Читать книгу Atheists Are Idiots - Robert Boone's Firth - Страница 4

Why was I born? Why are we here and what in the hell is an atheist?

Why was I born, where did I come from, where are we going and why are we here? These arguably are the most common questions asked throughout history by children, adults, philosophers and scholars. The child can easily answer these questions, he says ‘I came from my house and I’m going to play and I’m here because mommy told me to be- easy enough. However, as one grows up, of course, these answers don’t work anymore and, all but the dimmest, are forced to reach further to find satisfying answers, many ponder these questions till their last days and, even then, never see the light….

Questions concerning the true meaning of life are virtually endless, arising from many disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, spirituality, science, and, of course, religion. They proliferate like the ‘old swami on the mountain’ tale. We present here some of the main viewpoints that attempt to answer the question "What is the true meaning of and purpose of life?"

The religious devotee, of course, feels his true purpose is one of devotion to religion. Mother Teresa and the many thousands like her in service to God and humanity are examples. All religions presuppose a supernatural being. The followers are to connect with the higher power and do good works in the name of the deity or creator so as to benefit humankind. Devout Christians (and many not so devout) model themselves after the Christ and try to emulate him in thought and deed. The commandants, as delivered by Moses and venerated by Jews and Christians alike, are used as moral guidelines upon which to model ones life.

Atheists, by contrast, hold the opposite stance; they recognize no supernatural being or Creator. Atheistic views generally assume that the universe and all life simply ‘evolved’ under the laws of probability and look for non-religious meanings to explain life’s true purpose. The Golden Rule and the Ten Commandants hold that humans should treat others as they would themselves be treated and conduct themselves accordingly. This provides strong purpose in many religions such as Christianity and Judaism as well as Buddhism. The true atheist however professes no such moral restraints and has therefore, at best, adopted a kind of ‘moral relativism’ and, at worst, sees no clear difference or distinction between good and evil. These kinds of people are clearly capable of, and have committed, the greatest crimes in history. Why? There is nothing to hold them back, they have no fear of God’s punishment since, in their mind, there is no God. For them, nothing can be truly evil because the term evil itself is purely relative. The distinction, for these wretches, between good and bad, right and wrong, is therefore blurred such that no action they may take carries moral responsibility, relevance or significance.

Other ‘empty-suits’ (secular humanists) actually argue that the ‘real meaning of life’ is mostly biological. They feel that highest meaning of ones existence is to continue humankind through procreation of the species. Since, for them, the end of life is nothing more than a cold and lonely grave, they argue that the creation of more humans is the most important thing- otherwise, of course, humanity would cease to exist. What a logical and neat little argument….. cold, reasonable and empty! There are different types and stances of those who call themselves ‘humanists,’ many of whom see one’s individual purpose as being able to contribute to needs of the collective. Of course, this is 100% the Marxist and communist view and we know where that road leads!

In the appendices herein we have posted a list of the miracles of Jesus Christ. There are literally thousands of ancient documents in existence today that were written hundreds of years before Christ walked the earth. The accounts of the life and times of Jesus were well documented by hundreds of scholars and followers, many from first hand experience. Only the dullest of the dull and only the most committed and close minded of atheists can possibly deny that these recorded miracles by the Son of God occurred. In this respect, the Bible is a historically accurate document. What happened, and has been reported, did happen. There is no possible counter argument by the secular and Godless left that can explain away these facts! We list them here and defy any atheist to counter them. Were all those who wrote down what they saw and heard simply mad? Jesus proved to all that he indeed was the son of God and that those who would follow him would have life more abundantly and most certainly, that has been demonstrably true.

Many secular humanists express the view that the true meaning of life might be in some kind of ‘connection’ to others: biologically, socially and culturally. Here, it is important to note that many humanists that view mankind as constantly evolving beings see the true meaning of life as one that might well possibly change or be changing. (really?) Included in these sad groups we should give honorable mention to those environmentalists who find it convenient to worship mother earth. These groups are generally anti-human, anti-civilization, anti-modernity, anti-energy and anti almost everything. They worship at the alter of nature, wishing all human endeavor and progress to somehow cease and disappear. They know that the earth would be a better place were humans not present. So, we have here not merely anti-theists but a group wishing and ‘praying’ for the negation or all human life and all human activity. We posted a few of these silly groups in the appendices. Good grief!

For many secular humanists, hedonists and atheists by any other word, life’s true meaning is to make the most of life on a personal level. Their answer to the question of the meaning of life is that humans are here simply to just enjoy and strive for a happy existence. Sigmund Freud, the Viennese drug addicted doctor, who invented the psychological therapy method known as psychoanalysis, called this view the pleasure principle. The main idea behind this stance is that humanity is meant to experience maximum pleasure and minimum pain. We present, in a further chapter, a discussion of Epicurus, the Ancient Greek philosopher credited with founding this school of thought. Of course, not being of the “hair shirt” personal masochism school, on some level, I can appreciate the attraction…

The humanistic branch of psychology, most associated with Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, grew out of a need for more personal meaning than Freud’s psychoanalysis could provide. Humanistic psychologists concentrate on individual potential and purpose in life. Many people do see personal achievement and the purpose of their own place in the greater world to hold a basic meaning of their lives. Maslow had the answer, eat drink and be merry and be content with the limited dunce you are!

Existentialists hold the philosophical viewpoint that some humans make individual choices in their existence. French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre said, "Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself." In this view, personal freedom may be seen as having the potential of both positive and negative outcomes depending on the choices one makes. Little comfort this does the dunce, who with limited potential in the first place, has made nothing of his life. Sartre had nothing to offer him or the 95% of humanity who are incapable of coherent reflection and who, in any case, lack the talent to change anything…

One argument that we find of significant merit in the search for life’s true purpose is to advance or help humankind. Many people feel that the one true meaning of life is to be grateful to our Creator for ones abilities and work to advance human happiness and decrease suffering. This outlook often contains views that humankind, especially those gifted with superior intelligence and ability, will find satisfying purpose and meaning by working to reduce and end suffering. Life’s meaningful purpose in this view includes the desire to devote ones talent to those pursuits benefiting those in need. The scientists who have found cures and preventatives for disease, of course, rank high under this formula. Doctors, Dentists, nurses and all those who help to directly reduce misery and suffering are obvious members of this group.

There can be many variations on what it actually means to help others. Many people may feel the answer to what their life’s meaning is about is to contribute to society through their work. Others may feel that it’s important to help discover technological or other types of advances to aid in the positive progress of humankind. Some fortunate people decide that following and developing their God given talents is their true purpose in life. Artists and musicians who create great beauty and wonders certainly find their lives meaningful as do writers and poets. Indeed, there is great satisfaction and joy in such pursuits. Michelangelo Buonarroti, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven and Mozart certainly fit into this category, as would Dr. Jonas Salk who, in 1952, developed the first effective polio vaccine.

Trans-humanism is another interesting school of thought suggesting the meaning of life is to improve the human body by extending that life. There is nothing in this discipline precluding those so engaged from having religious beliefs. In fact, many do. Trans-humanists seek mental and physical improvements in humankind such as the advances concerned with slowing and even arresting the aging process. Trans-humanist views hold that since life began through evolution, it is up to ‘evolved humans’ to control and extend the quality of life. Recent developments in the medical properties of nanobots, as they relate to the extension of human life through a slowing the aging process, suggests the possibility of almost endless life We are nearing a tipping point in life extension, thanks to technologies that enhance our health and maximize resources

Extending human life expectancy is not a new story. When our genes evolved thousands of years ago, it was not particularly in the interests of the human species to live past a child-rearing age, as resources such as food were always in short supply. Human life expectancy in the dark ages (450-800 AD) was about 37. Today, mostly due to technological labor saving devices, the use of petroleum etc., it is now pushing 80, and we have been adding about three months each year for the past several decades. Today, this is due mostly to advances in medical procedures, diet and pharmacology which however, do not address the bodies overall genetic aging process.

The science of life extension is however about to go into high gear. Until recently, health and medicine was a hit or miss affair. We would discover interventions such as beneficial drugs but many also had undesirable side effects. We did not have the means to design truly life-prolonging interventions on the cellular level. But, that is changing! The breakthrough in stem-cell biology recently reported offers just one example of the progress.

With the completion of the human genome project in 2003 and the advent of techniques such as RNA interference, which can turn off the genes that promote disease and ageing, medicine has transformed itself into an ‘information technology.’ It is now subject to what I call the "law of accelerating returns - a doubling of capability (for the same cost) each year. For example, the amount of genetic data collected has doubled every year since 1990, and the cost has come down from $10 per base pair to a fraction of a penny. As a result, technologies to literally reprogram human "software" (i.e. the genes) that underlie human biology, will, in the next ten years, be a thousand times more powerful than they are today and a million times more powerful in two decades. According to models, we will be adding more than a year every year to our remaining life expectancy in only 15 years from now. That will be a tipping point in life extension. Rather than the sands of time running out with passing time, they will be running in. The further out in time we go the more advances we will be able to take advantage of.

Within a couple of decades, we will have "nanobots" in our blood stream, (basically small robots the size of blood cells), that will keep us healthy at the cellular and molecular level. There are already dozens of successful experiments with a first generation of such devices in animals. One scientist cured type-I diabetes in rats with a blood cell-sized device. Scientists at MIT have microscopic devices that can scout out cancer cells in the bloodstream and destroy them. These devices will be a billion times more powerful than they are today in 25 years, and will continue the accelerating path to radical life extension.

The prospect of dramatically reducing human morality troubles some observers, as they worry about issues such as overpopulation and depletion of natural resources. Indeed, if we considered a world that had radical life extension but no other changes, it would surely lead to unsustainable stresses. But, these same technologies will dramatically change the resource equation as well.

In a world where humans live several hundred or more years, many things will have to change. Those seeking the true meaning of life will have to do a lot more thinking and indeed, they will have a great deal more time to allot to this worthy pursuit. One major change will have to be the churches’ argument of holding out the promise of everlasting life if only you will only repent, live the good life (as we tell you) and, by the by, drop a few coins in the ole collection plate. This argument will fall on deaf ears along with many other once persuasive ecclesiastical admonishments. When such a treatment becomes available, the role of the church will most certainly and necessarily change. Perhaps, it will sustain and find itself relative by providing spiritual guidance, which, without a doubt, anyone living 400 + years is going to really need.

I suggest that you give the moral consequences of a 400-year human life span considerable thought. For example, who would be injected with these remarkable, miraculous ‘doctorbots?’ Would it be only those who could pay $100,000 for the privilege? Would they have to undergo a rigorous selection process to determine that they were indeed worthy in addition to having the money? Would we (as administrators) want to carefully evaluate and educate the candidates for life extension to be sure they understood the consequences? Would we want to include some kind of sterilization component in those selected? We already know that the wealthier one is the fewer children one is likely to want or have. If one lived almost forever, why, on earth would one even need children? Would the candidates be able to live in proximity with others who are all gong to die in a few short years? Perhaps the long-lived humans would have to live separate (maybe secret) lives someplace where ‘normal humans’ would not be found?

Should the treatment just be made available to all? Whether we think such a ‘doctorbot’ is a good thing for humanity or not, it‘s coming! Science in that respect is unstoppable. I don’t think any of us wanted the nuclear bomb but, there you are… As the Chinese say, may you live in interesting times! Some people, (the majority, in fact, who are simply too dimwitted to be bothered) answer that there is no point in even trying to find the true meaning of life because the question is ‘just too deep. This viewpoint holds that humankind will never be able to discover the answer(s), so the question itself becomes meaningless. Other sad sacks deem the question of what life’s true purpose is as meaningless because they view life as an existence with no deep meaning attached to it. Of course, it has to be mentioned here that probably way more then half the world’s population lead such shockingly barren lives that their driving mental processes are directed solely toward finding enough food to sustain life.

These billions, like birds, spend 24 hours a day 7 days a week seeking sustenance. They, except for the need to procreate, have never, ever, had any other kind of thoughts. Until one visits Africa, India and other hugely overpopulated places teeming with billions of permanently impoverished human scavengers, one can have no real appreciation for the above. The appalling conditions of these billions are simply impossible for us to imagine!

The logical positivist view of philosophy, also called logical empiricism, involves both empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism holds that knowledge can be gained through observational evidence. Rationalism stresses that empiricism alone is not enough to provide complete knowledge, so verification is needed. The logical positivist approach to the verification of something considered meaningful is that something must be able to be logically or cognitively determined to be true. Since the logical positivist verifiability criterion cannot prove the answer to the question what is the true meaning of life? Positivists tend to view the question itself as meaningless. Of course they also can not answer the timeless human questions of what happens after death or, indeed, even if God exists? In this, they are aligned with the multitudes of the cerebrally challenged who also don’t see the point of questioning ones purpose.

This view has been criticized by philosophers such as Sir Karl Popper, (1902 –1994) an Austro-British philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics who is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. Karl thought falsifying criterion should be used to test true statements rather than relying on verifiability criterion alone. Karl obviously needed a few aspirin after trying to think this through! “There is no meaning to why we are here.” Of course, who else could say this but Friedrich Nietzsche? His view that nihilism voids human existence of having meaning. Nihilism is named for the word ‘nihil,’ which is Latin for ‘nothing.’ Nietzsche considered Christianity’s concern with the afterlife stronger than its occupation with life on Earth, so (ergo) he considered the meaning of life empty.

The French philosopher and scientist, Rene Descartes, asserted that life itself may not even be real, but rather might only be a dream. (Good grief, wake me up when it’s over!) Rene questions even the reality of our physical bodies. I didn’t know that they played with peyote back then. Some less imaginative people hold the view that the true meaning of why humankind is here is the result of either accident or coincidence. Descartes came up with an eloquent semantic proof (a syllogism, if you will) for proof of the existence of himself and therefore God. He simply said, “Cogito ergo sum.” Meaning, I am, therefore, he must be!

Even just a few of the many answers to the questions about the true meaning of human existence can get us thinking up even more interesting questions. For example, we can think of how our answers might change depending on our current view of destiny. Is it our destiny to simply die and be put into a stinking hole to feed the worms? Is life predestined such that when we are born our life unfolds according to some unchangeable plan? Or, (my preference, of course,) do we in fact, choose our destiny and learn and grow from our experiences? By the way, listen carefully now! One way to grow in our search for meaning is to be open to the perspectives and viewpoints of others. Such thinking can only bring us all closer together.

Of course, one must be able to discern exactly who is worth listening to and who is not- in this, having a sensitive BS meter is imperative! Clearly, for all of us, the most important voice in our minds and souls must be the voice of God. Without knowledge of Him, we have no scale upon which to measure the worth of other voices. Remember, if God decides that Man can live for 400 years though his scientific discoveries, that can and will happen. Such an unending life without a growing understanding of God would be torture and meaningless.

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the dim view that theism is somehow ‘too dangerous, destructive and incomprehensible.’ One example of this is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian in which the late and brilliant Christopher Hitchens wrote: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an anti-theist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." Of course, a few months ago, Chris found out the truth. I wonder what he would have said to all of us were that indeed possible, if he learned that he was, in fact, wrong and that, surprise, surprise, after all, God did indeed exist?

The Chambers Dictionary defines anti-theism in three different ways: "doctrine antagonistic to theism; 'denial' of the existence of a God; opposition to God." To be clear, "opposition to God" is not, in most meanings, a statement that an anti-theist believes in a deity but opposes the being in the manner of mal-theism, but for various reasons the position that it would be bad / immoral for such a being to exist. All three match Hitchens' usage, not only a generally anti-religious belief and disbelief in any deity but also, opposition to God's existence. The second is synonymous with strong atheism. The third and first, on the other hand, need not be atheistic at all. Opposition does not mean disbelief. One can believe in God and oppose him as well. The Devil certainly knows all about God but opposes him at the same time.

I will say here that Hitchens, if nothing else, had the gastronomical fortitude to state his convictions for all to hear. For many of us that simply is an imprudent thing to do, even if we do question at times God’s existence or his ability to effect the lives of humankind. What if he does exist? We all will know this for sure after we die when, of course, if we lived our lives as atheists, it’s a little too late. Or is it? Would God forgive the atheist? Would he look at him and say, “look here old fellow, I know its difficult to believe in me but, there you are, some have the brains to see me and some don’t. I won’t hold it against you for being a stupid sod, come on in and sit by the fire and tell me what you think now!” Well, of course, I don’t have that answer and neither do you- Christopher does but, he’s not talking- how about you?

Earlier definitions of anti-theism include that of the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1953), for whom it is "an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God," and that of Robert Flint (1877), a Professor of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh. Flint's Lecture for 1877 was entitled Anti-Theistic Theories. He used it as a very general umbrella term for all opposition to his own form of theism, which he defined as the "belief that the heavens and the earth and all that they contain owe their existence and continuance to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and benevolent Being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what He has created." This clear statement is one we unreservedly agree with!

He wrote: “In dealing with theories which have nothing in common except that they are antagonistic to theism, it is necessary to have a general term to designate them. Anti-theism appears to be the appropriate word. It is, of course, much more comprehensive in meaning than the term atheism. It applies to all systems which are opposed to theism. It includes, therefore, atheism.” But short of atheism there are anti-theistic theories. Polytheism is not atheism, for it does not deny that there is a Deity; but it is anti-theistic, since it denies that there is only one.

Pantheism is also not atheism, for it admits that there is a God; but it is anti-theism, for it denies that God is a being distinct from creation and possession of such attributes as wisdom, and holiness, and love. Every theory which refuses to ascribe to God an attribute which is essential to a worthy conception of His character is therefore anti-theistic. Only those theories which refuse to acknowledge that there is evidence even for the existence of a God are atheistic.

However, Flint also acknowledges that anti-theism is typically understood differently from how he defines it. In particular, he notes that the word has been used as a sub-category of atheism, descriptive of the view that theism has been disproven, rather than as the more general term that Flint prefers. He rejects non-theistic as an alternative, "not merely because of its hybrid origin and character, but also because it is far too comprehensive. Theories of physical and mental science are non-theistic, even when in no degree, directly or indirectly, antagonistic to theism."

Opposition to God is frequently referred to as dystheism (which means "belief in a deity that is not benevolent") or misotheism (strictly speaking, this means "hatred of God"). Examples of belief systems founded on the principle of opposition to God include Satanism and maltheism. It’s our opinion that those who subscribe in a serious way to such convoluted and malevolent beliefs are, if God exists, plainly and simply put doomed!

Another use of the term anti-theism was coined by Christopher New in a thought experiment published in 1993. In this article, he imagines what arguments for the existence of an evil God would look like: "Antitheists, like theists, would have believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creator; but whereas theists in fact believe that the Supreme Being is also perfectly good, antitheists would have believed that he was perfectly evil.” Perhaps, this is what Salmon Rushdie meant when he wrote The Satanic Verses a volume that earned him a lifetime death threat by the whacko murderous head cultist in Iran?

Of course, the devil himself well fits the characteristics of the perfectly evil god. In fact, many believe that he was the fallen angel, precursor to all evil (the devil himself) cast by God from Heaven to make his kingdom on earth, who was whispering into Mohammed’s ear out there in the barren and windy desert. One must admit, that over the last 1500 years, despite the most vigorous and devout protestations of its billion ardent believers, all Islam has managed to deliver its sad adherents is a most perfect ‘hell on earth.’ Interesting?

There is an un-original and growing number of self-appointed young ‘nerds’ who believe that Atheistic views are, all at once, something novel, interesting and most importantly, based on the less scientific sciences such as Climatology and Astronomy. These self-confessed ignorant fools seemingly fail to grasp that their science is not, and cannot ever be, a serious counterpoint to a discussion of a God or relevant to any serious critique of religion.

Furthermore, they envision everyone standing across from them as slack-jawed Jesus freaks, back woods, bible- thumping, stump-jumping, jackasses, playing with snakes and talking in tongues. If this were the case, I’d not be writing this book, would I? These pathetic idiots are often encouraged in their limited views by someone with an advanced degree of some kind using their “unassailable” and “oh so perfect” logic based on what, the scientific method? Christopher Hitchens’ anti-theism aside, he only could offer no more than his opinion. No matter how learned and how intelligent one is, and Chris was both, no one on this earth can prove with any demonstrable evidence that God does not exist. In fact, the abundant evidence of God’s existence surrounds each and every one of us every day!

The belief system of the committed ant-theist is, if indeed, they are capable of more then ‘superficial inquiry, which most are not, based on their perception of and understanding of man’s law and the sciences coalesced within a rather unspectacular mind, which can be successfully likened to the inside of a vacuum cleaner bag…a vast desert of dust particles blocking their vision, such that these sad empty souls will not and indeed, can not see the marvelous wonders of life and the universe. How infinitely sad! Most, in fact, deny even that they have a soul, which of course, is the beginning of any inquiry into the realm of faith. It is my finding that almost all of these pathetic lost souls have only a rudimentary knowledge of religion, few have ever attended church and fewer still have read or even own a bible. They know not of what they speak! How profoundly sad!

Let us pause for a moment and go back to the “self-appointed nerd” part.

Since the word ‘nerd’ is now ‘cool,’ you can’t really call yourself one without appearing as one whom needs a group name to identify with. And, why are you a nerd, because you play video games, write Python, watch (maybe even read) science fiction and fantasy movies and subscribe to pathetic and empty beliefs held in consensus by your peers? Good grief!

Many individuals professing no belief in God are and can be perceived at best, as tedious. The first time I met a group of them I had been invited to an “occupy” party. They were indeed weird. Besides being atheists, what are your other hobbies, beating up old people, breaking windows and telling 5 year olds that Santa Claus is a bullshit story? You’re one brave warrior! Of course, few of them had jobs (ever) and most lived in their parents basements. All were playing with their I pads and I phones all night. All were “twitter” fanatics and all seemed overtly nervous, hyper and unsettled- actually unhappy lost souls with poor complexions. None of them had ever as kids attended Sunday School or church and none had ever read the bible- none had any conception of what the church taught so, in denying God, they actually had no idea what they were talking about.

Further, their collective beliefs, verbal traditions (arguments and terms) sound a lot like some kind of religion- which presumably forms an ironic raison d’être for opposition to a belief in our Creator. “I’m an atheist” is their “Allah Akbar.” We all need traditions and rituals to keep us feeling like there’s some continuity and safety in things. However, coming from a group that seems to hate this kind of thing, it’s a little confusing. Like most movements of this type, agnosticism and atheism ironically follow an identifiable Judeo-Christian format: They utter phrases like “things used to be better until these people came along. Now we must work collectively to spread the word and get back to this purer time.” “All these religious fanatics are ruining everything” This is similar to what the communists taught in their most determined nihilistic destruction of the social order, claiming that, until they had destroyed everything, nothing new or better was possible. This kind of talk is exactly what the “occupy movement” is all about! Nothing!

Ultimately, my biggest problem with the above is, like professional faggots and blacks; they make it their life’s work to proselytize their infantile minority beliefs and practices, forcing them on the rest of us... One more important thing to note is that Atheists, for some reason, don’t seem too interested in pointing out that extremist Muslims do a lot of bad shit without much reproach from the moderate members of their religion. (if indeed there any) In fact, they rarely mention Islam at all.

There’s plenty of reason for animosity and outright hostility between the atheist and religious communities. In the early days, before legal secularization became rampant in America, many well educated and prescient theists were sincerely confused about why atheists would be upset or angry at ‘believers’ in a modern society. They disliked the way atheists were and are dismissive towards religious beliefs and see this rather dim-witted, "intolerant" and "disrespectful," Of course, many in the religious community are equally dismissive towards atheists. Dismissing religious beliefs is surely a form of intolerance but dismissing and being bigoted towards the secular community doesn’t help bring the two groups together if indeed such is even remotely possible or, in fact, desirable. Of course, some professional atheists do attack Christianity at every opportunity, even sicing the ACLU on them for the ‘crime’ of wearing a cross on public property. Fortunately, for mankind, atheists are and remain only a very small minority of humanity.

Wesley Pruden, the editor and chief for The Washington Times, writes in an editorial: “The jobs don't pay a lot, and you take most of your pay in self-esteem, but somebody is always trying out for village idiot or village atheist. Often they're one and the same.” So, is Wesley Pruden attempting to demonstrate his superiority over atheists by insisting that the "village atheist" and "village idiot" are "often" the same person? Probably! If Pruden were to say that the "village thief" and "village black person" were "often" the same person, do you suppose this would be treated as an expression of racist beliefs? Probably, unless, of course, you had just seen some teen black abscond around the corner with your purse or wallet!

Atheists are organizing or trying to. They have their registered lobbyist now on Capitol Hill, (not Madelyn Murray O'Hair, she’s dead, but they would have liked to have had her) and they're planning a revival meeting in Arlington in September 2012. That should be a fun party! The atheists reckon they don't have much time. Prof. Dawkins, who isn’t sure whether God exists or not, stopped calling himself an atheist and now labels himself as an official agnostic. Dawkins warns that America, with its law, literature and customs rooted in Judeo-Christian religion, may be slipping into nothing less than a new religious ‘Dark Age where guys like Torquemada may set up a new inquisition to weed out the unbelievers and heretics. Now, wouldn’t that be fun?