Ask any Western American how one might “jinx” something, and they will list any number of things that might cause a person, place or thing to be jinxed. You and someone else could say the same thing at the same time, bringing a bit of bad luck into your morning coffee. You could walk under a ladder, break a mirror, or admit success or security, to which you might knock on wood to save yourself any bad luck. Bad luck, of course, is an absurd misconception of how reality works. If you break a mirror, there is no one around–including any god–who will actually dedicate the time and attention it would require to make you feel “unlucky” for the next seven years, and knocking on wood won’t save you from cancer, or from having some horrible accident. Depending on where you live, how you live, and your health, your life will carry with it its shares of woes and triumphs–if you are a naturally bitchy person, you may think your luck is worse than others. It’s probably not: it’s just how you view things. How you view things won’t necessarily change your “luck,” but you may keep your friends longer, and generally have a better experience in this, the only life you will live.

I traveled to Peru this 09 summer. It was a beautiful, astonishing country, and the people there were kind. They seemed interested and caring enough to humor a US traveler’s terrible Spanish, and most Peruvians I met were proud of their country. I wrote about my experiences in Peru. It is an inspiring country. But I came away with an experience of religion that I thought worth sharing here, away from my other writing.

As for the religious climate in Peru, I encountered nothing especially fierce. I noted a reverence for the Inca from many people I met there–people who were willing to look past the terribly misguided priests and kings who ruled during the height of the Inca to the astonishing accomplishments of this people.

The Inca were savage murderers–we must be careful to note this as we admire them. At any Inca site of religious importance that I visited, it was noted to me that virginal women, children, and young men were often found mummified in nearby caves, or buried on site. The same goes for livestock. The noted illustrator and writer Guaman Poma writes how alpacas were sacrificed based on their color and gender–the differences usually relating to the specific ritual being performed. Imagine staring out at the sunset, where it cuts through the towering white caps of the Andes in the distance, while fifteen virginal women are made silly drunk, then stoned or skulled, followed by a hundred alpacas, then some infants for good measure, and thrown from a cliff into the valley–all in the name of securing fortune and abundance for the coming season.

I sometimes put myself in the shoes of the villagers who watched the priests making these sacrifices in the name of, well, luck. The purpose of knocking on wood and that of killing a baby is very similar in religion–avoiding bad luck. Of course, the Inca often sacrificed a great many livestock in order to ensure this good luck–they were destroying their stores of livestock in order to get more livestock. Another reason why the god-kings and warrior-kings and priest-kings may have sacrificed of all of this livestock was to show control over the people’s resources. No matter the full reasoning, these sacrifices were horrible, and to the Inca they appeared to work, because the Inca were a wealthy people who lived in abundance, and lived like this for a long while. It is believed that many of these Incans truly believed that these sacrificial events were working.

They also believed that celestial events were the gods themselves on the move, and they believed their rulers could speak with these gods. Now, the priests and the kings and the rulers, they may have been a bit more cynical about their religion. It is clear, after all, that they could predict celestial events with great accuracy. So if they could predict the events, why did they need to kill livestock and claim that these sacrifices were all that could change these events? They may have known that the killings had no effect, or been so indoctrinated as not to see beyond the veil. But I believe that the Incan people may not have believed, either. In fact, I think that some of the destruction of livestock and virgins may have horrified these people, but they saw it as an inevitable event, one that could only grow worse if they resisted. But again, these sacrifices mostly seemed to work, and work they did, for hundreds of years.

The Mayans had no such luck. Their collapse is attributed to many factors. It takes more than one disease to dissolve an entire nation, more than one war. But some believe that, while the god-kings and warrior-priests all went on slaughtering virgins, the luck had stopped coming–the virgin-killing wasn’t working. Yes, it is postulated that when the Mayan people stopped believing, when they lost their faith in their religious leaders, they simply walked back into the jungle, assuming a smaller, less brutal rural life.

Some believe that the great Macchu Picchu in Peru–a site of such majestic beauty that’s inspired me to return to the Andes as soon as possible–was not abandoned for the sake of the Spanish, or the collapse of that nation, but because nothing they were doing, no prayer, sacrifice, or quarantine, was stopping the spread of malaria. Indeed, one mass grave was found with un-mummified bodies all dead of malaria, most of them women. It can be difficult to sacrifice a virgin when she is already dying of malaria. The vigor and dynamism of life is gone, and so there is no poetry in the slaughter.

But humans are humans: we go on destroying and building and rising and falling, and have done since the dawn of our time. So as much as I am disappointed by the religion of the Incas, I am far more impressed by the beauty of their lasting architectural and cultural achievements. I do not for a moment forgive them their foolish murderousness, but I admire their greatness.

I also admire the Quetchua people–of whom I met a few on my trip. They again were very proud of their heritage and their country. And I found this not only in the porters and the guides tasked with handling a big sickly American like me, but the middle class who sought out their national treasures on special weekends, and delighted in the quality of their homes, careers, and animals (from guinea pigs to dogs to llamas).

I heard superstitious talk from our guide in the Andes, Jose. This was an intelligent man, an intellectual, about my age. He had lived in Cuzco but also spent time in the mountains with his father, farmed, taught himself English and Spanish (his native language is Quetchua). He did not merely recite card-like explanations of the sites. Rather, he maintained relationships with the excavators on the sites, read widely and continued to read on the developments historians were making on the Inca. He maintained a diplomatic tone when speaking of the thieves at Yale who hold hundreds if not thousands of Inca artifacts hostage in one of their dreary history departments, in the US, and was willing to share his views on politics and his people after getting to know us a bit better.

He also explained that his dreams were clairvoyant, that he could read them as absolute predictions of certain events, and that depending on how one passed a dish at dinner they either attracted friendship from their fellow diner or a new nemesis. And so much of these superstitions could be life or death–it seemed. I can not remember the specifics, but I remember him saying that in a dream he saw a dog, and afterword became sick with a cold. He surmised that the dog was a sign of illness. It is also bad luck to sell a guinea pig. Each Quetchua acts on their superstitions, but most probably break the rules–Surprise! Like any good religion, the majority of the congregation are the real sinners. Jose used to sell guinea pigs when he was younger for money, and though it was considered very bad mojo to remarry, he had done it himself. Just like, sometimes, when we talk about how well we’re doing, we knock on formica instead of wood, and say, “Oh, that’ll do. It’s the thought that counts.”

Some westerners might be mortified by the superstitions of the Quetchua, but they are actually quite similar to ours…only different. I wish, however, that Jose did not have to feel bad for selling a few guinea pigs in the bad old days, just as none of us should feel too bad about walking under that ladder yesterday. Bad things happen to good people.

Observing superstition as an outsider, I certainly enjoyed a more objective perspective. Where I find superstitious USers to be some of the most annoying people I’ve met, I liked and respected Jose, and found his superstition endearing and much more imaginative and feature-rich than our dull rabbits’ feet. So long as he didn’t read the bones in order to decide which path we’d go down on the mountains, instead of using his years of experience, I would have followed him anywhere.

I’ll be reading from my book of poems, LUX (Black Maze Books, 09), at Revival in Union Square on Tuesday, June 2nd.

Please come out, introduce yourself-I’d love to meet some readers and supporters of the blog!

Tuesday, June 2nd, 7:00PM (I’ll read around 8.)

In the garden out back, if weather permits.

Revival

www.revivalbarnyc.com

129 E 15th St
New York, NY 10003
(212) 253-8061

Sporting Gentlemen, it is my pleasure to reveal the cover of Mr. Lovecraft’s book, Against Religion. There are a few tweaks upcoming, but, essentially, what you see is what you get. This cover was designed and illustrated by Mr. Mike Force, the newest addition to the Sporting Gentlemen’s core think-team.

As some of you know, I’ve been making sporadic posts about my involvement as the publisher of Against Religion, by HP Lovecraft, edited and introduced by ST Joshi with a foreword by Christopher Hitchens. In order to raise interest in the book, and see that it reaches a proper audience, I will continue to post small pieces of the book I’ve found especially interesting. The following quote reminds me of Dawkins’ argument against indoctrinating children into religion.

We know today, through psychology, that any belief or emotional bias, no matter how untrue or absurd, can be implanted in the brain and nervous system of a human being with tremendous force and firmness if the victim be inoculated with it in infancy. A person thus subjected to indoctrination with some special idea at an age under seven will always have a deeper instinctive predisposition toward that idea—but this has nothing to do with the truth of the idea. There is no natural leaning toward religion. Originally, it merely attempts to explain the unknown through poetic symbolism and crude personification; today it survives among the less analytical majority merely because they lack scientific information, and because their emotional apparatus has been permanently biassed or crippled by religious propaganda hammered into them in childhood, before their mind and emotions had developed beyond the infantile state of helpless and uncritical receptivity. It is really a crime against a child to attempt to influence his intellectual belief in any way. (p. 25)

As I read the book I was inspired to see the many points Lovecraft argues that we see today in the atheist cause. Joshi’s book really highlight’s a single man’s struggle to live as an intellectual and an atheist at a time where atheists were not only in the minority, but were not seeing the opportunity for recognition that we’ve seen today for such figures as Dawkins and Dennet. Although a release date for the book remains uncertain, you can check back here for updates, and expect it on shelves before the 2009 holidays.

As Against Religion: The Atheist Writings of HP Lovecraft, edited and introduced by ST Joshi with a Foreword by Christopher Hitchens nears release, I will begin posting tidbits of the book within here.

All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don’t regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chances of theism’s truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant and a hypocrite to call myself anything else. (from Section I of Against Religion)

Although we do not have a proper release date yet, we are pleased to announce a partnership with SOTA Toys. A group of magnificent sculptors are crafting some excellent imaginings of Lovecraft’s Elder Gods. Below is an image of the Nylarhotep resin statue:

They will be helping us with the cover production. Also, we will be working with many atheist blogs and websites to promote the book. If there are any blogs, podcasts, radio shows, reviewers, etc, who want to help us with this part of the campaign, feel free to contact us.

Allow me to start with the news: I will be publishing:

WHAT I HAVE AGAINST RELIGION: THE ATHEIST WRITINGS OF HP LOVECRAFT
Edited with an Introduction by S.T. Joshi, with a foreword by Christopher Hitchens.

It was a fast process, arranging this book with these mighty intellectual atheists. Both have their own books on God and religion, both have edited readers on atheism and religion, and both are highly visible in this small world. Both men have been extremely helpful in guiding me through this process. Mr. Joshi enthusiastically told me about the project when I asked him whether he would be interested in working with me on a book. Hitchens quickly agreed to write a foreword. It would have been hard to imagine, as a meager blogger quoting Hitchens, that such a coup would be possible.

The book is slated to be published in Winter, 2009 (a ways, away, I know), but I’ve read it, of course, and it is amazing to read Lovecraft taking up major points in religion and science. Joshi’s introduction is enlightening re: Lovecraft’s life in atheism. I am pleased to say, that is, that although this blog may not have seen in update in a year, there are big news on the horizon.

FURTHER:

No, I’m not dead.

About a month ago last year, I posted a last post regarding AA, and moved forward. I knew this blog wouldn’t last forever: maintaining and updating a blog (a blog without research, let alone one that attempts some responsibility to outside sources) is a time-consuming, life-consuming affair.

Around December I began my second semester as a professor of literature. I started another blog exclusively for the class. With that blog, my blog-count was up to three active and running blogs. One, or three for that matter, was destined to get out from under me.

Believe it or not, I didn’t feel too much blog-guilt. I really enjoyed collecting my thoughts, I found a measure of success in being recognized by other atheists and theists, and it was more productive than talking others’ ears off, reading, and doing nothing else. Any thinking, doubting man or woman is on a spiritual journey, but not all step out to try their hand at communicating with others about their ideas. It felt good, and I commend those who continue pressing on in raising consciousness. I want to thank all of those who have bothered to read these essays, and especially thank all of those who took up the gauntlet and argued with me.

But, it should be said, I’ve changed in this past year. When I reflect upon ritual and religion, I tend to think it almost moot, and I meditate more on issues now a bit challenging to me: civil rights and constitutional freedoms. Also, I began refocusing on my creative work. I self-published a book of poems, and founded a small press to publish others.

My life thusfar has been one more focused on books- it seems, and I have returned to this blog to let all of you know that I have not finished contributing to this on-going debate re: religion. WHAT I HAVE AGAINST RELIGION will be another massive contribution to the growing literature on atheism. Look for it in Winter, 09. Check back here in a few months. Maybe I’ll update!

I probably won’t, but I’ll be sure to post when this great book sees print.

I hope you enjoy our new President.

Will argued against my statement that AA was a cult in the following comment:

will
November 27, 2007 at 4:18 am

I disagree with your assessment of AA as a cult. According to your link “Three ideas seem essential to the concept of a cult. One is thinking in terms of us versus them with total alienation from ‘them.’ The second is the intense, though often subtle, indoctrination techniques used to recruit and hold members. The third is the charismatic cult leader.”

In my experience with AA, there was no central figurehead, no emphasis on alienation (although we were encouraged not to hang out with old drinking buddies in bars – duh), and apparently the indoctrination techniques weren’t too effective – I haven’t been to a meeting in years.

I expect there ARE AA groups that fit this description, and they should be driven before the whip as all cults should. But it is a disservice to drunks everywhere to so inappropriately describe AA in general.

Will, I think that in AA, there certainly is doctrine, and their certainly is indoctrination, and that, as a social network, AA can be very exclusive, and exclusionary.

Yes, it does not go as far as other cults or religions. But sponsors often encourage disconnection from people who may be suppressive persons (old drinking buddies, past lovers, even family members) who may encourage or remind the person in recovery of drinking or other substance abuse.

Often a person in AA recovery supplants entire support networks of old friends, family, loved ones and business friends in favor of newer, less reliable friends who run the risk of defaulting and returning to alcohol themselves. Note that I used the word “disconnect” above. To those of us who know a little of Scientiology, this is a term often used by Scientologists in terms of excluding members of Scientology who move away from the religion, or those who may influence current members to move away from the religion themselves. These people are often called suppressive persons or “SP’s”, and when labeled this are henceforth considered direct threats to the religion and its members.

AA does have several figureheads: Bill Wilson and Bob Smith among them (both founders of the organization). AA administrators run their groups in varying ways, and there are even agnostic groups common among AA. But I think that in general AA works very much like a religion. A higher power is necessary, and I hate to say it, but reasonable AA members tend to cherry-pick their way around the original idea of the supernatural and exchange it for the idea of a “higher power”–but this is more often than not meant to be a power that engenders spiritual transcendence, which is at its root a religious idea.

In my experience with AA– you are correct–many AA members find after two or three years in the program, that they do not need to attend daily meetings, or even monthly meetings, in order to stay sober. My opinion of AA has changed a little since this post, but I maintain that AA is very much a religion, and it certainly has “sects” that are very much like operating religions (or “cults”–which are, as far as I’m concerned for the sake of this argument, one in the same)– they require intense, life-changing beliefs and behaviors, they are rife with chants and rituals, and they are incredibly insulated and isolated social networks that locate their lifestyles within supernatural foundations.

This fits the bill for me, and perhaps not you.

*

BUT, I do not intend to do a disservice to drunks. I have the utmost regard for alcoholics and other addicts attempting to “take the cure.” I do not drink–I plan, eventually, to drink again–but I used to, and I drank a lot, and found it difficult to stop. I attended an AA meeting with an open mind, and could not take part in their ritual-system (religion), because it seemed unnecessary to me, and I do not find solace or guidance in religion. I respect those in AA’s privacy, so will respect their wish that I do not speak of that meeting outside of the church.

But I will say that a lot of very brave people combat a serious problem in their lives with AA, and I wish them the best of luck with it. Just like with “the golden rule” in Christianity, there are certain nuggets of good ol’ kindness and reason with AA. I just don’t think that a supernatural, god-based organization is necessary to combat such demons, so to speak.

A couple of days ago, a woman expecting a child posted a comment on the lengthy (and seemingly eternal) discussion between myself and a few others on the blog (see here for a start, and thanks for reading).

I think that Jen4 eloquently extends an argument against circumcision, and Jen’s authority is, when it boils down, that of a mother about to make that decision for her child.

A few comments in response follow her statement which appears her in toto:

Jen4
November 28, 2007 at 4:29 pm

I have read this entire thread. I am eight months pregnant with our son. I wish he was a daughter. Then we could have a baby naming celebration and celebrate birth without bloodletting. I am the child’s mother, I am the only person who is supposed to experience pain associated with childbirth.

My husband wants to circumcise our son so he will “look the same.” He is a secular Jew and could care less about having a ceremonial bris. But it matters whether his son will feel alien among other Jewish boys. Or whether he as a father will feel alienated from an uncut son. I can’t even begin to understand this and it is clearly a deeper irrational need than my husband can articulate.

He hated Hebrew school, is perfectly willing to forgo any religious approach in his daily life, he doesn’t keep kosher, he regards Shabbat dinner with relatives as an annoyance rather than a pleasure. But the most violent vestigial blood sacrifice of Judaism is the one he can’t question and can’t reject.

As my girlfriend says, “you just can’t question men and their penises.”

I agree with Alex and Tony.

I think there is no rational justification for consenting to my son’s circumcision. The medical benefits are vastly overstated. I am not concerned so much about the infintesimal risks, and I think my son will more likely than not be as accepting as circumcision as his dad– but I am deeply concerned about inflicting pain on a defenseless baby for no good reason other than cosmetics. (And yes, I have put my daughter through routine vaccinations and significantly more painful lead blood tests because these are medically warranted, and because vaccines strengthen (rather than weaken) an immune system against deadly diseases in most cases).

Joshua’s arguments are weak and unconvincing. Sorry, Josh, you put up a good effort but I think that your defense of routine infant circumsion is essentially: “Everybody’s doing it, you can’t stop it, therefore, everybody should continue doing it.”

It’s stupid, circular and irrational and I think Joshua just wants to have his own sons circumcized and be able to rationalize it as “AIDS prevention” as opposed to unthinkingly, witlessly, unquestioningly perpetuating a collective and sanctioned pattern of child abuse.

My husband wishes I would stop thinking about this issue. It is easier to circumcise your child when you don’t think and don’t ask questions, and don’t admit to or examine your true reasons and motivations.

He just wants his son to “look like him” and avoid bucking the group (cattle) mindset that advocates circumcision.

If your first impulse as a parent is to protect your child, than you have to stop thinking or asking questions in order to consent to routine circumcision.

I will not be signing any consent forms. However, I will not stand in the way of my husband’s circumcising our son because on a deep visceral level, I think I will be putting my marriage at stake if I do and otherwise, my husband has proven himself with his daughter to be a deeply caring and loving father & person with whom I want to maintain a good relationship.

That being said, I hope that in the excitement & confusion of my son’s delivery and birth, my husband develops a case of amnesia and forgets to request a circumcision. I certainly won’t be reminding him.

I have to say that it takes a lot of courage to express such a personal conflict, and I applaud you, Jen, on sharing this with the readership here.  But I must take issue with something at play: There are two distinct issues here, the first being that of your love and respect of your husband as both a father and a companion, and the second your acceptance (albeit with disgust), of the status quo.

You’re right: fathering itself (support, both emotional and financial, etc) is gigantically more important than circumcision, but you are in a unique position to defend your child from the status quo. You’re reasonable enough to see the fatal flaw in circumcision, and it sounds like your husband has accepted this ritual (because that is exactly what it is: a dry husk that used to be a Jewish ritual), mainly because he’s worried that his dick won’t look like his son’s.

I suppose that all I can say in response is that I feel your pain (and moreso your child’s). No, I don’ t think you son will be forever scarred psychologically by the circumcision. He’ll probably forget the pain and brutality of the act quickly. But on the same token, I must ask of people who are intelligent as you: When will it end? If we’re intelligent enough to understand that it’s a medieval act of no consequence save some old tradition, then why can’t we–of all people–stop it in our own children?

I feel a bit sick with guilt for pushing you further on this, as I already admire you for your intelligence, reason, and bravery, and your consideration and compassion alone separate you from a lot of parents who just do this kind of stuff unthinkingly, and it seems like you and your husband have had some weird, important conversations about stuff like this, because you’re reasonable, loving people, who want to do best by their children.

There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Here is an example of the utter depravity and idiocy of religious dogma:

KHARTOUM, Sudan (CNN) — A British teacher arrested in Sudan after allowing her class to name a teddy bear “Mohammed” has been charged by authorities with offending religion, British officials say.

 

 

An undated amateur photo of Gillian Gibbons.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, is being held by police in the capital Khartoum after she asked her class of seven-year-olds to come up with a name for the toy as part of a school project, Robert Boulos, the head of Unity High School told CNN.

It is expected that she will appear in court Thursday, Sudan state media reported.

A British Foreign Office spokeswoman said Gibbons had been charged under Article 125 of Sudan’s constitution, the law relating to insulting religion and inciting hatred.

The spokeswoman said the Sudanese ambassador had been summoned to the offices of the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband to discuss the case. Gibbons was arrested under the country’s Islamic Sharia law after parents of some of her students complained to police.

Under country’s law, the offense is punishable with 40 lashes, a jail term of up to a year or a fine.

Khalid Mubarak, the media counselor at the Sudan embassy in London, said the judicial process was taking its course but added that even if Gibbons was found guilty “the question of punishment is a long way off.”

“This woman is being dealt with in the proper ways in accordance with the laws of our country,” he told CNN.

He said he was concerned about how the latest developments would affect Sudan’s relationship with Britain.

“This is a worry for us. We have already received abusive phone calls to our offices in London,” he said.

Gibbons’ arrest was announced in Arabic on the state-run news agency’s Web site. No-one from Sudan’s government has so far commented on the decision.

It is not known how long the court process will take or the type of court the hearing will take place in.

Although there is no ban in the Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Mohammed, likenesses are considered highly offensive by Muslims.

Gibbons had been working at the school — popular with wealthy Sudanese and expatriates — since August, after leaving her position as deputy head teacher at a primary school in Liverpool this summer, said Boulos.

He said Gibbons had asked the children to pick their favorite name for the new class mascot, which she was using to aid lessons about animals and their habitats.

Classmates took turns taking the teddy bear home with them, accompanied by a diary with the bear’s name written in the front of it, said Boulos, who heads the private school, which has been shut down since the controversy came to light.

“All this is a very sensitive area. I asked her (Gibbons) why she had done it and she said she didn’t chose the name, the children did,” he told CNN.

 

 

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Tuesday he was “very sorry” about Gibbons’ arrest and that the British Embassy in Khartoum was “giving all appropriate consular assistance to her.”

Brown said all efforts were being taken to ensure her early release and that government officials were in touch with the teacher’s family in the northern British city of Liverpool.

(from CNN: the full story here)

This is not a joke. Well, it is a joke. We do not need religion in schools. Do you think these children were poisoned by this woman for naming a bear? Do you really? I empathize with you, because I have believe foolish, agonizingly idiotic things as well (spring water is better than tap water).

I wonder: If this woman is given 40 lashings (a death sentence), will we all realize just how wrong religion can go? Wait, what was I thinking. We’ve seen it throughout history, thousands of times, and we just keep plugging away, saying “It ain’t all bad.” Enough.

Am I angry? Yes, I am angry. But, before you jump all over me, I want you to know that I am not angry enough to give anyone 40 lashings.

The next installment of the debate with Michelle. For past installments, please see my last few posts. Tomorrow or the next day I’ll post Michelle’s final response. I will also post a page containing the debate in its entirety. PLEASE comment, y’all.

 

Michelle said…

You may reget your challenge.
Sorry I’m not your typical fluffy christian. I’m also not a denominationalist.I really dont go for that stuff.No I dont agree with creationists that the earth is young.The bible says that the earth was without form or void,that doesnt mean it wasnt there at all.Sorry but as much as scientists try to hide it there is evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together.For a free thinker youre awefully closed minded.
There are multiple cave drawings of dinosaurs,dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible.There are human tracks next to dino tracks.
www.omniology.com
{click on contents page}
On to Noah…the bible says that before the flood there was a canopy over the earth sort of a dome that kept the earth in a green house state,there was no rain as we know it,there was more of a mist,which explains the giant plants animals etc. Even scientists say that.Which explains why Noah was mocked for building a giant boat.God decided to destroy the earth not only because of sin but because fallen angels AKA Aliens were shaking a leg with human women and created a race of giants.Which has been proven.Giant skeletons have been found.
Over and over again archeaologists state that there must have been a world catastrophy,entire heards have been found to have been destroyed by flooding.If these animals lived in one place for eons and made their nests it doesnt make sence that they would put those nests close to where they could be flooded.Animals arent stupid.There is more physical evidence for a catostrophic flood than for a meteor.All though both could have happened.Once the canopy was destroyed its entirely possible that there were major earth changes that could have caused meteors to be pulled in towards the earth.
I believe these women who claim to have been taken by “aliens” and implanted.In the last 40 years the UFO sightings have increased signifigantly.They are getting us used to them and they will emerge with the reign of the antichrist.The muslims are awaiting the mahdi who they claim is the messiah.This war is not going to end.These guys are bent on trying to wipe israel off the globe,which is in the bible.
Bible prophecy is happening as we speak.Bible prophecy has been fulfilled repeatedly.

www.bible-codes.org
www.joelrosenberg.com
Sorry but I have more to prove that God exists
Than you have to prove he doesnt.

Evolution is still not proven,its still a theory.Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is only assumed, the unspoken preface that “This is true only to the best of our current knowledge”. Science does not deal with absolute truths; it deals with hypotheses, theories and models. As of yet there is no real hard evidence,its still a theory.
I on the other hand have archeaology that has proven the bible several times over.
While microevolution or change within a species… is observed and scientific, macroevolution, what “evolution” customarily means, is not. It asserts life somehow arose from non-life by chance. Such “spontaneous generation,” disproven long ago, has never been observed.DNA by itself disproves evolution.
Cavemen dont prove evolution,it proved that there was a race of prehistoric people who didnt make it.There is no missing link.I dont even deny the possibility that God created other worlds.If you believe that monkeys and apes are your cousins just try getting one on a plane.OR mabe you should move into a garage,mabe your great grandchildren will grow wheels.!
I really dont care if you dont believe in God.I have nothing to lose by believing.

10:19 AM

Mob Legend said…

Michelle,

“You may reget [sic] your challenge.”

Is that a threat? You’re clearly not a “fluffy Christian.” (By the way, what is the opposite of a “fluffy Christian” someone who does NOT believe in the golden rule, in eternal love, in the follies of humanity, in forgiveness. Is that who you are?) And I may venture to say that you seem to take pleasure in the idea that I’ll burn in hell, or something to that effect. This all reminds me of the many other hells throughout the ages. What about Shiva, deity of death, from Hinduism? What of Loki, god of mischief, or Hephaestus, ruler of the underworld? I now officially challenge them to prove themselves to me as well. Am I in trouble with them, too? Or is everyone else wrong?

I am compelled to go about debunking every one of these literal explanations biblical fiction. You try to prove to me that there was a catastrophic flood. Of course there was a catastrophic flood. There was a catastrophic flood a few years ago that literally shook the earth in its axis. There was probably a catastrophic around the time you’re talking about. So? How does that prove god? You can’t prove that god exists, so again you ask me to disprove him. By the way how do you know it’s a him? Because the bible tells you so? No, seriously, how do you know that god has male genitalia? Have you ever considered that?

…”Animals aren’t stupid.” Lemmings march off of cliffs. Moths fly to a flame. These aren’t actions by definition stupid. In fact, they make perfect sense in regards to allele-programming all be it what leads to their destruction. But…stupid? Were the humans who habituated by the sea who were destroyed stupid? What are you talking about? Or maybe you think this is all inevitable, and leading straight to the apocalypse (you hint at this in your diatribe re: unending wars, the sacking of Israel, etc.).

All I can say is that I’m so sorry if you live your life thinking that everyone around you will either be punished or delivered by a super-powerful ghost who controls everything. Don’t get angry (you sound so angry), just take a deep breath and think about how that sounds: A powerful ghost returning to earth because a strip of land in the desert is finally sacked. Think about it. And no, I’m not trying to be condescending and say I pity you. I’m trying to say I empathize with you. I know what it feels like to be indoctrinated, too. It’s confusing, frustrating (you spend a lot of time hating other people and thinking the world’s gonna end), and soul-sucking, and you don’t even know it until you’re on the other side.

“Aliens were shaking a leg with human women and created a race of giants. Which has been proven. Giant skeletons have been found.” Can you hear yourself? No. This hasn’t been proven—you have been lied to.

Now, I have tried to be respectful of your ideas whilst debunking them. I also respect your right to chose your faith, and to believe what you want. Though I think it’s shameful to think that innocent people are condemned to damnation because they don’t cotton to your faith, and you should be ashamed of that. But I will NOW OFFICIALLY ENTER CONDESCENSION mode, and I apologize, but: Your understanding of scientific method is horribly limited, and you sound a bit silly when you talk about “theory” and “evidence.” Your understanding of the word “theory” when used in terms of science is completely incorrect.

Here is Wikipedia’s definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY vs. COMMON LANGUAGE THEORY:

Science:

“In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.”

Common Language:

“In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement “It’s not a fact, it’s only a theory.” True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.”

Not perfect, I know: I have read it explained more eloquently elsewhere (though this is pretty darn good).

Here’s what’s happening: The propaganda machine feeding you lies is USING this common misconception to obliterate the authority of well-proven scientific data, SPINNING the terminology to undermine the experts. Why? Well, to make people like us believe that there’s still room for fallen angels, alien-hybrid, and “missing links” and “dinosaurs existing with humans” (you’re utterly wrong here, too).

On atheism being a religion. It is not. I am the same as you. We both don’t believe in Shiva, Thor, Apollo, The Tooth Fairy. Is my disbelief in the tooth fairy a faith? Think about it before you cite even more propaganda: Are we members of a common faith that do not believe in the toothfairy. If so, then I suppose we are members of the same religion: Should we call it the “There is no Tooth Fairy religion?” Okay, sounds good. I’ll see you every Sunday to pray to the fact there is no tooth fairy.

This has been a lengthy response. I’ll let you have the last word (if you want it). I thank you for responding for my thoughts. E-mail me when you’re ready to be deprogrammed.