11-30-10

What I mean about the sound of rapids is that I am moribund. If I throw a ball up in the air, it will fall to earth. So when does the ball start to fall- when it reaches the apogee? No, because it is bound to fall, in effect the ball starts falling when I throw it up. Therefore, I started dying when I was conceived.

Please try to understand, I was a "strong Christian", a yogi, and many other things. I tried to believe in God and country. I searched everywhere for meaning. I restrained myself for the sake of my soul, only to find I have none. My brother's death in front of me, despite his supernatural pretensions, showed neither soul nor angel.

So what is left for me? There are only two options, despair and pleasure. Either I can collapse into nihilistic depression- but anyway I must become something else, also moribund, and so on ad infinitum. I will never be the same, and I cannot stop being. Therefore I resolve to live, to enjoy everything I desire, without guilt and without pretension, and dissolve myself into life.

11-30-10

I had watched Charles suffer, and was the one who called in the morphine. He slumped into sleep. I came back from a coffee shop, and Dad was sitting there looking shot. So I watched Charles until I couldn't see his chest move. I put myself between him and Dad, and checked three pulse points, and so we called the pronouncing nurse.

Since then I have seen my cousins, other people, and especially Dad talking to Charles, in a coffin or his little marble box, and telling him to say "hello" to other people wherever he is. Remember that I just apostasized from Christianity 2 years ago, and before that had believed in reincarnation and the Ancient Science of Soul Travel. Then before he completely collapsed, Charles had tried to challenge me on science versus religion- I abstained from the debate because of his illness and others' grief, and this abstinence cost me.

All of this led me to look intensely at my aging and my life process, looking for a raison d'etre. I got into politics and patriotism, studying the Constitution and so on, like the Bible, about one year ago, along with reading Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. I did not fit in the Tea Party, though, for my atheism and free thinking, nor with the liberals for my insistence on the Second Amendment and resistance to political correctness.

Is anything sure? Does anything not dissolve? Back in the mid-1990's, as a Christian, when dealing with atheists, I had asked "by what means can we know the Absolute?" Now what is Absolute, when I am dissolving? Dissolution is absolute.

I decided to live for pleasure, for my own satisfaction. After God, after America, after everything dissolves, what else is there? So I became interested in Charvaka philosophy, which teaches

While life is yours, live joyously;

None can escape Death's searching eye:

When once this frame of ours they burn,

How shall it e'er again return?

11-27-10

While yet we live, let us live for pleasure;
let us eat and play, expend our coin;
For when we must the earth rejoin,
what will our dusty bones then treasure?

In all the universe, no God
gives any sign of His Great Power.
Behold the bee courting the flower:
so life resolves to lust, and sod.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust-
savor the food; embrace the lust!

11-27-10

While yet we breathe, let us live for pleasure,

let us eat and play, expend our coin;

For when we must the earth rejoin,

what will our dusty bones then treasure?

I am getting intrigued with Charvaka (Lokayata) philosophy.

11-26-10

Carvaka: a philosophical school of circa 600 BCE India (disappeared 14th century CE), which taught that life is material only, and that pleasure is the highest goal. Carvaka attacked the Vedic religion, with its priests and rituals and scriptures, as a grand scam to control people, and which prevented them from enjoying this brief life. It advocated the search for greater and higher pleasures, aesthetic as well as sensual, and denied the gods or any supernatural entities.

Carvaka takes its name from its alledged founder, Carvaka, author of the (now lost) Barhaspatya Sutras. It is also commonly called Lokayata, or Material World-ism. In its pleasure-based ethos, Carvaka resembles Greek Hedonism and especially Epicurean philosophy. An oft-cited Carvaka saying has it:

While life is yours, live joyously;
None can escape Death's searching eye:
Whence once this frame of ours they burn,
How shall it e'er again return?

This follows closely the Biblical saying (1 Cor 15.32):

Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.

The one difference, of course, is that the Bible condemns hedonistic behavior (cf. Isa 22.13) as offensive to God and worthy of judgment; Carvaka commends it as the raison d'etre. Now after half a lifetime of religious practice, including 10 years as a Bible-bellieving Christian and more as a practicing yogi, and with all due respect to patriotism and the Constitution: after all of that searching for truth, for meaning in life, I will go with Carvaka. I have also my own verse, adapted from the hoary Christian burial service:

Ashes to ashes; dust to dust:
Savor the food; embrace the lust!

So I began with strong Christian religion, then traveled through yoga and Buddhism. Yet, always guided by science, I was not satisfied with the gods and their "laws".

I beheld that life ends; we try to live, as everything tries to live, from the smallest microbe to the greatest whale: and that at last we all fail. As soon as a ball flies up in the air, it begins to fall, and even a baby is moribund.

There is not one speck of solid evidence for anything supernatural; deprived of hope, what shall I do? Shall I hope in humanity, in doing good deeds for others? They also perish! Shall I help the whole earth? The earth also perishes! As the song has it, "everything is dust in the wind".

What is the hope of this dust? Can this little temporary bundle of dust, this fancy mudpie, even speak of hope? Absurdity and obscenity! Religion and patriotism, all the pretenses of Great Principles, are adult fairy tales (unfortunately, not erotic ones), or like worshipping bones. Should I worship bones?

If people insist that the world and all beings were created in six days, by an invisible and inaudible God, or that we humans did not evolve from apes, and that somehow we are above nature- which is the basis of all religion, that we are supernatural- if they insist on the imaginary and absurd, why should I not worship bones?

At least, unlike supernatural symbols, bones remind me of what I really am: thinking matter. And bones are beautiful- especially with young female flesh growing on them!

11-25-10

The Westboro Baptist Church people, who preach "God hates fags" and similar misanthropic messages, are nonetheless real Christians. If their church is not Christian, what about your church?

If hating gays means you are not a Christian, what if you hate Africans? What if you enslave them? In that case, the entire antebellum South was not Christian. What if you not only hate gays, but also witches; what if you not only hate them but burn them alive- can you be Christian? If people who torture and burn gays and witches cannot be Christians, then the entire medieval church was not Christian.

Is hating and burning gays and witches "extremism"? If so, then the entire medieval church, all of Western Christendom, was extremist. If hating and persecuting Jews ostensibly because "the Jews killed Jesus" is extremism, then most of Christian history is extremist.

Therefore whether we think they are "extremist" or not, whether we like them or not, the Westboro people are real Christians. Yet for all their hatred, at least the Westboro people do not fly airplanes into gay bars.

In Islam, even more than Christianity, people who take their religion seriously become "extremist". One could argue that the majority of Islam is "extremist". A brief Internet search of the phrases, "terrorist attack", and "honor killing", and "Mohammed cartoon fatwa" will show that serious Islam is a serious threat.

It does appear that religionists who take their teachings seriously, are also more "extremist". That is what is wrong with religion: the "extremists" are the real ones.

2. See how the Westboro man goes to his wife and hides behind her, and she takes up the fight. This is what is really wrong with America: not gay men, but disappearing men.

11-24-10

Creationism vs. Evolution

There is no harmony, and no middle ground here. Religion and science are opposite modes of thought, as I have shown elsewhere. Religion takes a preconception, such as that God created all of life in six days, and either denies any evidence to the contrary, or else tries to bend the evidence to fit the preconception. Science takes evidence, a large body of evidence, and makes a conclusion; and this conclusion is also subject to revision or even refutation by new evidence.

In short, if ideas were fish, and reality were a ruler, science would measure the fish by the ruler. Religion would either ignore the ruler, or bend it to fit the fish. This is the inherent opposition between religion (or any faith-based ideology), and science (or any rationality).

Religion- the evidence must fit the preconceived idea:

Idea <- Evidence

Science- the idea must fit the evidence:

Evidence -> Idea

Changing, or pretending change in the evidence of nature, to make reality agree with one's preconceived notions: this is magical thinking. Priests and preachers are magicians, and the faithful are their credulous audience.

I am continually amazed at the infantile credulity and militant arrogance of the creationists, who insist not only that we all believe their primitive false teachings, but also insist on infecting children with creationist fallacies, even in the public schools. I have decided to respond in a manner they will recognize. I am going to give creationism, and its new intellectual poseur, Intelligent Design, an old fashioned Church of Christ treatment.

If this nation, the United States of America, allows teaching of creationism in our public schools, why not teach astrology or New Age healing also? If we will not teach these pseudo-sciences, which are based on witchcraft and sorcery, why are we even considering teaching creationism, which is based on a Bronze-Age myth?

Yet I find that the creation-evolution debate still rages, almost exclusively in the United States of America. Why creationism is fervently believed here, rather than in other developed nations is another matter. Possibly it reflects the recalcitrant bucolic nature of the US population. In any event, the US prefers creation mythology to science almost like the Islamic nations.

Now if the US has a much higher percentage of creationists than other developed nations, what does "developed" mean?

Does widespread and fervent creationism mean that the US is taken by the creationist myth? How ignorant and myth-taken would Americans have to be, before the US would be considered retarded in its development?

If over 50% of the US population rejecting science in favor of a Bronze Age myth about human origins, does not constitute retarded development, what would constitute retarded development? If 50% of Americans believed that Santa Claus delivered gifts around the world in one night, traveled through the sky with flying reindeer, and slithered down chimneys like a corpulent snake: if half of us believed that, would it not qualify as retarded development on a national scale?

If making life decisions based on magical thinking rather than reason is not retarded, what would be retarded? If every other person in the US prefers magical thinking to science and plain reason; and if many people insist on propagating their magical thinking in schools, what is the future of America?

For those who say, "Teach the controversy": there is no real controversy between creation and evolution. They are entirely different modes of thinking. One is magical and ideological; the other is rational and scientific. No credible scientist accepts creationism; on the other hand, modern biology, as well as ecology, anthropology, and many other sciences, is based on evolution,

Evolutionary science belongs in public schools; creationism is an "ism", a religious idea; it belongs in religious schools- if anywhere. Whether religion should be taught to children at all is a question for another time.

11-23-10

It is time for the human race to grow up, to put away the fairies and goddies, and all the paraphernalia of faith. It is time to replace faith and religion with reason and science, worldwide. To understand why, simply look at the daily newsblogs, or even the main stream media. The most pernicious and persistent problems in our world all have at least in part, religion as cause.

The image of the World Trade Center towers collapsing, to the tune of "Allahu Akbar" should be sufficient to show this; if not, an Internet review of the words and phrases, "pedophile priest", "creationism versus evolution", and "circumcision" will settle the matter. Religion has shown what it is good for: ignorance, barbaric warfare, abuse of women and children, and contradiction of everything good in human nature.

Religion, by which I mean faith-based beliefs that guide people, has even infected science. Some degreed scientists have even tried to forge a compromise with religion, saying that faith and rationalism can coexist and even cooperate in helping humanity.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The history of religion, and in particular of its more conservative sects, has shown that people of faith mistrust rationalim and especially the natural sciences: and well they should, for religion and science are essentially opposed.

As I have posted elsewhere,

11-23-10

1.The scientific method is the path to truth.

a. Observe

b. Question

c. Investigate

d. Conclude

e. Act

2. Knowledge of nature is enlightenment.

What else is there, but the natural world? Is there evidence of anything beyond nature? "The garden is beautiful enough without fairies at the bottom of it."

Crystals really are spiritual. Butterflies are fairies and eagles are spirits. The natural world is brilliantly spiritual, and everything is shiny.

11-23-10

When one of my daughters was young, she loved things that were "shiny". This was her word of wonder.

"Crystals are so spiritual, aren't they?"

"Shiny"

We are immortal because matter is immortal.

As Dawkins says, going back to the way I was before I was born.

This is the fairie world. The material world is spiritual.

Waterfalls, fountains, crystals, tide pools, coral reefs, beeswax candles, chanting, incense, mountains, canyons, fossils, epiphytes, rain forests, fresh air, things that glow in the dark, fireflies,

Now as I feel the age of life creeping on me, as I watch my body gradually disintegrate, I look for some reason, something beyond this decay. I look for something beyond myself, beyond "this mortal coil", something greater- and there is nothing.

This is the stumbling block for every unbeliever: where am I going next? If there is nothing beyond this life- for there is no credible evidence- then what am I, even now? And the answer is, I am this world, this nature, this universe.

I am going to the same place and same condition as before I was born. I am going nowhere else; therefore I am always here: matter into matter.

Decades ago, in my Christian deliberations, I asked, "by what means can we know the Absolute"? It was intended as a challenge to the unbelievers, one of whom I have become. How to know the Absolute- Why did I assume there was an Absolute? The Absolute is nature, this world, now. We are the Absolute, and so is every shiny thing!

11-21-10

If there is no evidence for God, then the universe is to be presumed innocent. The universe is innocent of God.

If anyone claims a gold mine, he must show some gold, or else he is a false claimant. In the Bible itself, "you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Therefore, whoever claims there is a God, or anything supernatural, without evidence, is a false witness.

*Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat*; the burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the defendant. There is no evidence of the supernatural; therefore the universe is innocent of God.

2. "You shall not bear false witness". Those who, without evidence, proclaim God or the supernatural, are false witnesses.

11-20-10

The moralization surrounding sexuality increasingly amazes me. Even the word, "morality", automatically suggests sexual morality. This is strange, considering that the worst crimes involve injuring or taking human life.

Why does sexuality provoke more moral outrage than murder? Why does the "X" rating only apply to pornography, not to even the most gruesome horror movies? Is not sadistic violence worse than almost any kind of sex? Yet somehow sexuality keeps getting the bony ascetic finger of morality.

For example, prostitution, or the bartering of sexual favors between a woman and a man, is based on the reality that women have sexual favors, which men want; and that men have money and meat and other stuff, which women want. This is an entirely natural arrangement, which has been working very well for a very long time, and in which both man and woman have their needs satisfied.

In fact what we call "prostitution" is the essence of male-female relationships. I have yet to meet a woman who would have sex for free; even in this liberated age, women expect something in exchange for their favors. Yet from religionists to feminists, people keep attacking prostitution as "sin" and "degradation" and so on.

From a purely scientific point of view, the deep and abiding moral prejudice against women and men bartering sex is incomprehensible. First of all, as noted above, women always expect something besides sex. This probably relates to the differential in reproductive strategies of male and female. The essential strategy of the female is to have offspring. The male cannot have offspring, and therefore his strategy is simply to mate, as often and with as many females as possible.

This explains why we see women, but not men, selling sexual favors; why men, rather than women, avidly consume pornography; why men, much more than women, are likely to "cheat": different reproductive strategies lead to differentials in drive. To put it simply: women want babies, and men want women.

Now surrounding the woman's essential baby drive, her maternal instinct, is a whole superstructure of other needs: food, clothing, shelter, etc. Also she needs things that symbolize her value, thus ensuring her survival: gifts, entertainment, etc. All of this stuff is more valuable to a woman if it comes from a man, since it shows his ability and willingness to help her offspring survive.

Compare this with the man's need, which is essentially sexual. We like women who are exciting, flirtatious, risk-taking, and of course sexually enthusiastic (or who can deliver a good, noisy pretense of enthusiasm). We do not care if the woman is dirt poor, indigent and helpless; actually helpless women are even more attractive. The key for men is sex appeal.

1.1 There is nothing wrong with prostitution; it needs to be legalized and regulated.

1.2 Women have been getting paid, and men getting laid, since the dawn of time. Get over it.

1.3 Men want sex, but women expect something besides sex. Men wanting sex, and women wanting something besides sex, is normal and natural. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

11-19-10

The scientific method is the path to truth.

Ignorance and preconception are the source of all problems in life.

Common preconceptions (precons) are religion, political ideology, and superstition. Precons warp our view of nature, so that we cannot see the evidence.

Religion (preconception): The idea is the standard; any evidence to the contrary is ignored, suppressed, or "retrofitted" to the idea.

Idea <- Evidence

Science (reason): Evidence is the standard; the idea is formed, and then reformed to fit the evidence.

Evidence -> Idea

This is why science and religion will never agree; they are opposite processes.

Study of nature leads to spiritual experience.

11-19-10

1.1 Why do I get along fine without any belief in anything beyond this world? I am sure that there are no ghosts, gods, or anything supernatural. I could be wrong, but it is the burden of the one who claims God to show evidence. If someone shows me evidence, I will say their way is right. Until then, the universe is innocent of God.

1.2 Why do I get along well and enjoy life, without anything supernatural? The study of nature itself gives me feelings that most people (and myself in an earlier time) would call "spiritual". I cannot find a better word for how I feel when studying the creatures living in a piece of coral, for example, or the sublime sound of a spring.

1.3 Without reference to anything supernatural, these things bring me to a place others would call "spiritual experience". Also this happens when I listen to Gregorian or especially Orthodox chant- I feel very "spiritual" even though I have no use for their gods.

1.4 So then: if I, and I think others also, can have spiritual experiences apart from anything supernatural, why do we need the gods? They only hinder human progress, and incite people to torture and kill one another. The time of God has past; the time of Science is here.

11-19-10

There is no verifiable evidence of anything supernatural. Therefore, I hold the universe innocent of God. Those who insist there is a God, who proclaim the supernatural, having no evidence, are false witnesses.

11-19-10

1. All problems in life come from ignorance.

2. Knowledge of truth is hidden by preconceptions.

3. The scientific method is the path to truth.

4. Knowledge of nature leads to enlightenment.

11-16-10

You are welcome. You were doing fine, my friend, really. I was more concerned with the PoMoism of Person A, whose nonthoughts are typical of the elite. Jeez, these people get on my nerves!

If they do not like America, if they want Muslims and Mexicans to run all over the place, let them go to those countries. Their convenient PC insults to American patriotism are not wanted here.

If they do not like the Second Amendment, let them live without the police or army, or armed civilians like me. They would not last a minute without someone protecting them, yet they rail against "gun violence". Hypocrites!

They scream about "hate speech", while they themselves depend on freedom of speech. They want to silence their opponents, while they cling to the First Amendment. Hypocrites!

They give all kinds of concessions to Islam, and make every apology to Islamists, claiming freedom of religion. At the same time they despise Christianity and even attack Israel- and some of them are Jews. Hypocrites!

The worst thing they do: they deny reason. They refuse to see reality, even though it is right before them. They prefer their Postmodernist ideological delusions to plain reason. They claim to think, to be intelligent, but in their works they deny common sense and the rule of evidence.

Their academic arrogance is indefensible; they are intellectual poseurs. They need to turn from their pretentious ideology, and embrace Science.

11-15-10

1.1 People who attack the Constitution forget that:
a. The Constitution itself allows them to teach their nonsense. They have freedom of speech and of the press only because the Constitution says so, and because people defend their freedom with arms (1A and 2A).
b. Reason, which these Postmodernists deny, is the source of the Constitution. It is not "inspired" or "holy" or whatever their confused minds try to accuse us of saying. No rational person claims the Constitution is from God; that is a false accusation of the ignorant.
c. Resorting to false accusation and argumenteum ad hominem is the last resort of rationally defenseless people.

1.2 Typically these people, since they cannot fight their way out of a wet paper bag, also are against the ownership of firearms (or other weapons). In their pacifism they contradict the Constitution, which says in 2A, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

1.3 Also, again, they are hypocrites, for they depend on others to fight for them. They should respect our soldiers and police and armed civilians, instead of uttering foolish arguments against the defense of self and nation. They ignore the fact that pacifists are protected by gun owners.

1.4 However, in this they show that they cannot reason, for they will react with anger and pseudo-righteous sputtering when their pathetic positions are refuted. If they would once admit their error, they could become good citizens of a free nation, instead of accomplices of the enemies of freedom.

1.5 As it is, those who attack the Constitution are questionable citizens, at best. If they were in some foreign country, we could ignore them, but as I have said, these people and their indefensible anti-Americanism are in positions of power and influence. I sincerely hope that they will turn from their error and learn to respect reason and the laws of our land. Until then I am bound to contradict them, and I will.

11-14-01

1.1 In the US today we have a dearth of real men. The Muslims, whatever else I think about them, would never allow this insult. They have no confusion about manhood, and if someone even burns their "holy" book, they go up in arms.

1.2 All we do is burn Qur'ans, make speeches, and talk tough on the Internet. Meanwhile the enemies of liberty keep attacking our nation and our women. It is amazing how much American and European men put up with- just close our shells and hide. We have become noisy clams.

1.3 What is causing Western men to act like mollusks? What makes men deny their inherent aggressive, protective drive? What dysfunction of the male mind makes us unsure of our principles?

1.4 It is an ideology called Postmodernism. Even though most people do not know the word, Postmodernism affects everything in their lives. It's like the Matrix or something: all around them, but they cannot see it.

1.5 Postmodernists preach multiculturalism, moral equivalence, ethical neutrality, and hate any approach to truth. This explains why I have had trouble speaking to people both here (Boston) and earlier in the South: both were infected with Postmodernism.

1.6 In the South it is not yet as strong as in the North, but it has its slimy tentacles spread everywhere. My brother died a few weeks ago, and he proclaimed Postmodernist spirituality on his deathbed. I vowed to spend the rest of my life destroying the disgusting parasite of Postmodernism.

1.7 The quickest antidote to Postmodernism is a slap in the face. Anyone who insists that "truth is relative" needs to be shocked back into the real world.

1.8 Pain is universal and not subject to Postmodernist pretensions. It hurts, and no amount of sophomoric sophistry will make it stop. However, physical pain is nothing compared to the destruction of ideas. Therefore the best way to defeat Postmodernism is aggressive engagement.

1.9 Of course, since Postmodernists pretend that reasoning cannot prove anything, they will predictably disdain debate. In fact, they fear debate. They know that their darling delusion is an indefensible escapist device for the lazy and the weak.

1.10 Perhaps that is why Western men cling to Postmodernism so dearly: it absolves them of acting like men. They do not have to stand up, risk anything, or make any truth claims. There are no principles for which to fight. Postmodern men can stay safe in their shells, while men of less sophisticated cultures take their land and their women.

11-14-10

1.1 The pursuit of scientifically verifiable truth (the most reasonable conclusion from the best available data) has led me to feelings of wonder that most people would call religious experiences.

1.2 Yet these experiences are based on observations of foliage and fossils. How is it that scientific observation becomes spiritual meditation? Or should I call it scientific meditation?

1.3 When meditating on the pure data of the natural world, I am tempted to use the word "spiritual". And why not? There is no spirit but nature, and no god but the truth.

1.4 What we call "spirituality" is accessible through the scientific study of nature. There is no need of spirits! There is no need for God! Good thing, too, since there is no evidence of anything beyond nature. The universe is innocent of God.

1.5 What we do have is a gorgeous, gory, glorious natural world, the world in which we live, in short: the real world. "Truth is stranger than fiction", and reality is more spiritual than religion. This could be called scientific spirituality.

Where are the Men? 2

1.1 We are the People, but we are not doing anything. There is so much loud noise online, but not on the street. Men in particular are acting like Big Guys behind the keyboard, but like teddy bears in public. Great big American Patriots: we talk about "kicking ass", but are afraid our women will kick us out of the house (which we built).

1.2 If there is any conflict between men and women, men get "put in the doghouse"; we "go sleep on the sofa". We do not stand up to our women. The Islamists, whatever else I think about them, at least know they are men.

1.3 American men are so weak, scared even of our own women, that we cannot protect them from rapist thugs. Sometimes it seems that American women are bolder than we are. It is good to have strong, patriotic women, especially in these times, but where are the men?

Innocent of God: Dividing from the Religious

1.1 This I write after watching a debate, in which a Christian pastor repeatedly interrupted and over-spoke two atheists. In his disrespectful ignorance, or deceptiveness, he insisted that the American States were founded on Christianity; that this is a "Christian nation".

1.2 Okay that's it. I have been trying so hard to be nice; that's my fault. So here goes. I am not a Christian anymore; I do not have to be "patient and kind". But at least I know to listen while my opponent speaks. Now I shall speak.

1.3 If anyone, anyone of any religion, claims that there is God in the universe, I demand evidence. Do not give me any clever argument; I want hard, scientifically verifiable proof of the supernatural. I demand evidence of God.

1.4 Otherwise, without any evidence, you are accusing my beautiful, natural universe of an unnatural God. You are accusing nature of a being who does everything evil and stupid, and I do know the verses. Try Deu 25.11-12, or Num 31.18, for starters. There's lots more.

1.5 It does not matter if "we don't do those things now"; the people of your God did those things. Some people still want to (e.g., Dominionism).

1.6 This is evidence that the Bible is messed up, and the God of the Bible should be locked up. If God were here I would execute him.

1.7 If the Bible is so heinous, imagine what I can find in the Qur'an, written by a man who "married" a 6 year old. Followers of the Qur'an actually take their book seriously, hence 9-11 and every other atrocity. Therefore I accuse God of rape, robbery, and mass murder. How dare you accuse beautiful nature of such a God?

1.8 But someone may say, "Nature is also cruel and ugly." By our human ethics, nature may seem really cruel; however no one claims nature (before humanity) is ethical. God is supposed to be the Source of ethics and morals, and he is worse than nature by far.

1.9 Anyone who accuses another of a serious crime must show evidence, or be guilty of slander. Do you slander the universe with God? The Bible says, "You shall not bear false witness."

1.10 There is no true witness of the supernatural. The universe is innocent of God.

Men of the West, Arise

1.1 I hate to throw cold water on our parade of bravado, but the Muslims (or Mexican invaders, or Obama) are not the problem. We Europeans and Americans have created these problems for ourselves, by being soft and nice.

1.2 While the rest of the world has no trouble with slaying its enemies at a slight, we in the West allow our avowed enemies to run rampant, to destroy our culture and violate our women. And we are proud of our "tolerance"!

1.3 Perhaps it is time for our people and our values to become extinct. After all, no animal would disarm itself, not if it wants to survive. Yet in the West we have "gun control" and every kind of stupid idea like "strength through peace", all of which means we are silly and weak.

1.4 In fact, there is no "strength through peace"; peace and strength likewise are the result of preparedness, of readiness to fight. Those who are to "tolerant" (passive) to fight for themselves depend on the rest of us for protection. Whether they like it or not, pacifists are protected by gun owners.

1.5 In the way of nature, those who are willing to defend themselves survive, and the rest become food. It is up to us whether we lie down and wait to be eaten, or stand up (at last) and confront our enemies.

AINOs, Americans In Name Only

1.1 Islam is the enemy of civilization, but the real enemies of America are those who allow Islamists into this nation, who accept and approve of Islamic jihad, and who attempt to silence those of us who disagree with Islam. In other words, the worst enemies of America are right here among us.

1.2 They are the moonbats, the ivory-tower intelligentsia, the idiot elite: those who (to paraphrase Ronald Reagan) "know too much that just isn't so". They pretend to be educated, but are heavily indoctrinated. They love soft lies and hate the ring of truth.

1.3 Although the moonbats will deny it, their works show they hate America and all civilization. They secretly want to destroy the Constitution and our freedoms; they are AINOs, Americans in name only.

1.4 AINOs say that we who speak the truth are "full of hate". They say we are "extremists" and "right-wingers". I am not as educated as they are; I do not even have a college degree. I do know I love America and, unlike AINOs, I do read our Constitution.

1.5 So if the AINOs do not like me, I do not care. If they do not like this nation, and this includes European self-haters also: if they do not like Euro-American civilization, our values and our laws, they can get the hell out. Let them go to Saudi Arabia or Iran, wherever. AINOs are not welcome here.

1.6 I realize that is a serious accusation, "Americans in name only". I must show evidence, and I do not have to work very hard. AINOs witness against themselves.

1.7 For example: whoever says "we are not now, nor ever will be, at war with Islam" is either grotesquely ignorant or criminally mendacious. Islam has been warring with civilization since the 7th century. Islamists have attacked and violated every nation they enter, and they are here now. The World Trade Center atrocity by itself should show that we are are engaged in stern and merciless war with Islam.

1.9 The Islamists conquer not by reason, for Islam (Submission) is indefensible in an enlightened culture. Islam conquers by the sword, by rape and by devastation. Therefore not only the United States, but all free nations, are in fact at war with Islam. Whoever aids and abets, or gives aid and comfort to our enemies, is a traitor; and whoever denies or "tolerates" Islamic jihad is an American in name only.

1.10 The Islamic front is only one place the AINOs show their anti-American colors. On the illegal alien issue- and by the way, there are no "illegal immgrants"; immigration is a legal process provided for in the Consitution- AINOs want to give illegals "amnesty" and the rights of citizens.

2.1 They want us to accept everyone, regardless of how they got here or what they carry into our homeland. For illegal entry to the American States is not immigration at all; it is nation-scale home invasion.

2.2 AINOs say we should be "compassionate" toward invasive illegals because of their poverty. We should learn their ways and communicate in Spanish (or Swahili or whatever). This is like welcoming and cooperating with criminal home invaders. Would the AINOs welcome robbers and rapists into their own homes? Yet that is exactly what they want us to do.

2.3 AINO ideology says that since Americans have religious freedom, up to the point that freedom physically hurts someone else, therefore we should "tolerate" everyone's religion, no matter what it does to us. AINOs think that since this nation was built by legal immigrants, we should accept all those who come here, regardless of their method of entry or their intent.

Innocent of God

1.1 There is in law, and in plain reasoning also, a principle called "presumed innocence". Simply, it means that if I am accused of anything, I do not have to prove myself innocent. I am to be held innocent until conclusive evidence is shown.

1.2 If someone accuses me of having a soul, I have nothing to prove. The accuser has something to prove. Where is the evidence of my soul?

1.3 If someone says there is a God (a supernatural Being above me), I do not have to prove there is no God. The accuser has something to prove. Where is the evidence of God? Not pseudo-clever arguments or philosophy, but hard evidence: where is it?

1.4 Therefore I find the universe innocent of God.

Disciples of Truth

!. Truth is God; there is no God above Truth.

2. Truth is the most reasonable conclusion from the best available evidence.

3. All problems in life can be addressed through practical science:

i. Observe

ii. Question

iii. Investigate

iv. Conclude

v. Act

This method is directly opposed to faith-based religion or other ideology. Ideology tries to retrofit evidence to the idea: Idea <- Evidence. It will not change, but rather denies or attempts to suppress the Truth. This is backward of normal reasoning. Science makes the idea fit the evidence: Evidence -> Idea. Therefore science continually approaches Truth.

Ortho America

11-6-10

1.1 Those who threaten the American States and other free nations are dangerous pests. I include those who want to impose Shari'a, those who want to annex the Southwest to Mexico, and especially all of their apologists.

1.2 The aggressive primitives and their useful idiots (usids), in their present condition, are pests and parasites. Ideally, with sufficient instruction, they could learn to cherish our values, such as free expression and self defense (US Constitution, Amendments I and II, cf. XIV.).

1.3 However, if they insist on assaulting the American States and other free nations, such people must be removed from civilized society. Our children will thank us.

Amoeba Rules: Doing Unto Others

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

1.1 Like most people in the West, I grew up to the musical sound of this pretty saying. For most of my life, even after reason rescued me from religion, I believed "the Golden Rule" to be the apex of ethics, the unimpeachable monarch of morality. Whatever was good or trustworthy in human relations, or even (from a neo-Buddhist point of view) relating to other species, could be answered by applying this Rule. Yet now, at age 52, in view of the ceaseless genetic competition, the ruthless amoebic warfare which constitutes life, I seriously question the principle of "doing unto others".

1.2 The Golden Rule is essentially a doctrine of compassion: of seeing my own suffering in the suffering of others, or their need in my needs, and responding as if they were myself. Compassion is based on a tacit assumption of reciprocity, or at least of reward: if I do good unto others, they will do good unto me; or God will do good unto me. I now see that this entire assumption is false.

1.3 First off, large portions of the world do not follow any such Rule. In the nation of Islam, for instance, people do cooperate and help one another- but only other Muslims, and only those in good standing. An exposed face (for a woman), an accusation of adultery (again, mostly for women), or a hint of apostasy, and other Muslims zealously apply a Rule that reads something like: "do unto them what you would never have done unto you".

The greatest reason to reject religion is that dwelling on the "supernatural" takes our attention away from the natural. The religious care more for god than for other people. This explains why religion has been the source of every kind of evil. When god is the center of attention, other people can literally go to hell.

Moreover, even an otherwise benign religious belief deprives the believer of the pleasures of reality. Instead of enjoying a full life, he spends his time in fantasies with invisible friends which, if they were not socially sanctified as "religion", would be considered evidence of a psychological problem.

Amoeba Rules: Why I Eat Meat

11-6-10

1.1 Having practiced vegetarianism, including macrobiotic and vegan diets, for over 30 years, and now having "converted" to omnivorism, I feel qualified to address the question, Should I eat meat? I realize there is a tremendous amount of smoke, heat, and not always a lot of light in this discussion. It seems that after religion and sexuality, diet causes the most fierce debates.

1.2 First of all, note that word above, "converted", in quotation marks. Did I really have to convert? I have sharp cuspid teeth, a relatively small abdomen-to-cranium ratio (i.e., small guts compared to my brain), and plenty of pepsin, an enzyme for digesting protein. In short, I have the body of an omnivore: an eater of everything, including meat.

1.3 Secondly, I like meat; in fact I prefer it. If you put me in the woods, or out in some field, as our ancestors lived not so long ago, I would automatically hunt for animals. I can survive on meat for a long time, on vegetables hardly at all. I can eat almost any animal with complete safety, but plants I must choose carefully lest the poison me. Meat is the best food for my survival; and I like to survive.

1.4 Thirdly, I need nutrients from animal foods. Complete proteins, amino acids, iron, calcium, Vitamin B-12, and Omega-3 acids are found mostly or only in animal foods. It might be possible to synthesize a diet containing these nutrients, based on plants and fungi only, but why should I do that? I like meat.

1.5 Finally, after decades in yoga, and studying Buddhism, I am tired of hearing that "meat is bad". As I listen to vegetarian arguments, I notice a tone of moral superiority, with which I am very familiar.

1.6 If I study vegetarianism deeply enough, I find its roots go back to the East, to Hinduism. "Thou shalt not kill animals" is a very common interpretation of ahimsa, or nonviolence, an ethical teaching of Hinduism and yoga. Vegetarianism, despite its pretensions to reason, is therefore not science; it is religion, and all of its arguments are based on religious ideas.

1.7 So here is another idea. If I should not kill animals, if per PETA's Ingrid Newkirk, "animals are not ours to eat"- why not? Predators eat prey; omnivores eat meat when they can get it; why should I not?

1.8 Not that I have any spite for PETA people: actually I admire their stand against fur (as well as their unique advertising style). Why should I wear an animal's skin, when I have one already? Unlike eating meat, wearing animal skin or fur is not necessary, but purely an indulgence. Interestingly, while women comprise the majority of PETA, women also are the main fur wearers, and thus responsible for the insensate cruelty of the fur industry. However, back to the question "Why should I not eat meat?"

1.9 Any answer to this question, such as "because meat eating is cruel" or "you don't want to be eaten, do you?" is moralistic and religious, and I reject it. If I, a complex colony of amoebas, should not kill and eat a somewhat less complex colony of amoebas, why not? To avoid violence?

1.10 Consider that the vegetarian's food comes from the ground, from a farm. That farm land was once a field or forest. Now to produce vegetable foods, all the animals have been killed from that land, all the birds driven off, all the trees and herbs destroyed, and poisons applied to kill "pest" animals. All this killing for the nonviolent vegetarian diet.

2.1 Therefore since it tastes good, and within reason is good for me, and suits my omnivorous body, I will eat meat. I cannot escape killing animals, so I will enjoy doing so. Actually, I prefer fresh fish and seafood.

2.2 Now it is true that the people with the longest life expectancy in the world, the Okinawans, eat mostly grain, beans, and vegetables. However, it is also true that about 12% of their diet by weight is fish and seafood. Okinawans are very healthy and happy, as well as long-lived people- and they eat animals.

2.3 The sum of argumentation for vegetarianism, and especially for the PETA-preferred vegan diet, is illogical, unscientific, and essentially magical. Abstaining from meat does not protect animals; it only makes the abstinent feel superior to the animals they claim to protect, while living off ravaged farmland. If I accept being an animal, I can also accept eating like one, with gusto.

Slime

Islam is the enemy of civilization. This does not mean that Islam is the only such inimical force; gangsterism or thugism of whatever kind threatens us. It also does not mean that all Muslims are enemies; there may be good citizens, even patriots, among them.

It is hard to understand how a "religion" (Islam is in fact not a religion, but a theocratic politico-military system) of which the major figure, Mohammed, is a pedophile, and which in its scriptures and by the mouths of its clerics, rabidly preaches "death to unbelievers", and carries out threats with vicious terrorism, could ever produce a decent person.

USIDS: the Useful Idiots

11-4-10

1.1 On the Plain of Predation, there are three kinds of organisms: predator, prey, and partner. Every organism fits essentially one of these categories. For instance, if I see a snarling dog, with foam dripping from its mouth, I can without question call it a predator. The dog has the markings of a predator; it is witnessing for itself that it is a predator. The same is true for a young man wearing a "hoodie" sweatshirt marked "I'm a Gangsta", who is glowering at me. Absent further evidence, I will assign him the value of predator; with his clothing and actions he witnesses this himself.

1.2 On the other hand, if I see a fat salmon swimming near me, I will assign it the value of prey. If a woman smiles at me, picks up a spear and jumps into the water after the salmon, I will assign her the value of partner. Thus every organism I encounter in life can be evaluated as predator, prey, or partner based on its own witness.

1.3 This reminds me of the Biblical dictum, "by their fruits you will know them". Trees look very similar, but the apple can be distinguished from the crabapple by its fruit. Thus humans may look similar, or almost identical, but can be clearly distinguished by their actions. Whether predator or partner (or in the rare, even hypothetical case, prey), humans can be evaluated by their actions.

1.4 When I view current events in this nation and around the world, I see people behaving clearly as predators or partners of myself and of civilization. For example, when someone says, "Death to America" or "God Hates You", and fulfills those sayings by killing people (who have not physically attacked them), I know these are human predators. They testify against themselves, just as the foaming dog or the "Gangsta" hoodie.

1.5 On the other hand, when people say, "God Bless America" or "Defend Israel", or "Support your Right to Bear Arms", and their actions fulfill their words, I know these are partners with me and with civilization. I may not wholly share their ideological views; yet based on their words and their works, I evaluate them as potential friends.

1.6 I must explicate one assumption here; the meaning of civilization. When I call someone a "partner with me and with civilization", I mean that they want me to survive and be happy, and that they favor the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (United States Declaration of Independence). More exactly, a partner with civilization honors and practices the essential First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution: freedom of expression and the right to defend it.

1.7 However, if one who claims to be an American or citizen of other civilized nation, speaks and works against free expression and self defense: if that person stands against the Constitution and for the enemies of civilization: that person is effectively a traitor.

1.8 In the old Soviet Union, officials called such people, who sympathized with socialism from a safe distance, "useful idiots". Now in search of a name for those who say, "American will never be at war with Islam"; who praise and imitate America's enemies in the name of "tolerance"; and who, contrary to the Constitution, even suppress scientific evidence they find "offensive": I can find no better description for them than useful idiots. They are worse than useless to civilization, but very useful to its enemies. They are fallacious fools, useful idiots: usids.

1.9 When Aksa Parvez, then Amina and Sarah Said, and then Noor Almaleki, are brutally murdered by their fathers, the usids say, "domestic violence cuts across all of society". When illegal aliens swarm across the borders, bringing crime and even terrorism with them; the usids say, "we should give these immigrants amnesty". When anyone bravely speaks the truth about these matters, the usids say, "you are inciting violence and hate".

1.10 Usids need some lessons, in English first of all. The word is correctly hatred and not "hate". Then they need to escape the miasma of politically-correct gibberish, and learn to speak from their own minds. Eliminate words and expressions such as "hate speech", "extremist", etc. Eradicate forever the false use of "tolerance", which correctly does not mean agreeing with opponents, but respecting their right to be disagreeable. In other words, tolerance means respectful opposition.

2.1 Usids pretend to cover deadly enmity with false "tolerance", while they themselves refuse to tolerate disagreement. They deny plain evidence; they attack their opponents (argumenteum ad hominem); they run on heated emotion rather than illuminating reason.

2.2 Usids never try to think for themselves; it seems as if they cannot think. If they did confront the evidence and reasoned from it, they would reach solid conclusions and not flabby, politically-correct sound bytes. They would not be usids. As it is, they are idiots, useful only to the enemies of the Constitution and civilization.

2.3 This raises the question: what to do with the usids? Since like myself they are colonies of amoebas, whose value is only according to their works, they need at least a stern and public rebuke. Since I evaluate them as predators of civilization, or more exactly parasites upon it, the usids fairly beg for correction.

2.4 Let this be the rebuke, and the correction. Usids are in league with the enemies of the Constitution and civilization. They refuse to see the truth, and thus are opposed to the Enlightenment. They prefer ideological fantasy to plain sense and political platitudes to straight speech. Their foolish words and corrupt works are both a shame and a threat to civilized society. Usids are soft-core coffee-house traitors.

2.5 Yet if they shed their self-righteous resistance to reason, and learn to respect evidence and the rule of law, usids can become strong citizens. If they turn away from partisan politics, whether left or right, and adhere to the Constitution and American values (not "tolerance and peace", but liberty and responsibility), usids can become patriots of a free nation.

2.6 On the Plain of Predation, on the field of this nation, there are predators and partners, enemies and friends. Today, America and the entire free world are struggling for our survival, which is really the survival of civilized society. The usids can determine whether they want to be friends or foes of civilization, and we all can decide how to treat them.