other religions.
All religion, despite its apparent passiveness, is just as capable of extremism, hatred, intolerance and violence as any other religion. Many people believe that religions such as Hinduism are exempt from this extremism and I have been doing some work illustrating the falsehood behind these notions. I have found some very depressing evidence of religious extremism all over the globe and from every religion imaginable. Hinduism is apparently more than capable of producing its own form of extremism; I read a case of some extreme Hindus killing another Hindu for having killed a cow and then stating that the life of a holy cow is worth more than that of a Hindu and then sited quotes from Hindu religious texts. Hinduism is also built upon a very decrepit caste system and there is unbelievable chauvinism within the religion. I just wanted to throw Hinduism into the mix for a change so here is a good article I found, it’s a little old but sadly there is not much coverage of Hindu extremism in the media, which is very biased and potentially dangerous. The article is from The Washington Times:

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040113-085244-4546r.htm.

(If the above link does not work use this one: http://hinduextremism.blogspot.com/)

Prayer is selfish beggary

I made some comments about prayer on an atheist blog that seemed to spark some controversy with the religious.

I said that prayer is an example of weakness and helplessness. It is the ultimate example of beggary, wanting something for nothing. It illustrates some of the worst characteristics of human nature and provides evidence for B.F Skinners learned helplessness theory.

I then asked what the use of praying is when one believes that god has a plan for them. For if one prays for something within god’s plan then that something will happen regardless of prayer, conversely if one where to pray for something that is not included within god’s plan then that something will not happen regardless of prayer also, so either way prayer is ineffectual and useless. My comments created a ripple of outrage and spawned several other religious blogs to create posts about prayer. Ironically no one even attempted to answer the question of the futility of prayer at all. They merely asserted that not everyone prayed for “presents” and selfish reasons, they said that some pray for strength and health. This was my point to begin with and I find it absurd for them to imply that I only thought people prayed for material gifts. If one is praying for good health then that would be just as good an example of beggary and selfishness as is praying for a new car. Rather than eat healthy, exercise, and live a healthy lifestyle one is begging a supernatural force to intervene and create these results for them – weakness, helplessness, and selfish beggary.

The nature of nature.

Looking up into the depth of the sky I am forced to reminisce my own childhood. To my young and developing consciousness the sky was always a sight of beauty and majesty. The piercing blue of the sky the billowing puffy white clouds rolling overhead, shape shifting; the random flock of birds flying in an effortless phalanx, the sense of something wonderful, powerful, and majestic; the sense of nature.
I have always sensed the power and majesty of nature. I have never sensed super-nature as the theists claim. You can see nature, you can feel it, taste it, smell it, and revere it. Super-nature is unseen, not felt, tasteless, odorless, and unbelievable.
As a child nature is seen as something outside of comprehension, it eludes the child. The child asks, “Why is the sky blue?” “What are clouds?” “What is beyond the sky?” “What is space?” The child is a natural philosopher using the scientific method and inquiring into the nature of existence. The child is the epitome of scientific reductionism, they ask “What is a cloud?” when they receive the answer in some degree they ask “Why?” The child, like me, is attempting to understand the nature of nature, what is the nature of nature and why is the nature of nature.
The only difference between me, a child, and a theist would be in what way we conduct our inquiry into these matters. The child utilizes elder authority and knowledge, I utilize the scientific method and the various scientific fields, and the theist utilizes religious doctrines and dogma. I inquiry into the nature of nature through nature, using nature to help explain itself, the theist intercedes super-nature to explain nature. They compound the questions, “What is super-nature?” “Why is super-nature?” The theist is misguided and confused, the nature of nature isn’t super-nature it is nature.
Why is the sky blue? Because of nature. What are clouds? Nature. What is beyond the sky? Nature.
When looking at nature, its mysteries, and its complexities do not heed the urge to swallow easy, hollow answers. Do not fall for the theist’s magic trick; fight the ‘transcendental temptation’. When attempting to understand nature use nature, then and only then will the true beauty, wonder, and majesty be revealed to you; only then will you be able to comprehend the nature of nature.

NDE's

I recently came across a question regarding N.D.E’s (near death experiences).

“There have been people who die but then get their heart beat shocked back with shock paddles right? Well do these people know what happens when you die or is the mind still temporarily going and it turns out to be like sleep?” – Monko

My response:

“It is highly improbable that what these individuals claim to have experienced i.e. “seeing the bright light” or “seeing dead family members” is actually realistic. When a physical body dies, the heart ceases to pump blood to the brain hence the brain ceases to receive oxygen and then literally begins to suffocate. The brain under such duress will function for a while before it completely “dies”; this is one of the reasons that people can be brought back to life by having their heart electrically pumped back into action. While the brain is still “alive” it is under immense duress from the lack of oxygen and is subject to fairly bizarre phenomena; it is known that a lack of oxygen to the brain produces a sense of “transcendence” and that one will see a world of explicit bright light, ask anyone that has been on one of those space shuttle force simulators. After death there is ample evidence to believe that existence of self ceases to be. Consciousness seems to be intrinsically bound to the physical realm through the functioning of the brain, after death the brain will cease functioning and will decay altogether consciousness following suit. There can be no afterlife with out a physical body based on the current evidence and research produced by modern science through fields of psychology, physiology, and neuroscience. In short the brain will continue to run for a while after the heart has ceased pumping blood through the body; much like when you cut off a large electronic item quickly and the electric charge remaining within the component runs the item for a short time before finally running out of electricity and shutting down completely. So the mind still runs for a time after immediate death, however, any claim made by the individual after such an occurrence that they saw the bright lights of heaven or their dead loved ones should be considered the delirious superstition being ascribed to the trauma of a suffocating and dying brain.”

The soul and the spirit.

My definition of spirit and soul in people is as follows: the spirit is the inspiring principle or dominant influence, always natural in my view. The soul as I see it is roughly defined as the “inner self”, the “private I”; the soul is the emotional part of an individual or the essential part and is really an extension of ones conscious awareness and personality. I find inconclusive evidence of a “spiritual” part of a person in the sense that the soul or spirit is a phantom like specter that inhabits the human body and upon physical deterioration and death is then released into the spiritual world of either heaven or hell. Understanding these two words as I have laid out there is no need for a supernatural existence to justify them, you can understand them in very natural and humanistic terms; or if you wish you may also define them as very miraculous, unearthly, and supernatural, but taken as they are defined in the English language one is not forced to do so, one may even be led to the more naturalistic definition; for influence is found in the “real” world, example: when one is hungry one is then influenced by physiological urges to eat and nourish themselves, when one is poor one is then influenced by society and a demand of decent living standards to acquire a general education equipping one with the knowledge and capability to produce an increase in revenue. The soul and the spirit are items found exclusively within nature and can be seen as material, there is no necessity to ascribe supernatural attributes to these two items.

Is Atheism Dangerous?

A large number of people claim that atheism is damaging. “You must accept god!” they shout, “Without god, there’s debauchery.” They maintain that atheists are the pariahs of society intent on its destruction. In their eyes “godless infidels” are attacking government, religion, education, and the culture, hence the “culture war”. According to these views atheists are only content when actively destroying and manipulating all the over bearing goodness that religion has created. Do these claims coincide with reality? Do they have bearing in truth? Of coarse they don’t. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god, and/or no supernatural entity. I claim there is no god, the religious cry “heresy” ironically enough heresy literally translates into “choice”. Having a choice is engaging in free will, do not the religious believe in free will? Having a choice has never hurt anyone, making the wrong choice is what causes damage. Atheism is merely the choice to posses ones own belief that there is no god. Not believing in the supernatural won’t hurt you, it won’t hurt others, and it won’t deter progress; as far as I’m concerned it is progress. So is atheism dangerous? I say no more than theism.

Why does religion prevail in the age of science?

It is now almost 2006 well into the new millennium and religion appears to be as strong as ever, certainly stronger with regards to religious extremism; christian fundamentalists like Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, and James Dobson, or the plethora of muslim extremists seem to be on the rise. Presumptions and prophecies that religion would die in the age of reason and rationalism have obviously been mistaken. Well, why is this so? Why does religion persist despite having been proven wrong time and time again with regards to it’s inherent supernatural explanations of the universe and life? Along these lines and inquiries Richard Dawkins wrote an essay with insightful observation. In it he asks why religion has evolved with humans and persisted through out the generations.

“My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other species, we survive by the accumulated experience of previous generations. Theoretically, children might learn from experience not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child brains with the rule of thumb: Believe whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents, obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Obey without question………Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal leaders tell them. And this very quality automatically makes them vulnerable to infection by mind viruses. For excellent survival reasons, child brains need to trust parents and trust elders whom their parents tell them to trust. An automatic consequence is that the “truster” has no way of distinguishing good advice from bad. The child cannot tell that “If you swim in the river you’ll be eaten by crocodiles” is good advice but “If you don’t sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, the crops will fail” is bad advice. They both sound the same. Both are advice from a trusted source, and both are delivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect and demands obedience.”

So as Richard Dawkins illustrates in this small excerpt from one of his essays, religion persists as a sort of adaptive survival quality misfiring.

Evidence for Evolution

Evolution 1) is the gradual process by which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
2) a) the process of developing b) gradual development
3) a) change in genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of a new species. b) the historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
“In biology evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of a new species.” – wikipedia.org

I was intending on writing specific evidence for evolution that I have read, studied, or come across but I don't really have the time plus I found a great piece on the evidence for evolution on wikipedia and I’ll just use that for now to read use this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

Opening statement

Religious faith and belief have a weight and substance that requires intelligent comprehension, understanding, and an obligated examination. One purview of this blog will be to interpose the various subjects related to religious faith and belief. However, the design of this blog will not only be offering the skeptics challenge to religious views and belief but offering a perspective from a secular humanist viewpoint and perspective. Following this statement is a greatly elongated “essay” on my individual humanist beliefs; I would greatly enjoy any response to it, however brief and hasty. I ask that you read through at least one of the points in it to respond, I dare not request the reading of it entirely.