The A.I. of Theists:

(Or, “Who’s the Pinhead, Now, O’Reilly?”)

[Excerpt from my book, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of God Cosmology]

THE ARGUMENTS GIVEN BY many theists, especially those of the fundamentalist variety, can be referred to quite accurately as A.I.--Artificial Intelligence, AKA Arrogant Ignorance.

Poster boy for this concept? Bill O’ Reilly.

On a segment of his show, O’Reilly had Richard Dawkins as a guest, but Dawkins was not treated as such. In his usual, haughty, overbearing, arrogant manner, O’Bully made sure that Dawkins never had a fair opportunity to respond, and it was blatantly apparent that Bill-O had absolutely zero respect for Dawkins, and wanted everyone to know it by railroading him through the interview that was merely a chance for O’Bully to spew his own ignorant and fallacious dogma.

B.O.--> “I think it takes more faith to be, like you, an atheist, than like me, a believer, and it's because of nature. You know I just don't think we could have lucked out to have tides go in tides go out, sun go up, sun go down; don't think it coulda happened."

Witness Logical Fallacy #1: Argument from Personal Incredulity. "I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true."

R.D.--> "We have a full understanding of why the tides go in and out, why the continents drift about, why life is there. Science is ever more piling on the evidence, piling on the understanding--"

B.O.--> "But it had to get there, I understand that, you know, the uh, physiology of it, if you will, but it had to come from somewhere, that is the leap of faith that you guys make, that it just happened."

O'Reilly could not possibly understand the physiology of the subject matter, because if he did, he would not say "it had to come from somewhere" as if science had not already clearly explained the origins of most things.

R.D.--> "Well a leap of faith--you don’t actually need a leap of faith; you're the one who actually needs a leap of faith, because you are actually...the onus is on you to say why you believe in something. There are infinite number of gods you could believe in, but I take it that you don't believe in Zeus, or Apollo or Thor, you believe in presumably the Christian god--"

B.O.--> "Jesus. Jesus was a real guy, I can see it. You know, I know what he did.

Logical Fallacy #2- This is Petitio principii or Question Begging. He assumes because he can imagine Jesus, and because he believes there's a book that tells him about Jesus, that Jesus therefore exists. This can also be an Argument from authority: Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Of course in this case, the authority is O'Reilly himself, as he has an over-inflated view of his own authority.

...You know, I’m not positive that Jesus is God, but I’m throwin’ in with Jesus, rather than throwin’ in with you guys, because you guys can't tell me how it all got here, you guys don’t know."

This is an example of the Logical Fallacy known as Ad hominem. An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another's claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.

R.D.--> "We're working on it, it’s--"

B.O.--> (laughing derisively) "When you get it, then maybe I'll listen."

This is the Straw Man argument, another Logical Fallacy. It imposes a misrepresentation of the other person's stance; namely, that science pretends or claims to explain everything.

R.D.--> "Well now, if you look at the history of science over the centuries the amount of knowledge that was gained is just stupendous. We don’t know everything, we have to be humble, we have to say in humility, that there's a lot we still don't know--"

B.O.--> (collusively, sarcastically) "And you know, being humble is a Christian virtue--so there ya go..."

Watch any episode of O'Reilly's show, including this one, where he arrogantly makes statements about history and people and events that he is clueless about, pompously derides and dismisses anyone who disagrees with him, and one can see clearly that humility is most assuredly not something O'Reilly understands or practices.

R.D.--> "Well, I suppose it is, but--"
B.O.--> (dismissively) "So, when you guys figure it out, then you come back here and tell me, because until that time, I’m stickin' with Judeo-Christian philosophy and my religion of Roman-Catholicism, because it helps me as a person.”

R.D.--> “Ah that's different. If it helps you, that—“

B.O.--> (not allowing him to complete the statement) "Absolutely."

R.D.--> "If it helps you, that doesn’t mean it's true--"

B.O.--> "Well it's true for me. See, I believe it.”

This is a Logical Fallacy called Non-Sequitur. In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists. To say "it's true for me (because) I believe it" is to say two things with the same meaning, neither of which provides a logical explanation of why one believes.

R.D.--> "You mean true for you, is different from true for everybody else; how can you say--

B.O.--> (talking over him) "Absolutely, because I came through--"

R.D.--> "It either is true or not—“

B.O.--> (talking over him) “I can’t, no, no, I can't prove that Jesus is God; that truth is mine and mine alone, but you can't prove to me that Jesus is NOT

This is the Logical Fallacy known as ad ignorantiam. The argument from ignorance. It basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true.

B.O. (cont) so you have to stay in YOUR little belief system, and—“

Another ad hominem argument (personal attack).

R.D.--> "You can't prove that Zeus is not. You can't prove that Apollo is not--"

B.O.--> (sarcastically)"I saw Apollo, man, he was down there, man, he's not lookin’ good. Now. We also differ in that you believe that religion has been a bane, B-A-N-E,

This is a fallacious homonym attack (I made that one up) meaning, it's a suggestion that there is a homonym for "bane." The only one is bain, which is a type of bath, and I'm sure viewers didn't confuse the two.

B.O. (cont) to civilization and think that atheism has, and I will point to the worst mass murderers in uh, modern times: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot

Pol Pot believed in an altered form of communism derived somewhat from Buddhism. Hitler was Roman Catholic, and as previously cited, said in a speech that he killed Jews for GOD; the others were not atheists in the modern sense, and their actions and decisions had nothing to do with their atheism, but with their communist and Marxist views.

B.O. (cont)...all confirmed atheists, all people who wanted to wipe out religion. Now I know you can point to the Crusades, and you can point to Al-Qaeda right now, I mean it's there, there's no question, but I’m sayin’, I’m throwin' in with the Founding Fathers

Now, when he says Founding Fathers, does he mean the 57 who signed the Declaration of Independence? Or the 39 Convention Delegates who signed? Does he include the 18 OTHER Founding Fathers in these numbers?

B.O. (cont) of the United States which [sic] saw religion and spirituality as a moderating influence as a good thing if people embraced the true tenets.

Which "true tenets" does he refer to? The Founding Fathers were of many differing beliefs.

B.O. (Cont) Go ahead."

R.D.--> (finally given permission to speak) "The Founding Fathers of the United States were secularists above all, some of them were religious and some of them were not but they were above all secularists who believed in keeping the church and state separate--

B.O.--> (interrupting) "They had to, because of the oppression in Europe.”

R.D.--> “That’s what they were...precisely, but--"

B.O.--> “Almost all of them, they all said a prayer before their deliberations,

Not true. In Albert Henry Smyth's 1906 edition of The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Franklin preceded the actual motion for prayer before deliberations with a page and a half of explanation supporting the idea. After the motion, there is a footnote by the editor that reads: "Note by Franklin.--'The convention, except for three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.'" (vol. IX, page 601).

B.O. (cont) in their letters and I have almost all their letters,

This is highly unlikely, as "almost all" of their letters are not yet available to the public. The 70,000 documents of this kind, from 900 different locations, including foreign repositories, are compiled and published by Princeton University. Jefferson's represents the largest number of these. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 34, from 1 May to 31 July 1801, is 816 pages, and sells for around $100. This represents only 3 months of Jefferson's letters. It's improbable that B.O. is telling the truth, here.

B.O. (cont) they all referenced the deity, our Declaration of Independence referenced heavily

Referenced Heavily? Out of the 1,319 words comprising the Declaration of Independence, there were only 2 mentions of a deity, comprising 3 words, "Creator" and "Divine Providence." Hardly an example of "referenced heavily." And it might be noted that The Founding Fathers were a mixture of all kinds of belief, including deists, non-believers and agnostics. The phrasing was careful to be inclusive, but not overtly Christian, nor even mildly religious.

B.O. (cont) but, they saw it as a moderating influence, because the federal government at that point couldn't control the country and they said you know if people follow Jesus, the country is gonna be better—“

R.D.--> "It may well be a moderating influence, as for Hitler and Stalin and of course--Hitler was a Roman Catholic—“

B.O.--> "No, he never was, He was raised in that home, he rejected it early on--"

Hitler was a Roman Catholic, just like Bill O'Reilly. Perhaps that's why he was so quick to deny Hitler's religion-he did not want to be aligned with him. This doesn't, however, make the denial accurate.

R.D.--> "Well we can...we can dispute that. Um, Stalin was an atheist, no question, but Stalin did the bad things he did not BECAUSE he was an atheist, I mean, Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches but we don’t say it was their mustaches that made them evil—“

B.O.--> (laughing derisively) I don’t think they had any moral foundation, any of those guys...

Again missing the point. As if there is any question that there was a lack of moral foundation. This statement is a type of throw-away, underhanded comment used as a rhetorical device that clouds the subject matter. Atheists don’t think Hitler and Stalin, et al, were moral or ethical. They acknowledge they were despicable human beings. But Christians will never let an atheist explain that fact. That’s why so many of us have to write books. So we can get a word in edge-wise, and state the case without arrogant interruptions.

B.O.--> (talking over him) I will say that your book is fascinating, you know congratulations on your success and thank you for coming on here."

R.D.--> "Thank you very much indeed."

Now, while Dawkins was being every bit the gentleman, and endeavored to use the usual conventions of intelligent debate, O’Bully continued to run over him, dismiss him, deride him, make light of him, and generally show his hypocritical, Fundie ass.

First, to elaborate on the footnotes, regarding B.O.’s statements about the Founding Fathers, and his pompous mention that he owns so many of their private letters, and this is how he knows they were Christians (which is the obvious implication)—while some were, others were not, and in no way was the Declaration of Independence founded on the precepts of Christianity. Never are the words Jesus Christ, God, Christianity, or the Bible mentioned. Nor are they mentioned in the Constitution of the United States. Furthermore, the 1796 Treaty with Tripoli begins, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…”

In reality, the Founding Fathers’ beliefs were a potpourri of religions and non-religions. Among them were Protestants, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, and anti-clerical, which meant, in modern terms, deists, though some of their writings suggest several of them could have been agnostics and/or atheists.

Regardless, religion was never the reason for any of those documents and the ideas they represented. As Deists, many of them believed the world was created and then left to it’s own devices; that there was no personal God watching over things and listening to prayers; nor penning holy tomes for our edification. The Founding Fathers were also staunchly for the separation of church and state.

Consider the following quotes from these exact letters that B.O. mentions:

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition, Christianity, one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology.”(Thomas Jefferson).

"... Some books against Deism fell into my hands...It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was in-tended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist" (Benjamin Franklin).

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind” (Thomas Paine).

"I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not" (Ethan Allen).

“Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus” (Thomas Jefferson).

“What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.” (James Madison).

And from Paine’s Age of Reason:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief and for my own part, I disbelieve them all” (Thomas Paine).

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites to support roguery and error all over the earth” (Thomas Jefferson).

O’Reilly’s additional assertion that Hitler was an atheist and though born into a Catholic home, “rejected that early on” can be addressed quite simply by going to the source. Let us examine what Hitler really believed by using his own words, first in a speech, and then set down for posterity in the infamous book Mein Kampf.

In a speech that Adolf Hitler gave in April, 1922, and then published in "My New Order", he proclaimed:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who--God's truth!--was greatest, not as a sufferer, but as a fighter."

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

"Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.

When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."

Volume I of Mein Kampf was published in 1925, and Volume II in 1926. It is a political treatise mixed with biographical features. Note that Hitler was 36 years old when the first volume was published. This does not indicate to me, as it did to O’Reilly, that Hitler rejected his Catholicism and turned atheist “early on.” Since Hitler committed suicide on April 30, 1945, at the age of 56, and his stance on his religious beliefs had not appreciably changed in relation to what he had written in Mein Kampf, as relayed by Richard Steigmann-Gall in The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity:

“Hitler often praised Christian heritage, Ger-man Christian culture, and professed a belief in Jesus Christ. Hitler, despite his native Catholicism, favored aspects of Protestantism if they were more amenable to his own objectives. At the same time, he adopted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical organization, liturgy and phraseology in his politics.”

Hitler’s belief system touted a "Positive Christianity", which could be divorced from the traditional Christian tenets he found objectionable, and which reframed Jesus as a hater of Jews.

To illustrate the beliefs that Hitler held, one need only read these portions of Mein Kampf:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

(Volume One: A Reckoning. Chapter II: Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna): Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children.

(Volume One: A Reckoning. Chapter VII: The Revolution): Therefore, the stature of the theoretician must not be measured by the fulfillment of his aims, but by their soundness and the influence they have had on the development of humanity. If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth, since the fulfillment of their ethical purposes will never be even approximately complete.

(Volume One: A Reckoning. Chapter VIII: The Beginning of My Political Activity): The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy.

(Volume One: A Reckoning. Chapter X: Causes of the Collapse): …the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties--and this against their own nation.

Seems to me, his opinion of atheists, was the same as his opinion of the Jews.

“Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter I: Philosophy and Party): A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter II: The State): How boundlessly unideal and ignoble is this whole system! People no longer bother to breed the best for posterity, but let things slide along as best they can. If our churches also sin against the image of the Lord, whose importance they still so highly emphasize, it is entirely because of the line of their present activity which speaks always of the spirit and lets its bearer, the man, degenerate into a depraved proletarian. Afterwards, of course, they make foolish faces and are full of amazement at the small effect of the Christian faith in their own country, at the terrible 'godlessness,' at this physically botched and hence spiritually degenerate rabble, and try with the Church's Blessing, to make up for it by success with the Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs. While our European peoples, thank the Lord, fall into a condition of physical and moral leprosy, the pious missionary wanders off to Central Africa and sets up Negro missions until there, too, our 'higher culture' turns healthy, though primitive and inferior, human beings into a rotten brood of bastards.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement Chapter II: The State): It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter II: The State): Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith. And so today it stands more firmly than ever. It can be prophesied that in exactly the same measure in which appearances evade us, it will gain more and more blind support as a static pole amid the flight of appearances.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter V: Philosophy and Organization):…only because, thank the Lord, they have become thoroughly convinced by now of the ineffectualness of their own speechmaking.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter VI: The Struggle of the Early Period): …the Significance of the Spoken Word...But since, thank the Lord, this cannot be done…

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter VII: The Struggle with the Red Front): In this the Catholic Church can be regarded as a model example. The celibacy of its priests is a force compelling it to draw the future generation again and again from the masses of the broad people instead of from their own ranks.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement, Chapter II: The State): [White girls are] given to the earth by God's grace…of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the di-vine will. Lord, protect them…on God's earth…

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter X: Federalism as a Mask): And God does not follow the principle of granting freedom to a nation of cowards…

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Move-ment. Chapter XIII: The German Post-War Policy of Alliances): And this action is the only one which, before God and our German posterity, would make any sacrifice of blood seem justified: before God, since we have been put on this earth

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter XIV: Eastern Orientation or Eastern Policy): God help us if victory does not reward our arms on the very first day.

I think it’s quite clear, amid his rantings about the superiority of the Aryan race, that he feels justified in his actions and beliefs because he feels he is doing God’s Work. Hitler saw himself as a soldier of Christ. And evidently, the Catholic church agreed. The Pope called Hitler's opposition to Russia a "high-minded gallantry in defense of the foundation of Christian culture." So—Bill O’Reilly, unsurprisingly, was wrong on every point in this interview with Dawkins.

On richardawkins.net, a poster named maton100 said on April 19, 2007, “O'Reilly called Dawkins a ‘pinhead.’ On the other hand, if O'Reilly's brain was even close to the size of a pin, you'd still have enough room left over to write The Epic of Gilgamesh on it.”

Well done, maton.

The A.I. of Theists:

Whining Pariah

Colorado.......I'm sure there are kindreds out there (I do have a fabulous best friend, 2 hrs away, but i mean OTHERS). I am so anxious to meet all the people in the social groups I've joined online already. The degree to which I want this move is palpable; I can think of little else, and my level of stress reflects my fear that it might be delayed, or--unimaginably--not possible at all.

Here, where I am, I always feel like a stranger in a strange land. I feel like the pariah. (Don't forget, this is the Bible-Belt). I feel like most of the people I come across in this region are not on the same page with me...(careful not to sound elitist). I have to change this situation before i claw my own eyes out! I am not usually the pity-party type, but i do feel powerless in many ways, about this, yes....Hell's Bells. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm whining. I hate whiners. lol.





But I HAVE been isolated for a long time. Mostly not intentionally--it just sort of happened that way. I work at home, (so no workplace connections) don't attend church (hiss!), don't have kids, no partner, no family, (no play dates or gatherings or surrogate family) I have already done the college thing (8 years)...so yeah, since those are things that naturally encourage socializing and support networks, and just the ebb and flow of PEOPLE-- I'm in an odd, unfortunate position.

I've spent years having most of my relationships online--and we all know those aren't "real" relationships. I want IN PERSON relationships again. These are ALL good reasons I know i have to relocate to a place where there are diverse things and people--and within reach. As a real estate agent will tell you, it's about Location, location location.

Around here, everything is spread out and you have to drive all over the place to get to something, and then, there's really not that much to choose from. It's like I've discovered I'm a steak, misrouted, trapped and hiding in a baloney factory.

When you are generally from "Southern stock", it's often hard to break free of the brainwashing that goes along with it--though I was one of the first in my High School class to "get the hell outta Dodge." Many here are trained to think in the box, wear blinders, drown the boredom in liquor, and have all their information fed to them, never learning anything new because everything they could possibly need to know was handed down through the generations. ("If it was good enough fer my daddy, it's good enough fer me.") It blinds these people to all the wonderful opportunities and experiences to be had out in the world.

I have been aware of all this for a long time, but am only now figuring out what needs to happen to change the rut--the formula has been all wrong, even if the good intention was there. I tried for a long time to defend the region I've been in for large chunks of my life, (denial) and I kept moving around looking for a place to call home, and I was unhappy in every place I went, until it finally dawned on me---I'm just moving to another place like the last place. I'm always fond of reciting the definition for stupidity to everyone else: doing the same things over and over and expecting different results...then BAM! I'm the stupid one.

Now, I need to shut my pie-hole.

(damn novelist).

Whining Pariah

Anything But Zen

Disclaimer: This post in no way represents any doubt about what i believe as far as religion. This is just part of the journey when you seek the truth. Some of it will be hard for your emotional-self to assimilate. But i believe that solutions exist and writing about it, talking about it, is my way of finding those solutions.

This morning, after letting my dog, Giz out, and making coffee, I went back and opened the door to call Giz in, and instead of his name i just shouted, "Helloooooo!"

A sign of Ginkgo Biloba deprivation? Early onset Old-Timers disease?

Though it is my tendency (or coping mechanism) to make light of things, I think the event was much more troubling to me on another level. I think i have a deep seated-- or maybe Deep-SEEDED -- recognition of a particular Universal fact: I'm alone...there's no one "out there" to save me...but i'm still in that stage of calling out into the void, just to make sure.

On the road of life, there are leaders, followers, and those on the shoulder, trying not to get squished by the first two types who are whizzing by, while they try to fix the flat on their car, that is also just about out of gas...that's me there, with the half empty can of fix-a-flat. (Hi.)

I have always had this "luck" issue. I've felt, as a rule, unlucky. So, naturally (?), religion, popular or esoteric belief systems, motivational speakers, and alleged "Laws of Attraction" have all appealed to me at different times in my life. All those roads led to atheism, for me. I am, and have always been, ethical, though, admittedly, angst-ridden. Even when i take on all the responsibility of making all but ONE thing happen in a given situation--the thing out of my control--it doesn't happen, and I am unable to reach some of my most important goals. This example and others like it have led me to examine this subject more deeply. Since my induction into unbelief, when I feel powerless, there's no one to blame, no one to make deals with, no spells to cast, no one to pray to--it just IS. But this is the embodiment of "isness" that is anything but Zen.

While I am completely onboard intellectually, in this atheistic personal cosmology, I still struggle with the emotional and philosophical aspects. It's like the adult in me made the decision and moved on, but found the child crying, and had to take her by the hand and find some way to reassure her that everything will be all right....that concept, that paradigm, is a metaphor for the larger picture. I am aware of the almost genetic need of humans to have something bigger than themselves, someone in charge, some Universal Parent who gives them a sense of protection and safety. But i know there is no Universal Parent, and this leaves me orphaned near this swirling black hole, and I am on its Event Horizon, nanoseconds away from getting sucked into the nihilistic abyss. How do I reconcile Emotion and Intellect in this matter? How do i frame my personal cosmology? How do i "de-program" my mind from this cultural-psycho-social-childish need for a greater power than myself, from whom I can seek help and comfort?

As I've said, you have to be able to recognize your truths in the daylight before you can find them in the dark. I need to understand this so that I won't have a constant battle inside myself, like one of my gay-Christian friends who believes she will burn in Hell for being gay, yet still worships this god of hers. I would, literally and with literary allusion, be going from the Frying Pan into the Fire.

Does my luck have anything at all to do with my personal cosmology and how I assimilate it, or are they two different things altogether?

Anything But Zen

"Here, Hold my Brain while I Vote..."

I sent around an email quoting Eve Ensler, the American playwright, performer, feminist and activist best known for "The Vagina Monologues." In it, Ensler delineates the many frightening beliefs for which VP candidate Sarah Palin is known. After an exhaustive list that includes Palin's devout creationism stance (which would include believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and evolution is a myth). Ensler elaborates:

"Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God."

Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not. She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes.

Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference.

This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth. Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.

Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be."


When i received a quick response from one person on my email list to whom i sent this information, i saw this even more frightening statement:
"she just got my vote. I believe in guns."

I firmly believe in the right to bear arms--I'm a single female who currently lives alone and I want to be able to protect myself if necessary; and though i have friends who are hunters, I have never had the stomach for it, and am fine buying my meat already prepared for me to cook--I do believe that some animals are here to feed us. It's part of the food chain...BUT.......There is a profound difference between gun owners who use them for protection or to legally hunt in order to provide for their families and thin out overpopulated herds of animals that cause great distress to our ecology, and hunting merely for sport. What does Palin do with the wolves she kills? Make wolf-burgers? Both wolves and polar bears are endangered. What would be the point of hunting then, other than her own sick satisfaction in killing an animal?

And don't even get me started on the creationism/fundamentalist aspects. I strongly believe that extreme religion is anathema to all of us --refer to the repeated violation of our constitution by those who want to teach "creation science" (an obvious oxymoron) in our schools, and the most vivid and horrifying example that has cost us over 500 billion dollars and the lives of thousands of people after 9-11.

Here's some informative tidbits about Palin from Grizzly Bay
which has been online since 2007, long before Palin was selected as VP candidate. Go to the original page for verifying links off this information...

All facts below about Sarah Palin are backed up by links to credible news sources
1) She is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest (even if victims are children)

2) She offered a bounty of $150 for each left front leg of freshly killed wolves

3) She is presently under investigation in Alaska for abuse of power

4) She strongly supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

5) She promotes aerial hunting of wolves and bears even though Alaskans voted twice to ban the practice

6) She used $400,000 of state money to fund a propaganda campaign in support of aerial hunting

7) She is a champion for big oil and her campaign slogan has become "Drill, baby, drill!"

8) She believes creationism should be taught in public schools

9) She believes man-made global warming is a farce

10) She is opposed to listing the polar bear as an endangered species because it might limit oil exploitation

11) While mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire the city librarian because the librarian refused to censor books

12) She supports the Alaskan Independence Party which seeks independence from the United States

13) As mayor of Wasilla, she made rape victims pay for their own forensic evidence kits

14) She is opposed to listing the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species

15) She obtained her first passport just last year (2007)


Photos of Palin's Killings

Let me say that I am neither Democrat, nor Republican--I am an Independent. I choose my candidate according to whether or not they are best suited for the job of healing this broken country. So this is not a partisan argument. But the level of ignorance this email pronouncement ("she just got my vote. I believe in guns.") illustrates, is, i believe, part and parcel of the thinking (or NOT thinking) present in far too many people in our society. The more cogent points get missed, the deeper ramifications get overlooked, and the skills of discernment and wisdom are shockingly absent. The scariest part of all? These people are allowed to vote.

"Here, Hold my Brain while I Vote..."

BIG NEWS!!!

I was just offered a publishing contract for my novel, Plethora.

I'm excited. All that hard work paid off!

Details pending.

(I still await word from another publisher about a different book.)

BIG NEWS!!!

Richard Dawkins at Lynchburg Women's College (pt. 2)

PART 2: Richard Dawkins reads excerpts from The God Delusion and answers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia on October 23, 2006. This Q&A features many questions from Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University" students.

Richard Dawkins at Lynchburg Women's College (pt. 2)

Richard Dawkins at Lynchburg Women's College (pt. 1)

PART 1: Richard Dawkins reads excerpts from The God Delusion and answers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia on October 23, 2006. This Q&A features many questions from Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University" students.

Richard Dawkins at Lynchburg Women's College (pt. 1)

The God Banana

On YouTube, recently, a video was posted of a Christian program called "The Way of the Master" wherein the hosts, Ray Comfort and actor, Kirk Cameron gave their argument for creationism based on the "design" of a banana.



Included in their argument were points they said showed that the banana was a product of Intelligent Design, i.e., God. They said the banana is shaped to fit the human hand; that it's color-coded so we know when it's not ripe, when it's overly ripe, and when it's just ripe enough; that it has a handy pull tab, and perforations to allow peeling, and it is sweet, delicious, and nutritious, and even bent toward the mouth so nicely, tapered on the end so it can be pushed in with ease...this was their "proof" for God as Creator of the Universe and all the fruit in it.

Well gang, this is where it helps to know something about science. The wild banana-the one "God" created-was almost inedible. It had hard black seeds inside it. The banana references in history were related to it's original form of plantains. It wasn't until 1836, that a mutant banana was found by Jean Francois Poujot, a Jamaican banana farmer. The fruit was yellow instead of green or red. Cuttings were taken from the mutant plant, and over the years, genetically engineered BY MAN to be what we find in the supermarket today. Since the genetically modified fruit, known as the Cavendish Banana, had no seeds, it had to be grown through cuttings. So there were no God-given convenience factors in place originally, as Comfort and Cameron suggest, nor even did they originate in the proper climate.

Bananas do not grow simply from seed. Man intervened long ago and crossed two varieties of African wild bananas, the Musa acuminata and the Musa baalbisiana, got rid of the many seeds that were an unpleasant presence, and improved the flavor and texture from hard and unappetizing to its present soft and irresistibly sweet flavor.

Today bananas must be propagated from large rootstocks or rhizomes that are carefully trans-planted in a suitable climate, namely the hot tropics...(Banana.com).

So yes, the banana has an intelligent design, but the designers were humans.

And here's another thought: according to the creationist argument of Comfort and Cameron, "God" must also have made the coconut, and most of us are aware of how user-UNfriendly, THAT fruit is. You have to have a hammer to get it open. Did God, then, just want us to work harder for our food?

One commenter understood the absurdity of it all and gave me a good laugh. On a blog about this video, the commenter said, "Hey, my banana is curved AWAY from my face....oh, wait..."

The God Banana

Thatness And Whatness

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")


Existence and essence--two things we are prevented from knowing about god from within the Christian faith. Why would we adopt a lifestyle, belief system, code, or any other guideline that has no basis in rational thought or empirical proof?

Christian theology states that God is incorporeal, which is to say, non-material. This means God is not composed of matter, which renders the reference to God as a being meaningless. For if something is non-matter, how could it matter? We are beings who are made of matter (in the simplest terms) and thus our understanding of everything is predicated on matter. All else is both immaterial in a literal and figurative sense and negligible.

And what of ideas and concepts and immaterial things like kindness? Might the theist argue that kindness is real to us, though not made of matter? of course, the theist could argue that, but the argument would dissolve under the powerful force of reason; kindness is not being touted as an entity, as well as something immaterial . If God is not made of matter or of anything humans can comprehend, then God, is in a very real way, NOT REAL. If we cannot perceive God, then, why would we believe in him? If we cannot experience god, since god is non-matter, how could he possibly exist to begin with? And why don't Christians who peddle this concept just admit that they are agnostic, since agnosticism is defined as something we cannot know? Slippery slope, that.

____________________________
painting, "Chocolate Drizzle" (c)Kelli Jae Baeli

Thatness And Whatness

Honk if You'll Kill for God

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")


...We have had time to evolve since those dark days. Yet, how could we, when there were so many examples and encouragements to keep us uncivilized and vicious?

In the story of Abraham and Isaac most Americans are familiar with, God commanded Abe to sacrifice his son to Him. Old Abe never batted an eye. Good thing an Angel stilled his hand just in time. Abraham was praised and promised blessings because he feared the Lord enough to sacrifice his son, whom he loved, because "God" told him to.

Abraham's "devotion" to God makes him a model of faith to Christians and Jews alike. . .right. But a model of WHAT? I have a few suggestions. How about a model of zealotry? A model of stupidity? A model of a schizophrenic killer?

What would have impressed me more, and made a great deal more sense, is if Abraham would have instead said, "I will not kill my son for you, because to ask this of me proves that you are evil, and I will neither worship nor obey an evil God." That would have shown Abraham to be truly a model for other people-not of faith, which this shows is not a positive thing to have, but a model of ethical, loving behavior. This would have also shown him to have courage in the face of some request made by a God he worshiped, but who had obviously become something not worthy of adulation or obedience. And if God had really been testing Abraham's mettle, He would have responded, "You are indeed a man of great courage and integrity and compassion and ethics, and I am well pleased." But as we all know, that's not what happened.

To anyone reading this, Christian or not, if you really believed God was telling you to kill your own child, would you do it? It is my most fervent wish that all of you will answer a resounding and unhesitating "No." If you answered otherwise, you are no better than Abraham, and no better than our more modern example of the 39 year old Texas woman, Deanna Laney, who thought that God told her to kill her three sons. She managed to succeed with two of them, sparing only the infant, who will now have a life of dependency on others, since the injuries from the attack will forever render him incapable of self care.

As a nation of ethical, loving, and compassionate people, we were shocked and disgusted by this heinous act. Why do we see this behavior as abhorrent in real life, but hold it up as some paragon of virtue when referring to faith and the Bible?*

Oh, it gets worse. This next tale is not one I ever heard before reading the Bible, and it is glaringly apparent why not. It's another example--not so summarily candy-coated--of why blind faith can be one of the most evil things in existence.

Jephthah. He made a stupid promise to God that if He would award him victory in battle, he would sacrifice the first person to walk out of his house and greet him, after returning from a mission of slaughter in war, and give this doomed candidate as a burnt offering to the Lord. **

When Jephthah returned home from the exhilarating slaughter of thousands, the target for sacrifice turned out to be his daughter. He just decided, "Oh, oops. Too bad, have to kill her. I promised."

I can mark that off to human stupidity, but then, God didn't stop him. Was God stupid? Or just unfathomably mean? God allowed Jephthah to kill his own daughter, and proves Himself again, a blood-thirsty apathetic being.

With complete comfort, I challenge God Himself to come down here and explain that one to me. But God won't do that, because though Christianity is one of the "revealed" religions, this in no way indicates that God ever reveals Himself in any real way.

Both of these stories are examples of religious zealotry, not at all contrary to what the Muslim hijackers did when they piloted the planes into the Twin Towers. They, too, were following the literal instructions given to them in their holy books, the Koran and the Hadiths, (which is second only to the Koran in sanctity, and gives more detail about the life of Mohammad).

Now, it would be cowardly of me not to think about this, and what it really means. A parent would actually kill his own child because some deity told him to-told him, apparently, by way of a voice in his head. (Isn't this similar to what murderous schizophrenics experience?) Abe didn't know God would stop him. He did it with the fullest intention of completing the hideous task. And Jephthah not only did the same thing, but came up with the wager by himself, as a way to reach his dubious goal of successful, widespread slaughter.

So. This still happens today, though not cloaked in the shroud of admirable character. Quite the opposite is true, isn't it? God didn't stop Deanna Laney, either, though she was about to kill her kids believing that's what God wanted. Why didn't God step in and say, at the very least, "No, no, Deanna. . I'm not doing that stuff anymore. I decided it was better to just kill my own son to cover all the sacrifices we might need in the future, and be done with it." (Well at least God did what he expects of others, that one time). But God didn't stop her, just like He didn't stop Jephthah. Thankfully, our judicial system did something about it, by putting her on trial, judging it wrong and worthy of punishment. Unfortunately, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and was committed to a mental facility for an unspecified period of time.

But if you are either guilty or insane for thinking that God told you to kill your kids, are either of those valid reasons to defend the virtues of Blind Faith?
Um. No.
-----------------------
*And more poignantly, there is no mention of how Isaac felt after his sacrificial test. I can't imagine that he would be able to love his father after being tricked and nearly killed by him. The two dead Laney children could not be reached for comment, and the one who survived won't ever be able to comment.
** First, I am struck by the absurdity of this deal. Why would anyone make such a vow in the first place?

Honk if You'll Kill for God

Pascal's Wager: Hedging The Bet

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")


One explanation that often comes from the lips of the faithful is this: "I'm not sure, but I think I will go with the God is real thing, just in case--if I do, and it's true, I'll be covered; if I don't, and it's true, I'll burn in hell."  This is known as Pascal's Wager. [1]

First, this ideation doesn't address WHICH God you should accept or worship. This is often referred to as the "avoiding the wrong hell" conundrum.

And what if God is real, but there is more than one god? How do we know which guidelines to follow for the god of that particular faith?

And there can be a negative consequence for believing something that isn't true. Refer to the plethora of historical documents, and even current incidents where Christian Scientists believe that prayer, rather than medical intervention, will assure the safety of their children, and those children suffer and die.

At the root of this hedging mentality is a religion of fear. If God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (the 4 Omni's) as well as the Alpha and Omega (beginning and end), Infinite, Incorporeal,[2] and Ineffable[3]....the most perfect and indeed the original being in the universe, then why does He need to be worshiped? Why would He care? A perfect, non-human being would not have a human division of consciousness like ego, much less any human emotions we tack onto him.

There's an essential point to be had here, and that is the tendency Christians have to anthropomorphize God-that is to say: personify or humanize Him. This being, as He is understood by Christians, is anything BUT human. If this deity exists, and is what Christians testify to, then he is INCAPABLE of having His feelings hurt, or being lonely; if he were, he is simply not the God Christians tout, and thus not worthy of worship anyway. An imperfect being does not warrant worship. And if the "truly inspired word of God" is to be our touchstone, then I submit God is not only imperfect, but mean, petty, cruel and, at times, evil.

It makes more sense to me that I make my decisions about what I believe based on sensible arguments, on empirical evidence, or the lack thereof. If we were not meant to use the reason inherent in our working brains, then why would we have it? If God is the Creator of us all, why would he create beings with the ability to choose to deny Him?

As previously mentioned, according to Christians, God needs us to worship Him. So creating something that was contrary to His needs, when he has complete and utter power over the process, is again nonsensical. And another example of the inherent contradiction of the Christian God.

I have had my moments of clarity over this. One came when I sincerely and earnestly asked God to show Himself to me. I told God that if He could show me he was real in a way that was undeniable to me, personally, that I would not only admit I was wrong, but would spend the rest of my life helping others to believe in Him too. This was not the first time I had had this little discussion with God. But they all garnered the same result. No sign; No message, no change at all. A silence that was cosmically deafening.

I know that Christians will be quick to say that this was because I didn't have enough faith. (Again, anther ad hoc argument that falls flat in the face of reason). But I know for a fact that my faith was larger than that mustard seed found in Matthew 17:20. And I wasn't trying to move a mountain, nor was I asking God to move one. I was asking for a clear sign. I got nada.
The absence of a sign gave me another sign. (A sin of omission by God?) The sign that said "God is not real."

At the same time, I have other moments when I wonder. But I am smart enough to recognize that any reticence I have to completely deny the existence of God is attributable to religious insemination--my fear that if I'm wrong, I might meet a horrible fate that includes the mind-numbing pain of feeling my skin melt off in the furnace He so lovingly provided for me throughout eternity. If I had no other reason, that concept alone is enough for me to turn away from this deity, even if I don't ultimately deny His existence entirely.
-------------------------------

[1]“Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics. Historically, Pascal's Wager, ground-breaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.” (Wikipedia).
[2]Having no material body or form.
[3]Incapable of being expressed in words.

Pascal's Wager: Hedging The Bet

Mibber Who?.

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")


"Mibber is loving and wise. Mibber is the essence of all matter and energy. Mibber has not limits. Mibber is all powerful."

When hearing statements such as these, it is not our first inclination to ask "What does that mean, in relation to this "Mibber"? or "how is it that Mibber can be all these things?" your first question is naturally, "What IS Mibber?"

First, we must define an object before we can even begin to examine the other questions that arise once we understand the fundamental nature of that object. The same is true, or at least should be true, of the Christian God. I find it aggravatingly fascinating how Christians make announcements and declarations about what God feels, thinks, does, and intends...but have no explanation for the nature of God. What is God? Who is God? How do they know this information?

In one breath, they say that God is mysterious and unknowable and in the other, they say that God is loving, or God is wise, or all-powerful. How can they know any of this if they don't even understand God and have never met him/her/it in person?

No one has ever had a real conversation with God. No, not even Neale Donald Walsch. Claims to the contrary have been grossly exaggerated. They have only had mental processes which they ascribe to an encounter with this invisible entity. One could just as easily-and with as much credibility-say that one has had a conversation with a tree, or a dog, or Elvis. The difference with the latter is of course that we do have actual evidence of the tree, the dog and Elvis.
But again, there is this pervasive, almost cellular habituation attached to the God-paradigm. As a species, humans have had belief in supernatural beings as part of the fiber of everyday reality. Prevalence doesn't, however, make it real.

Further, why would a person chose to believe in something impossible? If something is black, it cannot also be white. If something is square, it cannot be circular. This is akin to the statements most Christians make about God, the essence of which is, "God remains dry when immersed in water." On the face of that, unless it is trickery, this is contradiction at best, and deceit at worst.
The very first explanation that springs to the lips of the devout is some variation of "God moves in mysterious ways." I'll say! Any being who can exist but be invisible, embody the essence of love, yet be angry, and remain dry while immersed in water, is certainly beyond comprehension and so advanced as to be worthy of our attention. Except for one thing. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's almost certainly not true. And since no one can prove the existence of this god, we are left only with a choice to believe in something not only unproven and improvable, but in something that is illogical and fraught with contradiction at every turn.
Pardon me while I lean toward the more rational approach.

Mibber Who?.

The Furnace of Furniss

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")

A popular booklet for children in the late 19th Century was authored by Father Furniss, an English priest who wrote "books for children." Furniss delighted in describing the horrors of hell:

"...his eyes were like two burning coals. Two long flames came our of his ears...sometimes he opens his mouth, and breath of blazing fire rolls out. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle boiling? No. Then what is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is boiling and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him why he is thus tormented. his answer is that when he was alive, his blood boiled to do very wicked things."

and,

"A little child is in this red-hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out! See how it turns and twists itself about in the fire! It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor. You can see on the face of this little child what you see on the faces of all in hell--despair, desperate and horrible."

Father Furniss was paradoxically dubbed the "Children's Apostle."

The Furnace of Furniss

Dubya Must Die

I find it reprehensible and infuriating that Bill Clinton can be impeached for getting his weeny pleasured, and then trying to cover it up, and George W. Bush can lie constantly, rig his election, send thousands to their deaths just to line his pockets, patronize the viewing public every time he gives a press conference, deprive the citizenry of their vote, abandon the needy in his own country while giving billions to another that harbors Bin Laden, keep company with terrorists, commit treason on a daily basis, and he is still in office. Perhaps the Christian's "angry God" will simply smite him where he stands. But since it didn't happen to Hitler, Stalin, Saddam or Osama Bin Laden, i won't hold my breath.

Dubya Must Die

Kissing Hank's Ass

Kissing Hank's Ass

Sam Harris Doppelganger

When i first began watching Sam Harris in various videos, speaking about his books, he reminded me of someone, and it made me a little crazy for a while.
Then i figured it out.
It's Ben Stiller.

So, if there is ever a movie made about Sam Harris, I think Ben ought to play the part.

Sam Harris Doppelganger

Author's Note

AUTHOR'S NOTE

I will make no secret of the fact that, at this writing, I am almost certainly a card-carrying atheist. This book is a representation of how I got there.

I am not a Bible scholar or a Ph.D.-wielding lecturer, nor a scientist. I earned a degree in Professional Writing, and intend to complete a Masters Degree program in writing as well, soon. Other than that, I am just a writer who is many other things, not the least of which is a lifelong learner and seeker of truth. This journey is a personal one. My truth may never be your truth. So take this or leave it. But understand that I embarked upon this task with the utmost sincerity and the most profound need to know myself and my place in this world.

I am only now fully recognizing the courage it will take for me to embrace this part of my identity in a world where this stance is often cause for oppression in general and ostracization in particular. But I'm no stranger to that. I have been a minority more than once and still am. I am a woman-(though not minority in number, at least minority in a patriarchy and all that entails); I am also a lesbian-though I dislike the connotation of that moniker. I am simply attracted romantically to certain other women, and never, men. I fought disability for years, but refuse to let that define me, currently. And last, and most sobering: I am an atheist.

Let's see...what more could I do to achieve the permanent status of pariah?

In this work, I do not seek to denigrate other great thinkers or respected persons, but to ferret out the facts and, as much as possible, put it down in words.

The act of composing this book led me to some conclusions, or verified those I suspected along the way, and so there will be an unavoidable slant in that direction throughout the text. I didn't stumble on this project after a random thought waltzed through my head. I began the project to refine the ideas and questions that have always niggled at my brain; questions about belief, mortality, reason, religion, human nature and my place in this world. I seek peace with those things I know which might at first appear daunting, and clarity of those things I know on some intuitive level to be true.

I seek my own personal cosmology.

Author's Note