Heaven Sounds Like a Boring Place to Hype Up

"Welcome to Heaven, where your soul will be spending all eternity."

The Kingdom of God. A title like that should boast some profound imagery into some individuals. To me, well, I find it a mediocre title.

No one exactly knows what happens after death, but there are those - predominantly the religious - who claim otherwise. I often play on the philosophy if you haven't experienced it don't bother explaining it, but then again, I never had buttsex and that's easy to explain. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you aren't able to observe or examine it, then don't bother. If there is some sort of technology to examine the soul or spirit, then I would throw out those claims, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no soul nor spirit. There are those have a lot of spirit in them, but that's just a personification of their actions and not what they have in them.

Why hype yourself up on something that may not happen. Ever since humanity has domesticated itself, the hype of life after death has been programmed to be passed on to other generations. I don't care if its been 2000 years since the Christians have hyped up their afterlife or about 1400 years for the Islamic; the hype is just a hype and nothing else.

Then again, why hype yourself on something that may happen? Have you ever had an experience where a friend of colleague gave you high ambitions to attend an event or a place, but when you get there you realize it was all for naught? Who knows, maybe heaven will be a place in the clouds where people play shuffle board. You can't eat and you can't drink, because face it you're a spirit now and what you were used to on Earth is no longer necessary in Heaven. Discovering and examining would no longer be necessary, because everything is already explained. Well, if God couldn't explain to us why we're here on Earth, then he'll have all eternity in heaven with no breaks in between. God is going to be like that uncle who never shuts up in a group conversation. The Islamic's have it great with their 70 virgins claim for afterlife, but then again it's also a hype and there's no other explanation on what kinds of virgins they'll get - maybe infidel virgins? Let's see the Jihadist wag their dicks at that.

Yes, there are those in the world who live a short life - due to disease or genetics - and it seems very natural to ease one's sorrow with thoughts of another life for others and oneself, but when it comes down to it this is the only life. Short, long or agonizing, this life is the only one.

I'll end off with this video clip from the Colbert Report where Steven Colbert interviews an Anglican Bishop about Heaven [Phase 1] and Earth 2.0 which got me riled up about this heaven business.

Heinz you disappoint me

Since us Torontonians are in the midst of Pride week here, I thought this news would be appropriate.

This ad was banned in the UK

The Heinz Deli Mayo ad has been pulled after less than a week on air after viewers complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that it was "offensive" and "inappropriate to see two men kissing".

I thought the ad was funny, because who the heck would expect a Macho New York Deli guy doing such a thing. Also, kids these days are exposed to a lot of other sexual things in advertisement and two men kissing ain't the worst of it.

Other complaints include that the ad was "unsuitable to be seen by children" and that it raised the difficult problem of parents having to discuss the issue of same-sex relationships with younger viewers.

Remember when we were kids and the thought of kissing girls was and absolute no-no? We'd often make this face?[smiley4] How do you think kids will react to two men kissing? They'll laugh and more often than not there will be those who will question the act to their parents. I'm not speaking to all parents, but to those who live a P.C. life - what is the harm in explaining? If you're the ignorant ones who say "Oh it may influence them to join the life style" I will most definitely question your thought process. I'm not a parent, but as a child I remembered hating not getting a straight answer to any of my questions a child. "I'll tell you when you get older" response often leads to "well I didn't see it coming" in the near future.

Gifts from Above

Well, not really - more like California. I purchased two items from richarddawkins.net. I ordered the A for Atheist lapel pin and The Four Horsemen DVD. The one thing that took me by surprise was that I got also the AAI Conference DVD as well and I didn't order it. I guess someone working at the store is really passionate about giving away free stuff.

I really need to find time to watch these DVDs and read all the books I picked up. So far right now I am on the third chapter of The Origin of Species; Finished A Letter to A Christian Nation in one read; read a few pages of Nothing to be Frightened of by Julian Barnes; and I have The Blind Watchmaker unopened, but I am eager to read. I am treating The Origin of Species like a school text book and reading a chapter every week. It's too large of a book to digest in one sitting. I am debating whether I should pick up Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, because I remember watching a BBC special witht he same title. Is the content in that video be a true representation of the book? I cannot decided at the moment, because I am absolutely swamped - both with work and reading during leisure time. Although, all of these books are extremely antithetical, I do indulge in fiction books as well.

I am 2/3 done Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens. I never read the book in my life. The book is littered with misery, helplessness and religion. For some odd reason, I actually enjoy the book. I think it's because Dickens knows how to paint a picture with words. The first chapter sealed the deal with me with his writing style. I also have in my posession the three books from Lord of the Rings, but those will be read much later on this year or possibly next year. I've watched the films first and always wondered what Tolkien wrote to illustrate the world of Middle Earth and aided Peter Jackson in his vision. The last of the new books I have in my posession is the Swiss Family Robinson in a small almost leather bound soft covered book I bought from the Goodwill. I heared good things about Swiss Family Robinson from fellow peers.

Question: Have you read any Antithetical books that inspired your transformation?

George Carlin

One of my most favourite Anti-Theist comedians died tonight. He has brought laughs and powerful insight with his brand of comedy. His words will live on and will teach the future about the ironic reality of our age.

The first time I've seen Carlin's work was when I was an impressionable child watching Shining Time Station - a children's television program about the on goings in a magical train station. I recognized Carlin throughout my childhood as Mr. Conductor. When I grew up, possibly around my mid to late teens, I discovered a lot of content created by Carlin that was totally outside my first impression of him from Shining Time Station.

The internet was young and before Youtube there was Napster. I found audio clips of Carlin's comedic work on the early P2P network and just found his work astounding. It wasn't until the "You're All Diseased" stand-up with his views on religion and God where I found similar feelings from his observations. I remember my parents having a listen to "You're All Diseased". Confident that they raised me with God in my mind and heart their response was as banal as the next religious defender: Take it with a grain of salt. There must have been a lot of salt I wasted and tossed over my left shoulder to realize that salt goes on food and not in the eyes of the devil.

Carlin is possibly the catalyst started my slow transition. I owe it to his loud mouth and speak no bullshit personality. Carlin is truly a legend and he will be missed.

Gay Marriage: California the Second State

Two states down... a shit load to go! Las Vegas, Nevada eat your heart out. Well, that's until some other state allows quick same-sex marriages [possibly Nevada]. These slowly, but surely gay marriage bills being passed in the States is an absolute revival of the legal institution of combining those who love each other. The demograph has changed and now the church is losing control to their [un]holy matrimony ceremonies. I say good! We need these pushers and shakers to penetrate public discourse. Those of you who are against it really need to open your mind and accept it. Congratulations to the newly wedded gays in California!

The Dread of Zed

In an attempt to please the leaders of Hinduism, Rajan Zed - An Indo-American leader himself - has called for a worldwide boycott of the movie "The Love Guru" and Viacom/Paramount.

If we were dealing with a very prominent film...I'd still have a lot to say, but the fact of the matter is The Love Guru is a Myers comedy! I would understand if Zed were boycotting a serious film that deals with Hindu stereotypes, but again [must I stress enough?] we're talking about a Mike Myers film. With his long line of stereotypical characters Myers' played [skin eating Dutch, bad teeth British, Fat Scotsman... The list goes on] you'd think the Hindus would have a sense of humour. Nope.

A follower of Zed's cause, Janjagruti Samiti and his lawyer have this to say, "it appears to be mocking and ridiculing Hinduism… Cinema is a powerful medium and it can create stereotypes in the minds of some audiences, especially in the minds of younger audiences, who are passing through an impressionable phase. We do not want our next generation to be growing up with a distorted view of Hinduism and Hindus." I would really like to see this religious group protest in front of cinemas around the world. This will be like the Catholic rally and protest against Kevin Smith's Dogma... only with browner people [Oops! too soon?].

The most laughable request Samiti's lawyer proposed was this:

"If the filmmaker wants a lower rating, they should pre-screen it for Rajan Zed, us and other Hindu leaders, edit the material objectionable (if any) to this group and re-submit the movie to you."

This would be like giving the Mormons editing rights to the film Orgazmo. Yeah thanks, but no thanks. Judging from the early reviews on Rottentomates the movie will probably be a flop, but it could go the way of You Don't Mess with the Zohan and take second place this week. This battle is just more controversy to add more press to the film. Zed knows that and it's possibly his plan to magnify the Hindu religion with this PR stunt. The one thing he forgot was that his opponent is a dead cow [Now, that is too soon!].

Holy Shit indeed!

Offending the invisible friend

Do you remember the Da Vinci Code back way when? Yes, that one where all the Christians and Catholics rallied to boycott the movie. Oddly enough, I watched it with my mom when I was still very much in faith. I liked it. My mom liked it and she's hates blasphemy.

Anyway, a recent report states the [Sith] Pope Benedict of The Vatican banned the filming of Angels and Demons in any of the churches in the City of Rome. The reason? The story is an offense to God and hurts the religious faithful.

Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, head of the Vatican’s Prefecture for Economic Affairs, said that Dan Brown had “turned the Gospels upside down to poison the faith. It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into mendacious films in the name of business.”

It's funny how they don't see the irony. Religion if fine to inject itself into the public sphere with its contaminated message. There are Christian sects that invade homes with their ridiculous claims of an invisible man and his zombie son. What's wrong with doing the similar thing in your so called "house of god?" What? Did he give you the stern look down at your and said "My house my rules! If you don't like it get out?" The religious need to realize that fiction often inspires more fiction.

Useless Discourse

Cultural studies was probably one of the best courses I took through out my post secondary education. Not only did it open my eyes to subjects about feminism and racism, but it also showed me that science - if used under inane pretenses - can become the bane of society. Right when the first colonials labeled the "others" living on this Earth have there been idiotic claims to catalog and even conquer those where not "us" through racial/physical discourse studies. Michael Foucault introduced extreme cases of early American scientists cataloging madness at insane asylums. As extreme as that is, why do I find this report adding to the circle of these discourses?

At first I read it with no humour in mind, but within the writing of the article Regina Nuzzo made me laugh when she said "A link between male homosexuality and finger lengths isn't holding up, and a claim that gays have distinctive fingerprint ridge patterns is largely discredited." So while she lists a multitude of "scientific claims" on what being gay looks like, she is in effect saying that the studies are a waste of time.

There are those who truly want to know the truth about how people become who they are. I personally think it starts with birth all the way to personal experience. That is something you can't measure by the standards of science, because everyone is different and reaction to certain stimuli exposure differs as well. It would be easy for me to plug in a religious reference in here, but I won't, because you can make up your own mind about this topic.

Religion has a good way of scaring you into telling you who you are and who you are not. While science has a good way of telling you how the world and universe works, it cannot tell you who you are as a person.

We Trust, In Bob

The Chicago Suntimes reports Steve Kreuscher changed his name to the most familiar used phrase on American Currency.

"I didn't want to use my own money because things are tight," said the father of four. "Three weeks later, I got my (tax) rebate check for $600."

Last time I checked, Steve, tax rebates are your own money. As a father of four you could have used that money towards your children - if they are still dependent - or temporarily alleviate your monetary shortcomings.

"There are billions of artists out there. If you don't do something to stand out in the crowd the world won't recognize you," We Trust said.

You could have just called yourself God, Lord of the Cosmos, but I guess you had to rip off someone else's work. Very Piccasso of you.

Maharaji?

Flipping through the channels I stumble upon a broadcast of one man on a podium. His words are eloquent, precise and clear. On the bottom right hand corner of the screen the words "Words of Peace" are permanently placed in position. 'Uh oh' I think to myself, 'another televangelist.' Curious as I always am I try to wait for his next spout of god propaganda.

I listen and wait for the key word, but it never appears. He begins by saying "Peace is not exclusive to any religion. Peace can be achieved by you and I." I sit there attentively trying to wait for the words among his long list of colourful metaphors. When he speaks, he is a very passionate speaker. He holds on the every important word and pauses dramatically to leave some rhetorical thought. It's odd, if this man hadn't said "Life is a [divine] miracle" I probably would have listened to the whole broadcast.

I was of course watching Prem Rawat, the guru, speaking to a large crowd of people at a peace event. There's no doubt that Rawat means good with his teachings, but it seems a bit washy with very banal observations about life. I think the only thing that may be of attraction to his speech would be his colourful metaphors about existence and the human race as a beautiful garden with a gardener. If I didn't know any better I would have fallen into his trap and purchased all his books and tapes about achieving inner peace. It's amazing what a little charisma can do.

I often wonder how Atheist charisma could be presented. Trying to imagine Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris to do what Parem Rawat does for his awakening methods would cause the mind to explode. These three are with a passion against religion, yet they do not succumb to impassioned speeches to prove a point. It really is for those listening to find what drives them to listen. During a Q& A session in Lynchburg, Kentucky, I found myself cheering on Dawkin's responses to the religious while he would calmly state his case without unnecessary filler. Religion or so called enlightenment speeches always seem to be all about sprinkling the truth with spectacle; while the other side of the coin, the truth is more of the spectacle without unnatural emphasis put upon by the speaker. The lies are the ones that need sugar coating.

Hypodermic Meteor

Here's another theory of the origin of life for you to read [link]

Are we the product of meteors with genetic material that evolved into us and the things around us in nature?

A: Is the Earth is an accumulation of elements from our solar system and even bigger the whole universe? Then the answer is yes. It is possible the life around us on Earth is the result of meteors with genetic material encased within. The question remains, where did that material originate from?

I love questions about the origin of life on this planet, because there are endless possibilities that science can provide. I would rather think our ancestors fought our way to the top rather than be immutably created to serve an invisible being's will through religious slavery.

Atheism = I R Smart?

A Telegraph article reports that people with higher IQs are more likely to believe less in god. While I tend to believe this is true, I don't believe that being an atheist is solely exclusive to those with PhDs; Mensa members; or geniuses.

I'll provide an example using myself as a subject for a moment. I am university educated and hold an Honours Bachelor of Arts (HBA) degree, I am far from those in the high IQ bracket. I was hardly the top of my class. I hardly passed with a 4.0 or a 3.0; more in the vicinity of 2.40. I've taken some online IQ test [I dunno if they count] and find myself within the vicinity of 100-110. I always say that I'm at a smart person and the academic world can't measure it. Am I stroking and inexistent ego? Possibly, but I am far from dumb and that's for certain.

Much of the criticism the article receives, deals mainly with the ideal that Atheists can only be of high intelligence. Being smart helps, but one must be able to form their own opinion. While being educated in a post-secondary institution may encourage free thinking, there are those who can discover their own path. I think what I am trying to say is that there is a difference between being Atheist due to I.Q. and just being well informed. We cannot expect future Atheist to be of the professor variety and not the average person making minimum wage. If this were true, then Atheist would be a dying breed and go away like the elite language of the Romans. For myself particularly, I am using atheism to learn more about the world rather than sit on Pascal's wager and waste my time. While the report does bring a sense of "the more informed you are the more you will question"; it instead seems to insult at the same time, because of the extreme claim that only I.Q is only directly related to a lack of belief. I say it's more of a removal of reasoning and inserting rationality in its place.

Professor Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck College states in the report:

"Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response."

Religion is a primitive by-product of early human civilization. I don't doubt that for a second. What religion has morphed into is a dangerous trend of creating infantile minds among the masses. I constantly say this in my writing, but religion halts the mind and keeps an elementary way of thinking. The mind either regresses to believing doctrine as absolute, or the mind stays in a state of limbo [hate using this word, but it's a good word in this case] where an individual isn't quite sure what to think. The former are the fundamentalist and the latter are the liberals and moderates of religion. I always seems to associate the liberals and moderates with the Roman Catholics, because their look on the Bible is very tame that Pascal's wager seems enticing for those who cannot let go of their faith. In my case, if there is anything to be fundamental about anything, then being against all religions is the way to go.

Gay Economics

My objection with gay marriage is this: I HAVE NONE!

Unlike the homophobic and the Religious Reich I had no problem with the passing of the gay marriage bill in Toronto, Canada. Toronto became one of the early cities to accept marriage to gay individuals. On a personal note, I have a gay aunt who married her girlfriend two years ago. The marriage and ceremony functioned similarly to a man and woman marriage. I remember thinking to myself that this extra boost in gay marriages is good for those in the industry. This was back in 2006!

CNN reports 'Hey! Gay marriage in California can help our horrid economy!' Ding-ding! We have a winner! And the last horse finally crossed the finish line! [source]

You can't stop people from being gay and you can't stop people from falling in love. Get over the idea that marriage is a one track railroad and add a few more rails. In fact, I encourage gay couples to marry under secular conditions and leave religion out of your lives. You really don't need the pressure of the religious and their bigotry. Although, it can be used as fuel for the fire, I think it is best to not to associate yourself with the religious.

The Second Coming?

This is in no way about the second coming of Jesus. Instead, I am talking about the possibility of the second coming of Darkness. When I say darkness do I refer to the cooling of the sun where *blink* lights off permanently? Nope, I'm talking about darkness in advancement. This happened in the past once, it could certainly happen again.

Carl Sagan, calls it "A Thousand Years of Darkness" in early CE where science flourished, but then was dumbed down and absolutely obliterated by the Religious Reich creating blindness in reality to the people. I'll have Mr. Sagan speak on this topic:



It's the first time I heard about this section of human history. I find it sad and appalling. What once was a prosperous and growing city, became nothing but a pile of rubble and mindless zombies senselessly killing those opposed to doctrine. It's interesting how this ties in with my discussion about Christianity holding back space exploration in the U.S. [specifically upon NASA]. The religious want nothing, but to limit human integrity and have everyone clutch onto religious reason. Religious reason has done nothing, but caused pain and suffering - mentally and physically. There are those that say fundamentalist don't represent their religion, but in reality it's the fundamentalist who kick and shove. That kind of thing is hard to ignore.

Sam Harris: Letter to a Christian Nation

I finished reading Sam Harris' book Letter to a Christian Nation. While there was nothing jarring about his writing, because my views are similar to his views on Christianity, one more understand that this literally is a letter to the Christian Nation. When reading this book, you need to place yourself in a Christian mentality. Once you do that, you will understand how controversial the book is. Of course, the book is titled Letter to a Christian Nation, therefore if you are not Christian you need not worry about its contents, but if you are of any religion, this book concerns you as well.

The book reads as a response to all the hate mail from Christians fuming about his previous book End of Faith. Letter to a Christian Nation, is not at all a hard read. I personally zipped through the book in about three hours. It was almost like reading a 90 minute play, except the characters in the book were the religious and the spectators were you and I who are religion-free.

There may be those who will argue that Harris focuses on the negativity of some scripture doctrine, but think about it this way; if doctrine has negativity in it's writing and it's set in stone, then why are you following it in the first place? If the Bible is holy, then why is God a pretentious ass in the Old Testament and Jesus supports slavery and symbolic cannibalism of his body in the New Testament? Let me understand this, you as a Christian will pull on a dumb-show at mass every Sunday to eat the body and blood of Christ through transubstantiation. Does this practice not seem a little odd even for a blessing from a god? If you can keep your flesh eating symbol, then I am going to keep my First-person Shooting and Free-Roaming video games. The Christian bigot Jack Thompson, believes that video games are simulators creating killing machines. Well, let me be the first to say that Christians practice and simulate the act of cannibalism. Symbol or not, the act of presenting one's flesh and blood as a gift flashes images of crimson puddles, bruised flesh, bone and sinew. Seems more of a hellish dinner nightmare than a privilege to dine with the Son of God. Are you sure it was your God and not your Devil?

Harris not only attacks the scriptures, but he also attacks the fundamentalists who believe in Intelligent Design (ID). I am still reading The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin and I can see why the book was a paradigm shifter. While you can still argue over Darwin's Theory, there have been great advancements since The Origin of Species. DNA, Deoxyribonucleic Acid, the building blocks of life; medical advancements in vaccines; Unlocking the gnome, etc. All these discoveries and developments have all been lead by the notion of Darwin's findings. I specifically want talk about DNA, because this is important. Discovering the building blocks that make you and me -well, you and me -should have been the break in the religious fabric. Yet, looking back, the discovery was in its infancy. But, because of advancements in that field, scientist were able to do something Darwin couldn't prove: All living species are connected. How can the Religious Reich explain why we share DNA similarities with aquatic mammals to the small rodents? [link] Fundamentalists will say that the data means nothing within their doctrine. Why should it? It's impossible to feed a closed fish tank. Liberals and moderates will explain the mystery of god and the world and how these discoveries were put there by Him for us to tinker with as long as we don't go too far. Similar genetic markers between humans and other mammals isn't even news, these claims have been made even before I was born, but I am baffled that DNA never changed the minds of the religious. There obviously needs to be some sort of frontier that needs to be set and I believe we only have to look to the stars.

I'm going to end my comments here about Harris' book. Let me digress and ask you this: Who will bring us upward towards the stars and live within another domain? If your response is God.... then God help you. The answer is science. Humanity has had a slow progression in space exploration to Mars, because of constrictions. When I say constrictions, I talk about the public opinion, the government and the religious. Yes, this is more bashing towards the religious, because it is fundamentally their doing that we as a species haven't advanced further after our moon missions. NASA is an American institution in the wrong place or should I say shrouded in a majority population of devout Christians. These majority Christians won't support science, unless they're threatened with a deadly disease. What reason do they have to support space exploration and support leaving the planet their God gave to them as His gift? I think Stephen Hawking was right in saying that if humanity doesn't ascend into the stars we will most definitely falter as a species. While Earth has been a wonderful home, we must expand. God will not bring us to Mars, nor will he create livable habitats on its surface. Science and engineering will do the planning and construction. We all need to realize that Humanity was not placed in this universe on a silver plate by a invisible being, nor were we spoon fed doctrine by Him as well. We all need to realize that it is in our power to better ourselves and science has shown that the impossible is possible. If we all lived by doctrine, especially our scientists, then our world would stay flat without any advancements to improve our way of living. Let's tell the Christians the live like the Amish, because that is fundamentally what they want the world to regress into. There are those who often say, "Look around you and tell me that god didn't make those." I say, "While it is debatable, He didn't make those things. If it wasn't for science you wouldn't know its history or how it worked. It's as if God gave you a gift without any instructions."
I often look at this photograph [currently my wallpaper] and marvel at its beauty. This is a picture taken from the Mars Rover in 2005 of the Martian sunset. Mars' crimson sky graying into a blue haze towards the suns almost makes you wish you were there. This image alone enhances my perception of our solar system and universe. What seemed like science fiction becomes science fact. When we colonize Mars, let's see how the religious port their doctrine to those born on the Martian surface.

Solar Cooling, Global Warming

Sun spots. We learned about them in high school science classes and if you were one of the fortunate, you also learned about it in elementary school. A group of scientists are worried about the current activity on the sun [read article]. There are no sunspots on the sun. Nothing, Nada, ZIP! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! DOOMSDAY is nigh! *ahem* Sorry about that...uh...force of habit.

While scientist worry about this, I want to talk about how this may affect our current agenda and that's dealing with global warming. If the sun cools down during a period we are in a serious crisis of polluting ourselves, they might cancel the conceptions of the ill informed. I don't have to remind you that there are those in the U.S. - possibly in certain parts of the world - that don't believe in global warming or as I like to call it 'We're screwed if we don't do anything'. My stance on finding alternatives for energy is this: What we do now affects the future; much like how if I smoke now, and it doesn't kill me my future children may die from lung cancer [if you think that's bullshit watch Ghost in your Genes].

We are in need of a energy revolution. What worked in the industrial revolution will not work for us, because the after effects of that revolution affected us quickly than we expected. With new and cleaner alternatives, jobs will be created. We can finally learn to work with nature instead of against it as we did in the past and are still doing now. While I can acknowledge that there are some improvements that have happened within this decade, we need to take a giant leap and do a switch soon. There have been reports on cars that run on compressed air, and even as far as using algae fuel or bio-diesel.

Yes, I know a little about economics and if the world quickly turned tails on oil, the economy would go in the dumps. Well we are slowly, but surely in the dumps and it's not due to the depletion of oil, but because of U.S. strain in the middle east. I do not trust corporations and oil companies are the worst of the worst. There really needs to be a different rhetoric in the energy business, because this current model is choking us to death in more ways than one.

So let's put this in to perspective and summarize shall we? The sun, our cosmic source of energy, is a good clean source of energy [although it does give skin cancer, but that's if you stay in its rays too long]. Oil, the blood of the world, that corporations and government try to control and thus control the people. New energy alternatives, provides an energy revolution, more jobs and allows us to find an equilibrium with the world. At our current rate we are killing the world and our selves. The sun is in a - scientist worrying - cooling stage and I think this will send waves of animosity to those who find global warming bullshit and, even worse, cause Christian groups to cause a mass panic. I don't know what's worse dying a slow death or having Christians scream that everyone should repent... or dying slow while Christians scream that everyone should repent! That's a hair puller ain't it?

Shadow of... Good God who wrote this?

We got a stinker Uwe Boll can direct, if he wants to do one on a book. I haven't read the book [I'll probably pick it up if it's on bargain bins at the low low price of FREE! HA!], but there is this popular review going around the internet that I thought I'd share:

154 of 156 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
The Worst Book Ever Written--The Shadow God, by Aaron Rayburn
January 19, 2007 By Charles Moore

"Trapped under a beam with the countdown ticking away, the monster just on the other side of the battered door, and my friends are trying to free me, I look up at them and yell, "Go on without me. I'll be alright. I'll hold him off while you escape!" And my friends, because they know my sacrifice won't be in vain, make their getaway and when the monster breaks through just as the explosives go off, I know I died saving the lives of my dearest friends."

That pretty much sums up my experience reading Aaron Rayburn's novel, THE SHADOW GOD. I took one for the team, so the rest of you would NEVER have to be subjected to this beast. I beg you, don't let my selflessness be for nothing. Heed my warning. This is the worst book ever written.

The back cover copy reads "Craig Johnson had two best friends, two caring parents, a hot girlfriend, and a nice truck--not bad for a twenty-year-old." Already we're in trouble. The author photo shows Rayburn in all his mid-20s virginal glory. Manson contacts, a black cap turned backwards with a red 666 monogrammed on it, he's posing next to what looks like a rubber demon. His bio includes the line "He also says that he owes a great deal of gratitude to the Devil . . . for filling his mind with such horrific images."

If this book is the most horrific thing the devil can come up, I think humanity is safe from the threat of hell.

There are so many things wrong with this book, I decided to keep notes so I could present them in an orderly fashion, with quotes to back me up. I don't want you to take my word for this novel's horridness, I'm going to let Rayburn speak for himself. We'll start with the plot.

Craig Johnson was cursed at birth when his parents left the town church led by the possibly-evil Father Spiers. Spiers then tricked Craig's father Matt into strangling him, only in the end, Matt had killed, not Father Spiers, but one of the doctors. So Matt's been in jail Craig's entire life. Shortly after Craig's 20th birthday he begins to notice a blue light emanating from his bedroom closet. He calls for his mommy (I'm not making that up, it's on page 14), but she doesn't see any light, so he plays it off like he'd seen a rat, and asks her to check in his closet. After she leaves, Craig is compelled to enter the light, which takes him to the Dark World, which is sometimes like a vast black void, paved of course cuz you have to have something to walk on in a void, and sometimes is like Craig's own neighborhood, complete with the houses of his friends. Those friends, Todd and Mark, are also pulled into the Dark World, but they make their escape and then begins the action as the three try to solve the mystery of the blue light and the dark world. To sum up--this book is 454 pages, okay?--Craig is the reincarnation of Abel, the Shadow God is Cain, and Father Spiers is Cain's acolyte, sent to prepare for his return to the real world. In the midst of all this Mark is killed and resurrected by Ridley, a club owner/satanist (he runs The Satanist Group Association. Again, I wish I was making this up!) and servant to Spiers and the Shadow God.

Craig's girlfriend, his mother, his father, as well as Mark's sister Margie and Todd's parents, are all killed and the cops think Craig did it. One cop does, anyway, Detective Jim Underwood, son of the doctor Craig's father Matt strangled to death 20 years earlier. DUN-DUN-DUN!!! There's a showdown where Craig is sucked into another portal to face Cain, who then becomes a dragon, and Todd jumps in to help his friend, they all die--except Craig--and we live happily ever after.

Okay, I know it doesn't seem THAT bad from the plot. But I haven't begun quoting yet. Mark Twain said, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug."

Rayburn wasn't even close.

"Spiers's eyes popped extraneously from their sockets, as his face turned from a deep red to a sickly purple."

"Extraneous" means "irrelevant." I don't think that's what he meant. At least, I hope not.

Here's my favorite:

"The lamp's glow was very weak compared to the blue glow emancipating from the basement."

Emanating, Rayburn, EMANATING. When will people learn never to trust their SpellCheck without verifying it's the word they meant??? There are, in total, 11 instances of Rayburn using the wrong word, and believe me, each one is funnier than the last.

Okay, one more.

"It infiltrated his lungs, filling them with a kind of innovativeness he had never felt before."

To be honest, I don't know what word he meant, but I keep seeing Craig's lung filing patents for a dozen new inventions, getting promotions for discovering an even newer formula for Tide laundry detergent, or finding the cure for cancer.

Then there are the characters. Craig and his buddies are all 20, they're in college, and they have cars and money. Craig bribes the guard with hundred dollar bills when he's trying to get in to see his father in
prison. Yet never in the entire book do these men go to class, nor to a job. Where did Craig get his "nice truck"? His mother works "odd jobs", so I doubt she co-signed the loan.

And the dialogue. Oh dear, the dialogue.

"That's probably the fiercest dragon known to man," Craig tells Todd toward the end. Because, you know, we have so many different kinds of dragons in the world with which to compare.

Okay, so he uses the wrong word and his characters are morons. You can overlook a misused word here and LOTS of writers are horrible with characters. Hell, I'm guilty of this myself. But sometimes he just
plain gets his facts WRONG:

"The stranger was beastly in size with thick, bushy eyebrows, a prominent protruding forehead, and a thick, black coarse beard. His gait was that of a mammal--a Neanderthal."

I know I never went to college, but um . . . do you think Rayburn knows HUMAN BEINGS are mammals as well?

And later we learn that Cain and Abel were Neanderthals who lived in the stone age, feared dinosaurs, and that Cain was kicked out of the Garden of Eden for slaying his brother. Dude, Cain and Abel weren't born until a LONG time after Adam and Eve--the only two people who ever lived in the Garden of Eden--were kicked out.

And not only is this the worst book ever written, it's also the worst-written book ever.

Behold:

"Of all the things to think, he never thought he'd think that."

And:

"Already, he knew he wouldn't be able to do it. In fact, he KNEW he wouldn't."

???

Wasn't that already established in the previous sentence?

"Eubanks looked annoyed. He exhaled annoyingly and said..."

You know what? I could do this all night.

THE SHADOW GOD is the perfect example of everything that's wrong with publishing in today's world. Anyone with the notion--talent or not--can write a "book", then contact a place like AuthorHouse ("publisher" of this fine volume and, I'm sure, Rayburn's second novel which I don't care enough to look up the title to), and unleash this mess on an unsuspecting world. And then we wonder why no one reads anymore. Why should they? If this is the kind of stuff they're being subjected to.

Used to be a writer had to learn to WRITE before they could get published. Now, all you need is a couple thousand dollars and you got yourself a book. Talent? Who needs it? Skill? What for? Learning to write? Are you kidding me? Forget about it, I've got this here manyooscript and an address I can get it printed, I'mma be one of dem novelists. Riches, here I comes!!!

It's enough to make aspiring writers want to give up seeking legitimate publishing venues. Please don't. Just be sure to write better than this guy. God knows it won't be difficult. Or should I say, God knows it won't be deficit.

Review Source: Amazon.com

So there you have it people. A story inspired by the devil. Holy Shit!

Sex from God

Sex is good for a loving relationship you say? Is this some sort of revelation from god? *gasp* I dare not say for I shall be shunned! Where the hell did the media scrape these people off this world? Oh right, America.

Makes you wonder what the hell Pastor Wirth and his wife did prior and during their marriage, don't it? The other guy is much more of an idiot. "Uh.. yeah there was this book [about this thick - Zing!]about having a good marriage, but hey, you know the Pastor had a simpler solution." You can tell his thinks the report is stupid. WTF! It's called sex people! It's not rocket science!... Well rocket science if you know what I mean eh? Eh? *ahem* But that's besides the point!

Just watch these people talk as if they found the holy grail:



Holy Shit: Shit Holier than Thou is a new segment brought to you by Religion-Free. News that makes you go "HOLY SHIT!"

Reading Darwin

Let's just say already milled enthusiastically through the first chapter. I think what aided in my enthusiasm was the Historical Sketch and Introduction section of the book. Normally, when I tend to read academic writings, I often ignore the notes and intro, but reading through the Historical Sketch, I found it an eye opener.

Let's get the record straight: Darwin, although paraded as the poster-boy of evolution was not the only person discover the idea. In fact, there were numerous scientist and naturalist that presented the same argument of evolution.

For the longest time prior to my understanding about Darwinism and the theory of evolution, I initially thought that it was Darwin - and only Darwin - who thought up the theory. From what I understood from reading these notes was that Darwin had an immense database from his trip around the world on the HMS Beagle. The Origin of Species does not only use his data, but Darwin also uses theories from similar studies at the time [i.e. Wallace, Lamrack, his grandfather, etc.] to back up his claims.

In an article I read in the Smithsonian Magazine titled On the Origin of a Theory, Richard Conniff comments that it was Wallace who drove Darwin to finish The Origin of Species. Both Darwin and Wallace were rivals in their studies, because they both have had similar findings, but Darwin and Wallace corresponded with each other in their research as the article mentions. It is probably a given that both realized they were fighting on the same team and corresponding with their findings would help both parties. I honestly think that those who wrote articles about a small aspect of evolution (most authors spoke of certain animals and their certain traits passed on through generation) was just a unit from a much larger system. What Wallace and Darwin did was gather all the units, whether it be other essayist claims, Wallace's findings in the Amazon or Darwins massive database and create a much bigger picture of life; or in this case The theory of evolution. You can probably see why I was enthusiastic to read the book after reading the two notes prior to the first chapter.

I found the first chapter pretty easy to grasp. Even a non-academic in science could read the book and understand the writings of Darwin. Darwin introduces the arguments that work and work against the claims in the book. In other words, he lets the reader know the both sides of the spectrum about scientist and/or observers of animals. There are scientist [and one Rev.]who believe that animals are immutable, while he also mentions those whom he believes makes his findings possible.

I've noticed he talks a lot about his pigeons and I can see why a lot of commentaries about his work joke about Darwin and his pigeons. Yet, his work with them explain much about passed on character traits from one generation to another. This is due simply to the fact that pigeon generations are easy to observe, because of quick reproduction.

There was one sentence in the book that made me laugh out loud. Basically what Darwin said was that if you told a farmer that his live stock did NOT originate from a long horned cow the farmer would laugh at you. I laughed, because I would like to challenge that notion. I'm certain I can be proven wrong that farmers know about selective breeding, but it seems plausible just to ask and see what kind of response you will get.

Trying to reproduce the first chapter in my own words will be long and labourious for myself, but I find myself very fascinated in my reading of the book. If you're a believer, I would suggest you read it, because it will keep you informed of what the other side observes.

*****
Dad and I on Darwin

I went into a mini discussion with my father (a devout Catholic) about The Origin of Species.

This is an interesting story. I was in the basement reading and my father asked me what I reading. I told him it was The Origin of Species. His initial reaction was a scoff. He told me that Darwin was an idiot and he can't believe people believe his writings. If I wasn't informed about the subject I wouldn't have entered into a discussion with my dad, but I told him in simple terms, "If not Darwin, it could have been X,Y, or Z to hold the torch of evolution. If it wasn't for his large database from his findings on the HMS Beagle, there would be small claims about evolution." I never saw my dad puzzled, because he normally was the one to teach me.

He said that he read Darwin's book, but it was when he was in the Philippines. Since I know he was raised under strict Catholic rule, I could tell why he had such a bad experience with the text. I told him about Wallace and how he could have bested Darwin, but retracted a bit, because Darwin did have enough evidence from his world tour. Initially, I thought were were going to go into an religious reason argument, but he actually suggested he read the text again. He said he was young when he first read it and he thinks a re-read would help. I guess because both my dad has no stress about writing reports about reading Darwin's book, this may be reason why there is interest. In fact, I have no stress reading the book either. I guess as a child, my dad found reading academically an habitual chore. After our conversation about Darwin relinquished into a history conversation, I told my dad, "I love science." and he said, "Well, love science and history."

Even though we both disagree on some things about life, we manage to find a common ground between us.

This Just In: McCain can just Fuck-Off!

At first I thought it was going to be one of those out of context pieces, because the first clip was cut short, but when the second clip played stating his ideal candidate would be some one who will uphold the Christian ideology - I started to pay attention and grind my theeth. I only ask you to watch:

5 Things Atheist Must Consider

I don't believe in god. I reject religious faith. I want out.

When one comes out and denies god, one must consider the consequences. The consequences are whether one wants to be an educated or an uneducated atheist. Leaving your faith is one thing, but one must be educated enough respond to believers. A simple, "I don't believe in Christ [Mohammad or Moses] and God" does not quite cut it as a response. When considering oneself into an Atheistic mind set, one must understand that being a non-believer requires a lot of hard work.

1. Know how to defend yourself from Bible-thumpers - The one misconception religious people believe about atheism is that they think atheist don't know doctrine; which is an explanation for the fall out. There are atheists that know more about the bible and its contradictions than any religious person. Most religious people know their faith through church sermon lies.

2. Read Atheist Publications - Remember you aren't alone. There are those who have questioned their faith. Their views are the other side of the argument that is constantly muted by the religious. If you strongly agree with the publications then you are on your way. If you find yourself easily offended, then you may want to consider your stance.

3. Study the facts from other Religions - Sounds ridiculous right? But, it is not! Being an atheist doesn't mean rejecting the exclusive faith you've practiced. Being an atheist means you deny all faiths. By better understanding other faiths from your former religion, you get an understanding of what you are rejecting on a global scale.

4. Never use the word 'evidence' when speaking against god - This response is constantly used when Atheists answer, "I don't believe in God because of evidence" Always contend the question of god with a legitimate question: to take an example from Richard Dawkins in all his interviews says, "Why do you not believe in Thor, Zeus or any other non-Judean Christian God?" This will definitely lead into discussions, but the question proves a point on belief.

5. Research an "I dunno, God knows" topic - Question something that would make your primitive religious self say "I don't know, God knows" and research the topic. [Note: This has helped me coincidentally when a religious person questions something that can be scientifically explained (i.e. how is a rainbow formed)]

I hope these 5 Things Atheist Must Consider help you as they have helped me with my stance of Atheism. I never claim to have all the answers, but I do the best to my ability. The one thing I would suggest Atheist to do is read Darwin's The Origin of Species. If you can appreciate Darwin's findings, then your are on your way [Journal to come soon on my progression of reading The Origin of Species].

In the News - Science 1 - Superstitious Religion 0

Science:
Novel bacterial species found trapped in Greenland's ice [link]
A great discovery was made by scientist in the coldest countries, Greenland. They found microbes in the deep ice that approximately dates back 120,000 years. Here's the kicker: The microbes are still alive! They will definitely learn a lot about ancient earth with this discovery.

Superstitious Religion:
Albinos, Long Shunned, Face Threat in Tanzania [link]
Albinos are being hunted for their body parts, because uneducated and superstitious people believe that albinos have magical powers. Their eyes, skin, limbs and breasts are being sold to those who believe in this stupid superstition. Apparently, witch doctor's are seeding these ideas in the mind of the mass. This is a sad case of ignorance of the condition and personal prejudice from witch doctors and their followers. It is a shame that the cradle of life, Africa, is far from progressing.

My Journey to Freedom

s a child growing up in Catholic Elementary and High School, I never quite grasped the concept of the Bible. I always found science better at explaining the reality of the world rather than the mythology of the Bible. The schools I went in both Elementary and Secondary where not Bible thumping schools. In elementary, we always lead each day with our national anthem and prayers for the day. In high school, it was every once in a while the school would attend church, but in classes learning was top priority. Science class never deviated from the facts. We'd make lab reports based on hypothesis and observations. I often wondered if anyone in that class at any given point in time used the "God" excuse to explain their findings. I found myself rolling my eyes when someone mentions "God" as an absolute explanation. You know when sometimes you experience something, but don't have all the facts yet and some idiot beside you says, "Oh well, only God knows." That's when I roll my eyes. Anyway, my love for science was soon replaced for my love for the theatre; drama and art. I always found creating entertainment to be a calming experience. I once tried to go back to study science in grade 12, but for some reason I wasn't cut out for it's advanced curriculum. I eventually dropped science class in the early semester and focused my work in creating art. I've never looked since.

This leads to my university career. My first year lead to turmoil when I broke up with my high school girlfriend of three years. Where did I turn to for ease? That's right, I turned to religion. I went to church every Sunday for that year, but my attendance slowly declined in the following years. During my second year at university, I studied Greek plays and the gods of Ancient Greece. I found the subject very interesting especially the festivals honouring the gods [i.e. The Festival of Dionysus] and their importance in their world/plays. While it was an interesting class my faith was still very much a part of me.

The question of faith never entered into my mind until the first semester of my final year [September-December 2007]. I took a class in early English drama that studied The Croxton play of the Sacrament and since then I've discovered my decline in believing in a god or any such god. The story of The Croxton play of the Sacrament, revolves around conversion. It uses elements and teachings of the Bible to educate the audience. Not only are the characters in the play on the road to being converted, but those who were not Christian in the audience were encouraged to believe the teachings and convert. The play is very similar to racial profiling, because if you were not Christian, then you were the "other" in the religious dichotomy; either us or them as the saying goes. The story used elements of spectacle [power of the Eucharist] to highlight the Christian reason. I then started thinking about my place in my religion and where I stood. The play borrowed many of its themes from the Bible. I then started thinking about those who wrote the Bible and often wondered if there were similarities prior to Judaism and Christian belief.

It wasn't until I discovered Zeitgeist - The Movie, that had a powerful beginning about religion, a very questionable second act [9/11 conspiracies is not part of my skepticism] and a very strong third. After watching the movie I hit up sites such as Wikipeida to verify the similarities between Dionysus - since I was familiar with this Greek god - and Jesus. I then started reading about all the other gods [i.e. Horus and Set in Egyptian mythology] and compared it to the teachings of the Bible. It was staggering what I discovered. There was no doubt in my mind that I was living under a veil my whole life. This started the slowly, but surely transition into who I am today. However, not everything was clear cut as I was still on the fence.

In my final semester of my final year, exams came upon me. I was in much stress and under the pressure of trying to finish school. After I pseudo-rejected my faith my involvement in university became hard to control. Reality hit me hard when I realized that I didn't put much effort into my school work. So what did I do? You guessed it, I regrettably turned to religion. I begged and pleaded my god to help me finish school, because I could not stand thinking of taking summer school or another year.

In my mind I would often say, "So does it come to this? Do I have to believe in you in order to help me pass? I want to reject you, but it's so hard not to." So what happened? How did I go from embracing religion to sort of rejecting it to going back to it and then finally rejecting religion?

Let me tell you what I did weeks prior to exams. I stayed up late at night reading, reading and reading. I would often find myself in the library 24 hours. I worked hard, drank redbull and retained enough information for me to pass all my exams. Was it the grace of god who helped me through those times? Nope, it was all me. Did god fill me with the holy spirit to retain all the information I learned? Nope, it was all me. Did I give god any credit? Nope, because it was all me!

When my final marks came in I breathed a sigh of relief. I then went into a personal debate about my stance on religion and often talked to my father about his faith and his knowledge about the Bible. One of my friends let me borrow his DVD, What the Bleep!? Down the Rabbit Hole. After educating myself more and more I came to one crucial realization: I am in control.

I don't need a religious leader to tell me how to lead my life.
I don't need follow others.
I don't need to force myself into something I don't believe in.
I don't need god.
I can speak out for myself.
I am my own leader.
I am in control of my own life.

Coming to the realization that there is no god made me almost feel like a person being lifted into the three-dimensional world from flatland. I even went as far as comparing my new found freedom to being let go from the Matrix. The experience is just as profound and the similarities between letting go of religion and being unplugged from the Matrix are similar to gaining a new look on life. It is up to the individual to free ones own mind. As much as I loved the first Matrix movie, I could not help but notice that the following sequels represented a similarity to a saviour freeing humanity from evil, but I digress [I'll probably write something about it in the future blogposts]. Having the power to set one's self free is really an exhilarating experience, because I realized I've lived in ignorance my whole life. I admit I was weak at certain points, but I am stronger now than ever.


I questioned myself once: Now that I have this new freedom of the mind, would I ever want to go back?

The indefinite answer is: NO!

The Decline of Morality?

CNN reported a hit and run incident on June 5th, 2008. The video plainly shows a man getting hit by a car that swerved onto the wrong side of the road. Now the news reporter brings attention to the appalling reactions from the drivers on the road and the bystanders. The people on the streets seem to not only look upon the injured man, but they are also looking out for themselves as well. Also, moving the man after what he endured would have caused more harm than help. What I don't understand is why the on coming traffic were less cautious and treated the man as roadkill. There were those who were too quick to judge the bystanders based on the video alone. Watching this video reminded me of the many interpretations of the Rodney King video in the early 90s. In this video, the message looks indeed negative to those who were there at the time of the accident.

Then the report switches gears and interviews a man of cloth to set morals:

"It was one of the most despicable things I've seen by one human being to another," the Rev. Henry Brown, a community activist, said in an interview. "I don't understand the mind-set anymore. It's kind of mind-boggling. We're supposed to help each other. You see somebody fall, you want to offer a helping hand."

Thanks, Rev. I'm sure shooting your mouth off will help the cause. In fact, I hope you got the memo. The next day, CNN reported calls were made immediately after the accident. [Oopsie! Our bad!]

People helping others. Well, I never!

What do you have to say for yourself Rever? Apparently the fault doesn't lie in the bystanders, but it lies in the emergency unit for taking one minute too long to respond to immediate calls after the hit and run. This is one thing I hate when people make assumptions on a very swiss cheese report; you know the one with many holes or unanswered questions. Then here we have this man of so-called reason spout disgust in his flock, because of what he saw on tape with little or no information.

Holy Shit indeed.

Religulous

Bill Maher, the man behind the famous Politically Incorrect and Realtime with Bill Maher, created a movie questioning those who are religious around the world. This movie will shed some insight into the many views - not just the Christian view - religion plays around the world. Religion is not only the bane of all human existence, but it is also an hilarious subject. I look forward to this movie when it comes out.


View Religulous Trailer in HD @ Apple.com

Google Adsense Gone

I took down Google Adsense from my site, because the stupid ads support religion. The contradictory messages from the ads hurt the cause. Therefore, I am banning the ads from my site.

Have a nice day.

Doomsday Birthday

Whelp, I guess I won't have a birthday this year, because some lunatic who heads the House of Yahweh in Texas claims he believes nuclear war will break out. The man in question calls himself "Buffalo Bill" Hawkins. I'm guessing he's never seen silence of the lambs. Like all religions, what Buffalo Bill is doing is absolute torture to his weak minded followers. He is as creepy as Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs with the exception of making a suit made out of human flesh.



It's very odd to see how religion can mutate all followers common sense and their learned reason. This Buffalo Bill is not exception to the fact. Again this is one news report among many about religious cults, but it is really hard to ignore the fact skewed reality garners a large following of mindless zombies who can't think for themselves. Why is it so hard for these people to realize they can be the beacon for their own lives... I guess people want and need to be told what to do like children.

6000 Year Old Dinosaur Bullshit

The writers of the Bible did NOT know about the dinosaurs. The discovery of dinosaur fossils, as early as 1885, became the bane of existence to the bible. The Christian Reich had no explanation of these discoveries of ancient fossils. Yet, the religious devout took it unto themselves to blame it on the devil to test faith. However, more recent events in the news show Christians horrendously trying to convince all that dinosaurs were in the Bible.

Read more after the jump:


I'd like to quote Lewis Black from Red, White and Screwed, "I can’t be nice about this, because these people are watching The Flintstones as if it were a documentary." The end of the broadcast was spot on. Everyone knows the saying, 'If you can't beat them, join them'? Well, in this case the planes of reality and the imaginary are being forced together with concrete and plaster to establish an abomination called the Creationist Museum. You say two Tyrannosaurus' were put onto Noah's Arc? Oh really? Humans and dinosaurs lived in harmony together? No way! If this is what brings religion to a whole new ignorant frontier, then I fear for the future. This is something that Religion-Free cannot idly look back on. Actions need to be made before this creationist cancer spreads within the strongest countries in the world.

Edit: I found this at religiouscomic.com. Perfectly illustrates what I thought about Noah's Arc.

The OUT Campaign

dam and Eve were not my ancestral parents. I don't get my facts from The Bible, The Koran or The Vedas. I am not a child of Yahweh, Allah or God. If you believe a man created an boat big enough to fill two of each species of animal on this planet, then I question your sanity. I don't believe in the claims Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about Jesus. I don't believe in the prophet Mohamed.All religious texts are plagiarized fairy tales that have poisoned the minds of the weak minded.

The human condition and the integrity of others is the most important thing in this world; not whose position of worship is right. The elegance of evolution is a better explanation than the claim humanity was placed here by an invisible being to praise his will. Rational thinking that goes beyond religious reason. I am not a scientist, but I am an independent thinker. I am your average consumer, tax payer, frustrated driver, and work force human being. I have freed myself from the mythological shackles that bound me to the wall of religion. I have open my eyes to the notion of no god to speak of and to beg my requests. I speak and answer for myself. The religious turn to god and pray for their fortunate life when it is themselves they should take credit for their fortunes. Religion is a way of keeping our minds infant and allowing their god and religious leaders to become their parents to tell them what to do with their life.

I live a religion-free life.

I am OUT.

Join the campaign and

The Garden of Mesopotamia

I stumbled upon several articles about Klaus Schmidt -[1] and [2] - who, with the help of Turkish archaeologist, discovered a place -dubbed Gobekli Tepe or Hill with a Belly - not seen in 10,000 years. I also managed to stumble upon several Biblical fanatics - [3] and [4] - who made some sort of pilgrimage to the site, because they believe that it is the place of where the Garden of Eden once stood.

The one article I found fascinating was one written by Sean Thomas - Paradise Regained? , who is a writer and a journalist for magazines such as The Times, The Guardian, Sunday Telegraph and Maxim. With a hefty bill of legit print publications [I often question Maxim's legitimacy in the print world... Now I don't have to.], I couldn't help but get stuck into his anecdote style of writing. The opening was good up to and until I read these words, "Even more remarkable, [GobekliTepe] might be intimately connected with the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden." My unadulterated reading turned into a Religion-Free analysis of Mr. Thomas' article.

His knowledge of Schmidt's work on the site is researched well. He tells the story of American Archaeologists who once visited the site and ignored it in 1964. In 1994, Schmidt found reason to believe to start digging at the site. He, along with his colleagues, found one of the oldest human artifacts buried intentionally. Thomas describes the site with weathered t-shapes stones ordered in a circular pattern and animal shaped carvings in stone. As I read his experiences at the dig site, I found Schmidt's work and discovery very interesting until Thomas popped the question:

"The link is becoming irresistible: a lost paradise, a forsaken lifestyle, a terrible ‘mistake’, even a solitary tree. Could there really be a connection between Gobekli Tepe and the Garden of Eden story?"

He goes home and consults his bible and comes to several conclusions:
1. In the Bible, the Garden of Eden is circulated by mountains.

2. Eden is located at the point were four rivers descend.

3. The fish in the local ponds were put there by Abraham.

4. The solitary Mulberry Tree.

He continuously tells the reader that the Adam and Eve story is an allegory, but he can't put down the facts he has discovered.

Let me put it plain and simple. Your finding excuses to put truth to a Biblical story. Of course the place is surrounded by mountains it's Mesopotamia!

1. A forty minute drive to the nearest mountain does not quite cut it as encapsulating that area by mountains. The whole town is surrounded by mountains within a very large radius.

2. Rivers come and go. These rivers you mention could have been formed after the Gobekli Tepe was buried.

3. While it is true humans, in history and even now, displaced many animals from their natural habitat - it is safe to say that anyone could have filled that pond with fish at any given time. Heck it could have been a man named Abraham; just not the Abraham you want it to be.

4. Thomas claims that the picture he took of the solitary mulberry tree [left] has something to do with the Garden of Eden. It's a tree that found nutrients in that one spot. And if that were a tree of the Garden it would be much bigger and older. That tree couldn't have been any older than I am.


Schmidt believes that the area they uncovered was used for some religious purpose and I think he is right. The placement of the t-shaped stones gives us an understanding of their superstition with death and rituals to please the gods. This is probably why we have tombstones. These humans could have been sun worshipers or it could have been possible a belief in the invisible all knowing gods of nature. Unfortunately, that's all left to speculation. Is this site a pre-Christian location? My guess would be sadly yes and no, because believe it or not Gobekli Tepe is one of the ritual grounds that helped develop all religious superstition that there is some invisible being[s] that need[s]to be worshiped.

Of course Thomas tells the reader to keep thoughts neutral about the whole bible thing. Despite the fact that he digs deep into the bible and his findings at Gobekli Tepe. There are two things I agree with Thomas: First, Gobekli Tepe is the greatest discovery about humanity and second his findings are highly debatable.

I like how Thomas ended his article:

"We are done. My heart is actually pounding. Together, Klaus Schmidt and I retreat to the tents for a final cup of tea. We discuss the Eden idea. He is adamant that it is just a theory, albeit a very intriguing one. As he says: 'Gobekli Tepe is important enough without any speculations.' "

That's Schmidt telling him gently to put down his Bible and look at the elegance of discovery.

Thomas continues:

"I have just one question left. Why did the hunter-gatherers of Gobekli deliberately entomb the complex? It seems a bizarre act, as well as a vastly laborious one. Again Klaus Schmidt shrugs.

'We don’t know.'

Sometimes those three simple words can be the most exciting of all."

This can be taken in two ways: Either Thomas is giddy about the discovery science unfolds or he is content with the fact science can't explain what they found and therefore his assumption of what he thinks is the first place of worship and the location of the Garden of Eden should be an option.

I say the latter, but then again that's highly debatable.

Oil and Water

Oil and water don't mix. A fact that has been tried and tested. This is why politics and religion are synonymously to this saying. The Washington post reports Douglas Kmiec, a republican Obama supporter [weird, I know], was denied communion at his Catholic church. The article then begs the answer to this question:

"Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny Communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights?"

Sure! Why not? It's their club after all. If they think making an example of Kmiec is the only way to show their discipline through denying unleven bread, then so be it. If he was denied the wine, oh! Then that's where all Hell breaks loose, but I digress. I suggest we use the Bible for examples such as stoning these kinds of people. Better yet, let's do as the Salem did and call Kmiec a witch and burn him at the stake.

Yes, I know that the communion is the symbol of Christ, blessed and consecrated by the priest himself, but why deny him communion? Why not lock him out of god's house? Why come over for dinner when you have to sit at the kids table with no meal? Those who lead your faith are your parents. Those who follow are their children. This is why religion has an element of control over their flock. They say they are free, but in essence they are in control as long as you are under their roof.

Politics is no exception, especially when you have people from the a religious flock inaugurated into office who claim god put them there for a reason or spouts god bless [insert country name here]. Oil and Water? more like oil handshaking water with their fingers crossed behind their back.

Fame goes to Jesus' head

This online troupe from Sydney, who call themselves The Delusionists, created this really funny video about Jesus. I have to say the person playing the slightly dumb chap is a really entertaining character. With all the effortless miracles, Jesus must have realized hard labour wasn't his cup of tea. Why do you think he had twelve disciples?

Check out the clip: