Josephus? Ah, that old chestnut

As my email exchanges with my friend Shawn began to pile up, I could sense he was growing tired of defending the defenseless and struggling to combat my responses. As with most of my debates with people, especially via email, they result to copying huge blocks of text from someone else’s work and pasting it in their emails to me, or they search the Internet for confirmation bias and paste the links into the email and they ask me to look at it.

While I admit I like to look things up when I’m feeling stumped or my recollection is foggy, I am careful to digest what I’m reading and then I apply my own thoughts and reasoning to them as I present them to my friends or debate opponents.

In this case, I asked him to tell me why he believed in Jesus, since no contemporaneous writings describing him and his miracles exist. He sent me a link that discussed Josephus and his works. He described Josephus as a well-respected historian. I destroyed his argument, explaining to him that the references to Jesus in his works were interpolations and likely fake.

HIS RESPONSE: As for the passage in Josephus about Christ, most scholars agree it is not completely genuine. However, the whole passage is not suspect. If you read the passage again and omit the italicized words, this is what most scholars agree was written by Jos. And this passage is not the most important one. Read the article again and this scholar mentions a shorter section that mentions Christ that is widely agreed upon to be genuine.

And no where in the science of history or investigation is there a rule that says a writer needs to be contemporaneous with his subject. It would be nice, but a very well respected historian writing about the Christian movement a few years after it happened is not a problem. These Roman historians and others wrote their accounts too close to the events for any legends to grow about them. Legends take a loooooooooooooooooong time to develop.

As an atheist, you have a certain amount of faith, much like I do. If Christ was God, then He is the Creator amd was able to raise the dead. This would be no problem for an infinitely powerful being. Christ was fully human, but was also perfect and fully God.

You choose to require solid, tangible proof for God’s existence. You ain’t never gonna get it. And as such believe in annihilation after death. I choose to have faith that a Godman named Christ did walk on water, and I believe in certain things happening 1 minute after I die.

There is plenty of ancient documentation that says Christ existed. Even ancient Jewish sources recall a man walking around disturbing their peace and grip on power.

Keep in mind that guys like Dawkins, Erhman, Hitchins, and others are all displaying faith that they have got it right. They are human and are fully imperfect like the rest of us. Remember, to, that for every Dawkins there is an equally competent believing scholar who says these things did take place. No axes here to grind, these guys are theologians or biblical scholars who are simply doing their jobs.

Mr Dawkins isn’t the end of the conversation. He is a human. And has many critics, well qualified at that,  who are not impressed with his arguments.

You say God does not exist. You must qualify your statement with a “I believe” and then follow with “God does not exist.” The fact is you do NOT have proof that God does NOT exist, but you exhibit the same kind of faith that I do (in believing He does exist) to believe that He doesn’t. So you do have faith. I as well do NOT have proof God EXISTS, but choose faith. We are 2 sides of the same coin, you and I.

MY RESPONSE: Thanks for the email and before I address the Josephus points you made, I'd like to touch on your remarks about Dawkins, Hitchens and Ehrman. (I'll get to your faith argument at the end of my email).

While I respect much of what they have written, debated and lectured, their influence does not make up my stance on this subject. In what we are discussing, I haven't referenced them so I'm not sure why you introduced them at this stage. In fact, Hitch and Dawkins say very little, if anything at all, about Josephus and his works. Ehrman, does say plenty, though that is not where I have obtained my sole education on this subject.

Again, the contention that a man named Jesus who was a teacher in the first century isn't being challenged on this end, it's the divine nature that is up for discussion and what obviously would make him a god. And while I appreciate the article you linked to, I was actually supplying the much more popular, meaty and oft-referenced paragraph that Christians use as their proof. The graph you feel is more important is, in fact, not thought of as beyond dispute and is one of the references that clearly shows interpolation by later Christian scribes.

The passage in question again sends up the same red flags when using the historic method. The reference to Jesus can only be seriously entertained if Jesus had been mentioned in some earlier account, which he wasn't since the Testimonium Flavianum was written later and clearly proved to be an interpolation where Jesus was referenced. Josephus would never use a totally unknown person (Jesus) to describe James' lineage. And the line, "Jesus, who was called Christ (or messiah)" is so blatantly an interpolation. If Josephus truly believed Jesus was the messiah, he would have written so much more about him, since his sole purpose was to be a historian of these people. And it's worth remarking here that "messiah," in regards to the Jewish nation and its Hebrew bible, merely means leader or king. It in no way means miracle worker or divine. Nor does the term Christ mean anything other than the chosen one (and in the Jewish case, chosen to lead their army). There is no divine implication associated with this term.

The bigger point here is, if Jesus was a miracle worker and divine, certainly anyone in charge of recording the history of the Jews during this period would write much more than two almost-afterthought references. Josephus spilled rivers of ink describing extremely minor players in Jewish history yet can only muster up one throwaway phrase in one work and one clearly suspect paragraph in a later work, which doesn't exist in earlier copies, by the way.

This leads back to your statement about the "rule" about contemporaneous writers. While I completely agree with this, it has missed the point entirely. It's not that people aren't capable of writing about history after the fact, it's that NO ONE who lived DURING Jesus' time on earth, whose job it was to record history, wrote one word about him. Documents exist from this time, especially historical ones from this region, and yet not one word about him or his miracles. Certainly, if someone is curing leprosy, raising people from the dead, walking on water and turning water into wine, it deserves at least one mention from historians living in the region charged with recording its history. Yet not one word.

Your reference to Josephus being a well-respected historian writing about Christianity misses the mark, too. Christianity didn't begin to take shape until well into the second century, long after Josephus died. He didn't write at all about Christianity, nor was his works a "few years" after it happened. We are talking decades (nearly six to be more succinct), and his credibility has long come into question since he was quite often caught falsifying his works and used his own political slant to taint his writings.

And don't you think something as important as an eternity should not be resting on such flimsy proof? I find it fascinating how many Christians use these two highly suspect references, which still don't show he was divine or a miracle worker, as their line in the sand.

Now, let's address your "faith" remarks and burden-of-proof misstep. Faith, in religious circles, means believing in something without evidence for it. Given this definition, I, and my atheist cohorts, do not have faith. We require evidence to believe things. This is in direct conflict with faith. Now, using the definition of faith as meaning "confidence or trust" then yes, I have faith in the scientific and historic method. I don't have faith that a god exists or doesn't. Atheism means a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism means lack of knowledge pertaining to a subject, in this case any god. The terms aren't mutually exclusive. I am, by definition, an agnostic atheist. I am open to evidence. What has been presented at this moment in history is zero evidence of anything or anyone being supernatural.

I don't have to prove a god doesn't exist, as I am not claiming anything. I certainly don't need proof that a god doesn't exist as that would be ludicrous. Prove nurples don't exist. What's a nurple? Doesn't matter. I need you to prove they don't exist. It's impossible. But I can prove a banana exists. See the difference? We aren't two sides of the same coin as it pertains to this.

I'm not asking you to prove a god exists, but I am asking that he/she/it proves it before I believe, and that is a rational behavior.

Ask yourself this, if you were born in the Middle East, would you be a Christian? If you were born in India, would you be a Christian? If you were born in Ancient Greece would you be a Christian? Why is it that exactly WHERE/WHEN you were born dictates your belief, especially if Jesus really was the one and only creator? You just happen to be born in a country that is predominantly Christian and that religion was forced upon you at an age when you believed everything you were told. If you were born in India, your parents would have raised you Hindu and you would believe in Krishna right now. Why is it that you believe Jesus is god, other than because that is what you were taught, or more accurately, indoctrinated to believe? Is it the evidence? Definitely not. I contend it's because you were told a story was true when you were a child.

And why do you use faith solely in this area of your life and nowhere else? Why give religion and divinity a pass, but research the hell out of which car or gun to buy? Seems skewed to me. And I'm not trying to shake your faith, I just want you to examine it like you would anything else.

HIS REPLY: You have asked one of the great questions of all time: was Jesus who He said he was (God) or merely a wise man? Unfortunately for each one of us, we have to decide if we agree with Jesus’ claims and the claims of His apostles, or reject His claims, pretty much based on no evidence.

If you are looking for God to appear in front of you and say “ Believe in Christ," it will never happen. The eternal wait of the agnostics is for God to appear before them and say, “Here I Am.”

This will never happen. The reason why this will never happen is that God has a rule that He will never ever break: the violation of human free will.

If God appears in front of a man and says, “See, I exist,” then the free will of that man has been breached. Then at that point, the man has no choice but to accept God and God is merely reduced to a dictator, forcing allegiance and worship. (Think about it, if an infinitely powerful and holy being appeared in front of us, we would not reject him. And remember, the Bible is clear that no man in his flesh can look upon God and live. How’s that for power and glory.)

And you are correct, Josephus should not be used by Christians at all, for any type of teaching. I merely look at Josephus as an historical curiosity.

You mentioned that something as important as eternity should not rest on such flimsy proof. Agreed. Then why do you bet your eternity on something that will never be proven while you walk on the earth, specifically that God does not exist and Christ was just a man?

Why not hedge your bets and say I will believe in Christ and have some peace of mind that 1 second after you breathe your last breath and you meet your Creator, He wont reject you. Being a Christian (I did not say Catholic) is not a bad thing. I’m talking about a genuine Christian, not a hypocrite Catholic. Or one of them health and wealth freaks like Joel Osteen. Or my buddy Benny Hinn.

I will make the following statement as clear and precise as possible: Nothing from my childhood church days has influenced me as an adult. I have systematically purged all that I have learned in the Methodist Church and based my decision to believe in Christ solely on research and thought.

The certainty of death is the spring of action. And I chose to act and believe in Christ’s claims, since I’m starting to feel old.

ME: You have fallen victim to the classic, albeit tired, apologetic blunder of raising Pascal's Wager, named after Blaise Pascal, the 17th Century French Christian philosopher. He posited that it is better to believe in god, be wrong and lose nothing than it is to not believe, be wrong and face infinite suffering.

Where do I start? First, which god should I believe in? Yahweh? Allah? Jesus? Krishna? Ra? Zeus? Thor? Apollo? There are thousands. For not believing in any of these would have grave consequences should you follow the religions that created them. I'll quote Homer Simpson for you since I know you'll appreciate it: "What if we are praying to the wrong god and just getting him angrier and angrier?" Even if we believe in Jesus, how do we know which sect or denomination? There are literally tens of thousands of them.

Also, I presume your god is omniscient, knows all, sees all, is in your head, etc.? Do you really think me saying I believe will convince this god who can read my mind? You can't just believe and "hedge my bets" as you appropriately put it.

This wager argues that you lose nothing if you're wrong about there being a god. I couldn't disagree more. You lose THIS lifetime, to countless hours of worship, worry and false feelings. You lose pieces of your life that you devoted to a lie. To spend a precious life believing in something that isn't real and devoting yourself to it, is sad.

I would never accuse you of being dishonest and I believe you when you say you've discarded the Methodist teachings you learned as a youngster. But I would have to venture a guess that while the dogma of the Methodist Church may be pure bullshit to you now, there is no doubt the seeds of fear and indoctrination of this threat of eternal hellfire grabbed hold of you and still clutch your thoughts. Not because you as an adult chose to believe it, but that it never left you. You can dismiss their rules and interpretations, but the idea that god punishes you eternally for not believing stays with you until you can use rational thought and reason.

When you dismissed Methodism, did you dismiss all belief in any God to force yourself to be born again, or did you say, "I still believe in Jesus and/or God, I just want to find which Christian dogma makes the most sense?"

This isn’t a buffet; you don’t get to choose

I’m not exactly sure how my former friend gets through the day without bumping his head or falling down more, but his following reply kinda scares me. He actually thinks scientific theory and evidence is his to decide if he believes it or not. We aren’t talking about a conversation with Cliff Clavin at Cheers. You don’t get to decide if gravity is real or not. You don’t interpret scientific findings as a layman and decide if they are full of hokum.

 He is delusional when he references seven different conclusions from 10 scientists looking at scientific results. And I almost fell over when I read his Dr.Behe comment. I so wanted to get into the whole irreducible complexity bullshit but as you’ll soon find out there wasn’t time. Does he even know the Scopes Trial is the biggest creationist failure in history? This is a person, by the way, who is only alive because of science. He is a diabetic and needs a few shots of insulin every day or he would die. I would love to ask him why he believes that needle is going to save his life but the same scientific method that proves there never was a global flood is wrong. Anyway, here is the next chapter of our debate.

SHAWN’S RESPONSE TO MY FLOOD EMAIL: We as humans have to believe something, based on some amount of evidence. The definition of “evidence” that I subscribe to is as follows: information that makes a belief more probable than not, or more probable than competing beliefs. Webster defines “evidence” as “proof” of something. Now I guarantee we will not all agree on what constitutes proof, let alone an agreed upon definition of proof.

 Now, let me tread carefully here. When science discovers something, that something has to be tested. And when the test results come back, we have to interpret those results. You and I both know that if you take 10 different people looking at the results, you will get 7 different conclusions. That’s the way it is. Simply put, my interpretations are different than yours. When we enter into the arena of people’s interpretations of evidence, this is where we all become equal.

 Yes, I said it. I just went there. We are all on equal footing when it comes to interpretations (assuming our interpretations are reasonable and leave out things like space aliens and such, which crop circle people use for the reason for crop circles). Even one of the world’s top biochemists, Dr Michael Behe (an Intelligent Design proponent) has other world-class biochemists disagreeing with him, flatly stating, “You are wrong!” I’ve read 2 of Dr Behe’s tomes, and I’ve interpreted them accordingly. You can read Darwin’s Black Box and interpret it differently. We adjust our interpretations as more evidence (see above) becomes available.

 Science is not a democracy. If one credible scientist interprets a discovery one way, and 99 scientists disagree, even if peer-reviewed, that does not make the 99 correct. A very real and little discussed problem exists in academia: that of peer pressure and fear of losing one’s job if you side with the creationists. It’s difficult to get some of these scientists to speak, for obvious reasons, and I’ve researched the topic a bit, but it appears many scientist’s public statements differ from their private beliefs.

 Yes, you are correct in questioning Dr Snelling and his relationship with AIG. I’m very familiar with AIG. I failed to mention that fact. I do not slavishly accept everything Dr Snelling states. I’m intelligent enough not to kid myself, and I firmly believe in a global flood. Even tho one of my Christian heroes, astrophysicist Dr Hugh Ross (who AIG dislikes as a thorn in its side) believes in a local flood, that is, confined to the Middle East area only, I am not swayed to that view point. I interpret the data presented as evidence for a global flood differently than you do.

 AFTERWARD: We weren’t merely chatting via email. We also exchanged friendly texts and had periodic phone conversations. During these exchanges we agreed to move on to other topics. I could’ve schooled him on so many more angles in relation to the Great Flood myth and used his own beliefs against him, such as the fact that there is mathematically no way we could have as many people on the planet that we do now if all humans were erased just 12K years ago. So we moved on to other topics, which I’ll chronicle soon.

The Great Flood?

We left off with my friend, Shawn, showing some resistance to my claim that there is no way a global flood ever occurred. I must admit we had a few email exchanges that I didn’t save leading up to this conversation, but those were minor points about Christianity and beliefs. This is the portion of his emails that finally dives into his stance on the flood and my stance that science proved one never happened and that Ken Ham is a moron.

SHAWN: You haven’t taken into account all the evidences and theories of a global deluge. You summarily dismiss any idea of a flood, completely ignoring research and discoveries that have come to light in the last few decades. What are some of these discoveries? Look up what Dr. Andrew Snelling, Ph. D. (geology) has to say about the flood. He makes a good argument. Are you going to stick your finger in his face and say he’s wrong? If you do, you better have a convincing counter argument.

The flood did not hdappen 5,000 years ago. I agree with you. My personal belief is around 8,000-12,000 years ago, based upon various theories. And Ken Ham is a complete idiot. He has done more harm to the biblical view than he knows. You have to realize that there are traditional Catholic beliefs and an evangelical sub-group of beliefs about the flood. I’m part of that small scientifically minded sub-group of Christians who happen to trust that science is reliable. Catholics have adhered to Bishop Usher’s chronology: the universe was created 4004 BC and then we add up the list of genealogies and presto !!!!!! Wrong. Usher was an idiot too.

As a bible-believing Christian, I see the evidence is strong for a universe that is 13.7 Billion years old. I see strong evidence for life on Earth being millions of years old. I also DO NOT believe in the 6 days of creation, tho I am a creationist. There is enough evidence to support a big bang, stellar evolution, planetary accretion, lengthy galaxy formation, etc. Please don’t lump me, or all Christians, in with the Catholic views of creation. Science and Christianity are compatible.

MY RESPONSE: If you indeed trust in science and believe the scientific method is the best way to determine how things work/are, then we have a problem with your consistency. I will get to this in a minute, but first I'd like to call attention to your comment about the universe. You say the evidence you obtained from science books led you to believe the universe had a beginning, therefore, someone caused it. This sounds a lot like a definitive statement that you warned me against making. Perhaps you should have said, “Since it had a beginning, I feel the physics law of 'cause and effect' would dictate something made this happen, and I think this something is a someone, likely my god.” Fair?

This returns us to definitions: What do you define as evidence? I see evidence as proof, either proof that something happened, how it happened and even why it happened. So what is the evidence you have that points to this “someone” creating the universe? I really want to dive into this with you because I believe we will head into philosophy and I have quite the experience in this, too. But first …

When you say you’ve trusted science to arrive at your conclusions about how old the universe is, how old the earth is, how long life forms have been around, it makes me happy. But your consistency falls apart when it comes to the flood of the bible or the universe’s origins. By the way, I’m not sure what you think Catholics think about the flood, but they have no official position on it from the RCC POV and tend to lean toward it being an allegory or a lesson. I’m not arguing against the Catholicism angle in any of these discussions, I’m arguing against the bible/religion. I’m not lumping you in with any Catholic view of creation, so you should probably stop lumping my arguments in with a POV of merely anti-Catholicism.

So, how can you trust the scientific method for all of these incredibly difficult answers but then dismiss it when it comes to the flood? You say you haven't abandoned scientific principles, yet when it comes to this you have, and I'm not trying to insult you at all, but I wish you would pause to think about what you are saying. How do you think scientists arrived at their conclusions regarding the age of the earth/universe? Someone discovered evidence of something, used the best methods available to analyze the data, presented a hypothesis to the scientific community, allowed the scientists to vet/falsify the hypothesis and test it, retest it, etc. They did this for decades (and still do it) until it was so refined by the finest objective minds on the planet until it was accepted as the best possible scientific explanation for how the universe began and when. It wasn't one scientist's opinion and work that didn't get checked and falsified. It was peer-reviewed ad nauseam using a mountain of evidence and the most advanced technology available.

I know I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know here. So why is it you totally abandon this critical way of thinking for the flood? Because of Dr. Andrew Snelling and the bible? Let’s investigate Dr. Snelling with a critical mind. In one breath you list this man as offering a “good argument” and in the next you call Ken Ham a “complete idiot.” Snelling is a director at the Creation Science Foundation, which is now called Answers in Genesis, which is owned by Australian Ken Ham, your complete idiot. Snelling is a regular contributor to and sometime editor of “Creation Ex Nihilo,” the quarterly magazine of Ham’s AiG.

But here is the most shocking part: They list “two” Dr. Andrew A. Snellings within the CSF. One is a creationist scientist and the other is a consulting geologist who worked on uranium mineralization and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The one you are holding as your expert in the flood story is the first one, the one whose ideas are not peer-reviewed and are systematically dismissed by every respected geologist/scientist in the world. The two Snellings couldn’t be more opposed on their views of the flood myth, and they are the SAME guy.

While I’m not taking Snelling’s credentials to task, he has legitimate credentials, I AM calling into question his objectivity and current credibility. While he has a geology background, CSF literature refers to him as a missionary and Protestant evangelist. As a CSF member, he MUST subscribe to the AiG Statement of Faith, which has serious implications for those looking to remain objective in matters of science and education. Within this Statement of Faith, under (B) BASICS, No. 5 reads as follows: The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.

Do you see the conflict here? He is forced to presuppose the flood actually happened and then tries to explain it (reverse engineering). This is a completely anti-scientific method, and his faith clouds his judgment and objectivity. There are literally dozens of these statements in the SoF that conflict with the scientific method. I could go on for pages about this version of Snelling, because people are mistaking this for his legitimate work, which has been published in numerous papers that have been peer-reviewed and vetted. It’s the main reason he was sought out by Ham and why he’s listed as a “Creationist Scientist.”

In his legitimate days, he used the standard geological column and time scale, which is accepted worldwide in the scientific community. “My” Snelling opened up his non-CSF work to scrutiny and allowed for anyone to disprove his findings using the accepted scientific method, something you rely on for the age of the earth and universe. Whereas “your” Snelling published his unproven, non-reviewed work ONLY in his own company’s quarterly magazine, ignoring hundreds of years of legitimate scientific facts and perpetuating his employer’s confirmation bias. Why doesn’t Snelling seek peer-reviewed acceptance for his work with AiG? Why did he act as a consultant for a mining company years ago and allow his findings to be published in legitimate scientific journals, only to stop doing this for AiG?

Could it be that because what he is selling can’t hold up to scrutiny? If his work regarding the great flood were to be scientifically proved to be correct/accepted, he would not only win the Nobel Prize and $1 million, but he would bring instant legitimacy to AiG and its endeavors. Yet, none of this happens. Why? This is what I mean by critical thinking.

There is, in debate circles, something called Occam’s Razor, so named after William of Ockham, a 14th century English friar and philosopher. It goes like this: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the story that has the least amount of bullshit is the one that likely is true. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Are we to believe thousands upon thousands of educated geologists (who used the same method to determine the age of the earth, which you agree with, as they did to prove there was never any global flood, which you don’t), or are we supposed to base everything we believe about this one story in Genesis on the idea of one guy, whose credentials are legitimate but whose non-reviewed work and objectivity are suspect and denounced?

The difference between science and what Snelling is offering is Snelling started with a conclusion based on his faith and worked backward trying to square his circle, whereas science, which you said you trust, does the exact opposite, as it should. So, to answer your question, yes, I would stick my finger in his face and tell him he is wrong, because in my corner I have hundreds of years of real evidence, thousands of qualified scientists and a river of ink spilled in peer-reviewed journals explaining just exactly why a global flood never happened nor could we be where we are today if it did, especially only 8K-12K years ago as you believe.

When you state there’s enough evidence to support the big bang and everything that ensued, how is it you don’t see enough evidence against a global flood? It’s certainly as transparent and readily available as the evidence you used to agree with the age of the universe. And, if you continue to believe in this unsupported flood hypothesis, then I would have to take it further and ask if you believe the rest of the story (ie the animals, etc.). Science and Christianity aren’t compatible, at all. If it makes you feel any better, most Christians and Jews view Genesis and its contents as mere poetry and don’t believe it should be viewed as literal. I have done a ton of reading and watched a ton of lectures on this very fact, from church elders of numerous Abrahamic sects and denominations.

Now, about this “someone” who must have created the universe. …

I forgot all about this!

After a recent update to my iPad, I went through a bunch of my old notes and realized I never posted my series of debates with a former friend. Since I went on one of my usual hiatuses from this blog, I figured I may as well post these for posterity.

Let me start with my friend, Shawn. He always was a bit odd, a pseudo-intellectual with an Oedipal Complex, but I tolerated his intolerance and ignorance because we had been friends literally since middle school. We now live about 1,300 miles apart, but we always chatted on the phone or via computer, and when I returned home I would be sure to carve out a day or so for him and when he came here to see his parents, he carved out a day for me. Well, about six years ago we had a falling out when I continued to make time for him but he refused to make time for me.

Fast-forward to about two years ago and a dear friend of mine died instantly of a brain aneurysm. It got me to thinking and on a whim, I decided to call Shawn after not speaking for five years. We chatted for a bit and I told him why I had severed ties with him, but since my friend died, I decided it might have been foolish not to repair this relationship. He apologized for being insensitive and he admitted he screwed up and that he missed me. He was appreciative that I reached out and basically said he has no friends, that I was his last good friend.

During this conversation, he asked me if anything big had happened in my life and one of the topics I mentioned was that I came out to my friends and family as an atheist. He and I never really had religious conversations when we were daily friends, and I admit, back then I wasn’t religious but I never gave it any critical thought. And this point is interesting because when I would get together with Shawn, we would have some rather serious discussions about life, but religion never really entered the fray.

So I deliberately made sure to ask: Is this a dealbreaker for you? Does it bother you that I’m an atheist? In fact, I consider myself a militant atheist, so I need to know if you can’t be friends with someone who is an atheist because I don’t want to waste any more time. He assured me it didn’t faze him in the least and he even made a joke. I told him that made me happy because one of the other reasons I reached out to him was I was starving for some intelligent discourse. While I have a few people in my life who are smart, very few of them want to have thought-provoking conversations. I missed that part of our relationship and was happy he wanted to discuss my deconversion.

But since we hadn’t spoken in five years, we kept this initial conversation light, with the promise to explore at a later date some of the critical thinking I had done. A few days later, we chatted again and he asked me how I arrived at atheism. I told him he knew I was never religious, and he agreed, but then wanted to know how I knew there was no god. I took that moment to educate him about what atheism actually means.

It’s so important for the ignorant to understand what atheism and agnosticism really mean. After that lesson, he wanted an example of when a belief I had was shattered by evidence. I told him about Mother Teresa and how she was a charlatan who questioned her faith and basically didn’t believe. I laid out all of the facts, mentioned how she treated the sick, etc. I also told him I would email him some links to videos of documentaries about her. He appreciated that. And this is when the beginning of the end occurred.

I also mentioned the Great Flood and how preposterous that story is, that it’s a plagiarized myth (see the Epic of Gilgamesh for starters) that has been told and retold by other religions before it was written in the Old Testament. He kind of went silent here. No reaction.

A few days later, he accused me of being ”certain“ the flood never happened and that I should couch my comments with indefinite or softer phrases. I asked him if he thought there was evidence of a global flood and he said yes. He also said science led him to believe the universe had a creator. This shocked me. Earlier in this post I said Shawn was pseudo-intellectual, and I say this because he is well-read but his cognitive skills are lacking. So we agreed the flood and beginning of the universe could be topics we should debate, and we also agreed we should do it via email. That is where I’ll start my next post.

She's baaaaaaack!

For those of you who have followed my past posts about the debates and Facebook conversations I've had with my overly Catholic sister-in-law, we got into it a bit again on Facebook this week. Every once in a while, she will post something that takes a jab at atheism or atheists or science. When she posts her religious crap I just ignore it, but when she posts false shit about the aforementioned topics, I come down from the high road and let her know I'm out here and she's wrong.

This week, she posted that stupid meme that has a header on top that says ATHEISM and below it there is this tripe about the belief that there once was absolutely nothing, and nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, everywhere. And then dinosaurs ... yada, yada, yada. I'm sure you can find the meme somewhere but it's not worth posting here.

So, I thought about ignoring it, but then I saw a few people had liked it. On her FB page, she has in all likelihood, two atheists that follow her, that she knows of: me and my wife. That's when I decided I had to dive in and give her shit, because she knows basically we are the only two people she could be posting this for and the fact the people were liking it meant I couldn't just let it go. These people might actually now believe that is what atheism is. So here is our exchange.

ME: As always, you post something that is completely false. If we were debating, I would point out that this meme is full of fallacies. Good thing we don't debate anymore, huh?

HER: Ok, what are the fallacies? Have scientists figured it out? The how and why?

ME: Well, the biggest ignorance in this meme is that what it describes has NOTHING to do with atheism. After all these years, I thought you would have known that by now. What this childish meme attempts to do in a handful of pathetic unfunny sentences is describe the Big Bang and origin of life, both of which have NOTHING to do with atheism. Did I say that before? That's because it bears repeating. There are plenty of atheists who have no idea how everything began and are even skeptical of the Big Bang. You see, there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" when you don't know. It's a much better way to live an honest life than to pretend the answer is a god, which is the God of the Gaps fallacy. The meme commits quite a few fallacies, but I think you get the point. NOTHING it says is true about atheism.

HER: Kind of like the science and religion fallacy. There are some Christian denominations that believe the two can't and don't coexist. There are also atheists who would and do argue the very point made above. I've watched them on YouTube. I am not one of those Christians who discount science and you are an atheist who admits he just doesn't know. Can you say that all atheists will answer that way?

ME: You never stay on point, especially when I show you how wrong what you post is. The point is, this entire meme is a joke and has nothing to do with atheism. It's wrong, 100 percent. While there are atheists that believe stuff like we came from "nothing" that still is not what atheism is. This meme conflates about three schools of thought, and gets all of them wrong. Would you like me to hold you accountable for the origin beliefs of all theists? Seems unfair, huh?

HER: It's absolutely unfair and is done all the time against Christians. However, I freely admit that there are Christians out there who's (sic) views I don't agree with. I also believe there are Athiests out there that you and I don't agree with and I believe this meme is directed at them.

ME: It's just a horribly ignorant overly simplistic meme that doesn't even understand the nomenclature, science or beliefs and couldn't be more wrong. There is no asterisk or disclaimer that says, "Some atheists think," it says Atheism, and that's the trouble with ignorance. It just spreads more ignorance so more people who are already ignorant have their ignorance reaffirmed. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Period.

At this point, she posts two memes in the comments, one is a picture of a cratered moon or planet and it says: "If natural disasters are the wrath of God, why does he keep punishing uninhabited planets and moons?" The other one is a picture of a handwritten note that says, "There is no problem too big for god to solve," with another pic below it of a starving, dying Ethiopian boy with his ribs showing that says, "Then WTF is this?"

Below these memes her comments continue...

HER: Talk about over simplifying, ignorantly.

ME: So, I'm not sure, are you combating these memes with YOUR ignorant memes as a way of striking some sort of social-media balance? Do you subscribe to the "Two wrongs make a right" philosophy? I've said my piece and we could do this forever. I just wanted to make it clear that the original meme is pure trash and it couldn't be more wrong. I only hope the people who see your feed and nodded at this ridiculous post will read these comments so they can be educated.

I wanted it to end here, as you can tell, but it was far from over.

HER: Oh stop! Stop thinking you're so much more intelligent than people who believe in God. Really, stop. There are just as many ignorant Athiests as there are Christians. That's my point.

ME: I wasn't the one who posted this meme, I merely pointed out its ignorance. Any interpretation you've read into it beyond that is completely on you.

HER: I was reacting to your comment that the people reading this needed to be educated. I think the friends liking this meme can make up their own minds about atheism on their own without you educating them. I don't think any of them appreciate your suggestion that they need to be educated

ME: What I meant by that was, if they had read that meme and agreed with it, they were agreeing with something that was completely false. So, if they read my comments correcting this meme, then they would have learned the truth, and that is the very definition of being educated on a subject. No insults on them at all and no assumption that I'm smarter than them.

HER: How can you say it's completely false? Do you speak for all atheists? You can find video after video on YouTube of atheists making these very claims and arguments. It's a meme regarding their ideas. I don't take memes regarding ignorant Christians personally because I know that's not me. I'm sure most of the likes on this post think the same.

ME: You're killing me, Smalls. The meme is NOT what atheism is. Not at all. How many times can I explain this? The meme is wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods and, in my case, the supernatural, too. That is it. The effluvium in this meme is a sarcastic attempt at humor regarding the Big Bang and the origin of life, neither of which has ANYTHING to do with atheism. Any statement to the contrary is just perpetuating a lie and promoting ignorance. I don't have to speak for all atheists, but when I'm telling you the definition of what atheism is, yes, I'm speaking for all atheists. Not one atheist says atheism is this idiotic meme. You will never find an atheist, or any educated person, say this meme defines what atheism is.

HER: It's a meme. QTIP (this means quit taking is personally). I get your lack of belief. For every believer there is a hint of doubt and for every nonbeliever there is a hint of doubt. That's a fact. Are you trying to say that there are no self described atheist out there who are just basically mad at religion and/or God? Hence the attacks against God and religion memes. If I remember correctly that's where you started. If it's ok to say you "just don't know" how can you be so sure there isn't a higher being, source, power, whatever you want to call it? Scientists haven't found a source or cause for why the universe came into existence. They haven't been able to disprove a higher whatever, so why not just say you don't know if there is a God or not? Is it because that would make you agnostic and it might look like your being swayed?  Don't worry, we won't bring holy water and incense to your house if you admit you're agnostic. LOL!

ME: There are so many things wrong with your last post I don't even know where to begin, and yes, your fallacies are showing. But since you posted this meme and thought THAT was atheism, it doesn't surprise me. Atheism and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, agnosticism can pertain to any subject when used non-religiously. Theism is the belief that gods exists, atheism is the opposite. The word gnostic means knowledge as it pertains to a subject, so agnostic means the opposite. I am an agnostic atheist. You are an agnostic theist. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. I don't think anyone could ever be gnostic about anything, to be honest.

It's like it's 2013 all over again and you've forgotten everything we discussed. You are still using classic yet poor apologetics. First of all, scientists don't try to disprove a higher power, nor will they EVER try. Why would anyone try to disprove something doesn't exist? Try to disprove there isn't an invisible dragon living in my Honda.

We've been over this before yet you still return to these same points. Just because scientists don't know something doesn't mean they should leave open the possibility that a god did it. How silly is that? If that were the attitude we had always taken, nothing would ever have gotten accomplished in science and we'd still be wondering where the rain and thunder come from. It's your textbook god of the gaps fallacy. It's also you trying to shift the burden of proof. It's not on science to disprove your god.

You know, your hypocrisy toward science is quite alarming. On the one hand, you'll give all kinds of credit to the RCC for being a major proponent of science in its infancy and say you're not one of those Christians who doesn't embrace science, while on the other hand you take swipes at science ALL of the time on here, including this trashy meme, and try to give the credit to some god that you freely admit you have a "hint of doubt" about.

And asking me to not take it personally is hilarious. In the beginning of this thread, I only told you the meme was ignorant, which it still is. You're the one who keeps adding other points to discuss. And every time you do that, I keep bringing the discussion back on point. Follow our comments, I never made it personal, you did. But then again, how can I not take it personally? How many friends do you have on Facebook who have told you they are an atheist? I can only assume it's just a few. And being one of those atheists, when you post something ridiculous about atheism, how can I not take that as being directed at us? So when you post ignorance about atheism, how can I not respond?

And no, my atheism didn't come from a place of anger. You're confusing my atheism with my anti-theism. While it's true I once had a sour religious experience, I never liked religion from Day 1. But my atheism has nothing to do with that. How can I be angry at something I don't believe exists? Are you angry at the dragon that lives in my Honda? It's just a silly ignorant statement. Just like your meme.

HER: Just for clarification, I have a high regard for science despite what you think comes across in my posts. If a person lives in a bubble and doesn't want to see other's point of view, that person will never see beyond what they want to see. It's true for everyone. Holocaust deniers are a good example. There is plenty of proof and witnesses, but they will never look at it or listen to the evidence. There would be no way to convince them of anything different from what they want to believe because they don't want to believe differently. I do have a hard time with scientists who have an agenda and will twist evidence and outcomes for money or glory or whatever. I don't think you can honestly say that's never happened or still doesn't happen. I think I have a healthy skepticism, but I'm always open to learning and looking at proof and listening to witnesses. I've changed my views on many subjects  because I keep an open mind.

Back to the meme. I apologize for posting it as it was offensive to you.

ME: Thanks. And it wasn't so much offensive as it was just wrong. Love you, see you Sunday.

Her last post was probably more comical than the others because if you knew her, you would know she is about as skeptical as a sheep. And don't listen to her, she bashes science every chance she gets and only when she tries to give her god and church the credit does she accept scientific discovery.

She really has no clue as to how clueless she really is.

They always miss the point

When there's a problem so scary that our country's populace is afraid to leave home, we look to our leaders, the ones we elected/hired, to watch out for our safety. If you're seeking to BECOME one of those leaders in the very near future, then you need to let us know IMMEDIATELY what you plan to do to solve this problem. That if we put the well-being of our children and grandchildren in your hands someday soon, you will have a plan of action.

THIS is the point the religious right/conservatives so painfully missed when they cried foul after learning of their Republican presidential hopefuls getting lambasted for their social-media call for prayers for the San Bernardino victims.

These poor families and friends aren't reading Twitter feeds or Facebook posts. They are overwhelmed by grief and mourning. Anyone with common sense would know this, so if you're going to release a statement on social media about this tragedy, common sense would also dictate that these messages are for the rest of the country. And the rest of the country wants to know what you think the answer is, not that you want us to pray.

If I'm the type of person that prays when a tragedy strikes, then I don't need politicians, who only have their eyes on their poll numbers, reminding me to do so. On the flip side, if I'm the type of person who doesn't believe in prayer, I certainly don't need to hear from these candidates that prayer is all they have to offer in this time of crisis.

When a New York newspaper says, "God isn't fixing this," it CLEARLY isn't saying you shouldn't pray for these people (if that's your thing). You can pray to Thor, Apollo, Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care, but if you somehow end up running my country, I would like to know you're going to address this issue with ACTUAL policies and do it in a timely manner. The Democratic leaders and candidates had no problem with this and none of what they said was rhetoric.

So, how many more people need to die before there's the call to action from the Republican side? Don't hold your breath. You'd have a better chance of finding Jimmy Hoffa's body than you would of finding a Republican who publicly wants to curb guns. No right-winger would ever dare come out for any type of gun control because they're deathly (and ironically) afraid of the NRA. Their comments were all-too-transparent and severely lacking.

You'll note I didn't result to name-calling here, because there is no need. The facts are clear for any rational person to see. And keep this in mind: As I wrote this, another shooting just happened in Michigan where a guy shot and killed a 7-year-old girl, put her mother in the hospital and then killed himself with a firearm.

Pray for them ... Or don't.

My thoughts on abortion

I can't really recall ever writing down my views on abortion, at least not in this blog. Many atheists are Pro Choice and I certainly side with this camp. That's not to say all atheists believe in abortion, or should I say the right to choose? Saying you believe in abortion sounds odd to me. But I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who think a woman should carry a baby to term regardless of beliefs or circumstances. I just don't happen to be one of them.

Pro Lifers tend to lean heavily on religion for their morals/beliefs/education so their default position is to believe a zygote or fetus is a baby, and a baby is a person and a person should be protected. But, scientifically speaking, a fetus isn't a baby, it's not a life. I can quote mountains of evidence that proves this fact, but this is a blog, not a thesis, so I'll just leave it at that.

Who am I, a man, to tell a woman what she should do with her body? Who am I to force ANY person to do something to their body? Who am I to force them to let something happen to their body?

Let's come at this from another direction. Would Pro Lifers want to pass a law requiring every citizen to donate spare organs when called upon? Their blood type and other bodily fluids could be categorized at birth and kept on record and the moment a need for an organ or specific type of blood comes up, they'll get a phone call. Sounds fair, right? Would they want to have one of their kidneys taken from their body without their consent? No? Why not? Oh, they don't like the idea of the government forcing them do something with their body they don't want to do? Don't like the risk required? Don't think someone else should be making their decisions?

Get the point? A woman puts her life on the line to have a baby. All sorts of complications can arise from child birth. It's also a huge financial strain. These are things I believe must be considered.

Some might say this isn't the same situation, that people choose to have sex knowing the consequences. I disagree with this uninformed and ignorant stance. First, not all pregnancies are a result of consensual sex. But mentioning rape and molestation is an easy rebuttal. Let's just ignore that for a second, even though it refutes the argument nicely. Broken condoms, failed IUDs and even botched vasectomies or tubal ligation can result in an obviously unwanted pregnancy. But again, I'll even let this argument slide.

The Pro Life stance seems to be: If you do something, you have no choice but to ride out the consequences, as in, you chose to have sex, and because a pregnancy was the result of your sexual congress, you must see this pregnancy to full term. Is that a fair enough assessment of their stance? That the pregnant woman has no choice to do anything about this, that she must have a baby in nine months?

Interesting. So, if someone chose to smoke cigarettes and it resulted in lung cancer, the smoker has no choice but to live with the cancer. You can't seek treatment for the cancer because you have to take responsibility for your actions and live with the consequences. Hey, you knew what could happen if you put carcinogenic materials in your body. It was your choice to smoke. Again, I'll ask, get the point?

Imagine Pro Choicers bombing chemo clinics. It's ludicrous.

I've actually pissed some people off, namely my family, when I posted a gut-wrenching story to my Facebook feed about a couple who aborted their pregnancy because the fetus would have been born with Down Syndrome. I posted the story because it was so sad that this couple tried for so long to have a child, using IVF to finally get pregnant only to get the news that the resulting baby would have Downs. Now, what pissed people off was their ignorance, not my intentions. They assumed I was saying all special-needs people would have been better off if they were aborted. I would in no way ever support that. It's such an abhorrent attitude to take, and I was thoroughly insulted that much of my family would even think I would feel that way.

And full disclosure, my nephew has cerebral palsy and it was my brother who took the most offense to my post. He also volunteers with a bunch of young boys who have Downs, so instead of talking it out with me to find out my true intentions, he just chose to unfriend me and not deal with it. Here is why I posted what I did. I believe in a woman's right to choose. In this couple's case, they had no other family to help with a special-needs child, they had exhausted their savings to try to have the child through surgeries and procedures so there would be no money to hire help and they just didn't have the resources to care for a child who would need life-long support as this was an older couple.

So there are always circumstances that could arise for abortion to make sense. Something like 90 percent of all pregnancies that would result in Downs are aborted for just such a reason. If you throw in other illnesses that would leave a child with a painful existence (Tay-Sachs comes to mind), then being forced to have that child is cruel and unusual punishment.

It all boils down to beliefs. Do you believe the "potential for life" is worth defending or do you believe a woman's actual life is worth defending? If it's the former, then where do you draw the line? Every male ejaculation could fall into the "potential" category, thus rendering masturbation to be a reckless murderous act. Silly, huh?

Me? I choose to defend a woman's life, and her choice.

Stop praising this pope (UPDATE)

Imagine what it's like to be in an abusive relationship. You're miserable, you've been told incessantly that you're worthless, that nothing you ever do is good enough. But you stay in this relationship for years because it's all you know and after a while you start to believe you deserve this, that this is just the way life is. Then, one day, you encounter someone who treats you differently and you immediately are drawn to this person because this relationship is so, well, different.

But you'll notice I never said "better." This person isn't treating you better, just different. Maybe this person beats you, but you believe it's because they love you so much that they express their love this way. This is where the phrase "lesser of two evils" likely got its origin. Both people are detrimental to you and your life, but because you were so oppressed for so long, you choose the new one in your life who feels like the lesser of two evils. These days, that phrase has unique meaning in the world of religion.

With his recent tour of the Eastern United States, Pope Francis has been ubiquitous on media outlets and I'm already tired of the hero hyperbole. Why do you think so many people feel this guy is a great man? Well, I already gave you the answer.

When someone as horrible as Pope Benedict (and every pope before him) is replaced, his successor can only be seen as an improvement. But if you put on your rational glasses, you'll see him for what he really is, a deceptive wolf is sheep's clothing.

People call him progressive, but if you dig deeper, you'll learn he's still spewing the same insulting, repulsive, archaic doctrines the Vatican and Catholic Church have pushed for centuries.

He still supports the rejection of gay marriage because he can't free himself from Old Testament thinking, believing in a "traditional" marriage/family. Don't be fooled by his words from Rio when he said, "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" This doesn't mean he accepts and promotes the gay lifestyle; it means he's saying, "Feel free to bring your tithes to my church, gay people, because we need your money for our power and in the end god will judge you and send you to hell, not me."

Don't believe me? Here are his remarks just a few months later regarding gay adoption: “Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity."

Explaining further, he said, “It is often argued that a child would be better cared for by a same-sex couple rather than in an orphanage or an institution. Those two situations are not optimal. The problem is that the state does not do what it has to do."

Translation: Gay people should not be allowed to raise children, and governments that allow this aren't doing the "right" thing by passing legislation to stop this from happening. Does that sound progressive?

How about birth control? Certainly in the 21st century the Catholic Church could elect a leader who understands the importance of contraceptives, especially as it pertains to world health. But no, despite there being dozens of AIDS-ravaged countries that would benefit exponentially from having condoms, Pope "Frankie" is vehemently against safe sex. Again I ask, does that sound like someone who is progressive?

And don't get me started on his views regarding the transgender community. When someone compares trans persons to nuclear weapons because they would wreak havoc on the “natural order of creation," it's perfectly clear he is not progressive. To paraphrase the Who, "Meet the new bigot, same as the old bigot."

UPDATE: A couple of days after I published this, it surfaced that the pope met secretly with Kentucky bigot Kim Davis and he basically told her to keep up the good work. Any doubts about his true feelings toward gay people?

Bigotry and religion

Bigotry is such an ugly side of people, especially when they hide behind their religion while practicing their hate. If you don't like my worldview by all means skip this post, but I'd like to offer a little perspective regarding Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who was deservedly thrown in jail today by a federal judge for ignoring court rulings and not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

She cited her religious beliefs for her defiance, stating marriage is between one man and one woman. While that subject is for another day (and believe me that's bigotry, too) let's imagine for a moment what could happen if people were allowed to follow their religious beliefs so rigidly as to not perform the duties for which they are hired.

"I'm sorry, Mrs. Davis, I know you're bleeding to death but I'm a Jehovah's Witness nurse and I don't believe in blood transfusions so I can't help you. But I'll pray you stop bleeding and get better."

"You'd like to renew your driver's license, Mrs. Davis? I apologize but I'm a Saudi Arabian Muslim DMV worker and my religion forbids women from driving. It's against my beliefs to allow you to get your license."

Shall I go on?

"Your child is ill and dying of an easily treatable disease, Mrs. Davis? I only wish I could let you see the doctor. Like you I'm a Christian, except I belong to the Church of Christ and we forbid medical treatment of any kind, but I'd be happy to pray for your child's recovery."

And this last example is so ludicrous because why would someone get hired to do a job they aren't willing to do because of their beliefs? Oh, wait, isn't that what Kentucky did with this hypocrite, who was divorced three times and had children out of wedlock? Of course there is nothing wrong at all with being divorced or having children out of wedlock, but her religion doesn't accept it and neither does she now. How interesting. She is given a pass but she can't even comprehend basic empathy and equal rights when it comes to others. Makes me want to vomit.

You can put lipstick on a pig all you want, but in the end it's still ugly Mrs. Davis and her religious bigotry not doing her job and ignoring the Supreme Court. I'm glad she's in jail. As much as people want this country to be a Christian nation it's not, it never will be and no one is above the law.

Thought crime translation

Every once in a while I'll think of something from the bible, a particular verse that is tied to some edict and try to relate it to other actions in life to see how it holds up for us.

What do I mean? I was thinking recently of Matthew 5:28 ... "But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

This is yet another example of thought crime, which is riddled throughout religion, especially Christianity. Of course it's directed at men because the entire bible was written with only men in mind, so I'll update it for the 21st century: Any married person who looks lustily at someone who isn't their spouse has already cheated on their betrothed.

Sound about right? And we all know adultery is one of the top 10 commandments (there are way more than 10 if you didn't know), and breaking one of these orders is tantamount to earning a one-way ticket to the eternal lake of fire.

So, like I mentioned earlier, this got me to thinking. If merely thinking something is equivalent to doing it, then (1) why not just do it since you're screwed anyway, and (2) does this logic (and I use that word very loosely here) pertain to the other commandments? For instance, someone gets very angry at another person and fantasizes about killing that person. Did he just commit murder? If he wishes he could tell his parents to go screw because they have mistreated him his whole life, has he stopped honoring his mother and father?

This is why thoughts can't be policed and the whole idea that some deity is listening to what we are thinking is just absolutely preposterous. It's also why we don't need the threat of eternal damnation to be good people. Our thoughts are our own and if we really believed what we thought could get us into trouble there would be a LOT more believers in confession or in jail.

Grow up, theists.

This guy scared me

Every once in a while on Omegle, I stumble across someone who scares the bejebus out of me. Last night was one of those times, so I just had to post this conversation. There are people out there who, when they have no idea about a given topic, merely make up whatever they think that topic is and that's good enough for them. I believe this guy fits into that camp quite nicely. There has yet to be an instrument invented that can measure the depths of delusion that this guy exuded. At first, I thought it was going to be promising, but it quickly eroded into a pit of ignorance. Here we go:

Him: Are you religious?
Me: Nope, Funny, huh?
Him: Funny?
Me: Well, it says I like religion, but it's ironic since I despise it.
Him: Oh! Ok, yea it is.
Me: U, religious?
Him: Idk I'm into a lot of different things
Me: Like?
Him: I'm kinda christian/pagan
Me: Aren't those conflicting ideologies?
Him: Christianity is rooted in paganism. The church pretty much jacked there shit and beliefs, and labeled pagan gods as demons so they could control people.
Me: Oh, I mostly agree.
Him: I have christian beliefs, like the existence of Jesus and God and apply His message of compassion to my life, but I don't practice my faith like Christians do.
I don't care for church, rituals/sacraments, or worship. I show my respect for him in other ways.
Me: By respecting others, right?
Him: Yes, all life. That's why I'm vegan. I try to respect living creatures. Sometimes easier said than done, especially people. Pretty much the things God has made, not the things humans made in his name.
Me: Let me ask u, do you believe in evolution? I have a very specific reason for asking.
Him: I think it's possible, but I personally don't. But I don't know.

I'll interject here for a minute. I was hoping he'd say he believed in evolution because I just wanted to chat about my concern with where we draw the line in our respect for life. Since we are related to all life, why is eating only vegetables any more moral or acceptable than eating cows? Vegetation can feel things; they are living things, we are related to them. But since he didn't believe in evolution I had to take this in a different direction.

Me: Ok, well that leads to other questions for me then. Were you taught evolution at all?
Him: I live in the south in US, so of course not, lol. I only know the little bit I've looked into myself. I understand the gist.
Me: Ok, so you understand the gist, but you don't believe it, why?
Him: I wasn't there.
Me: You weren't there? You weren't there for your conception, either, but it happened. You weren't there for the holocaust, but it happened. You weren't there when the technology was invented that led to Omegle, yet you are communicating with me.
Him: As in, I don't have first-hand experience watching our species evolve as mapped out in the theory.
Me: But you don't have first-hand experience in almost everything in your life's path.
Him: It just doesn't resonate with me.
Me: Hmmm... This is interesting. So, how old do you believe the human race is?
Him: I don't know.
Me: How can you say something like "it doesn't resonate" with you and then not have any idea how long humans have been on earth?
Him: Because I don't think about these things. All I know is I am here and I didn't ask to be, so I'm trying to find out what's behind my experiences that have lead me to believe in God.
Me: Ok, just answer me this, what do you think evolution is? You did some looking into it and you said you got the gist, so I'd like to know what the gist is for you.
Him: Humans evolved into a more rational, intelligent, less hairy species.
Me: What? Less hairy than what?
Him: Why are you interested in whether or not I believe in evolution?
Me: Well, my original reasoning was because you said you cherish all life, and so do I. But when you said you didn't believe in evolution, I had to pursue that line of questioning instead. If you believed in evolution I would have had a different question for you.
Him: What was the other question?
Me: Well, it's hard to ask it since you don't believe in the fact of evolution. You're not a creationist though, right? Or should I say young earth creationist?
Him: Creationist? Like if I believe life was create by God?
Me: Well, a YEC believes in a literal bible
Him: YEC?
Me: That the earth was made roughly 6K years ago. YEC = Young Earth Creationist
Him: Oh, well I don't know about all that. I think the earth is millions of years old.
Me: Cool. That's good. It's actually almost 5 billion years old, but at least you didn't say thousands. So what are those experiences you mentioned that led you to believe in a god?

Now this guy will make you laugh and cringe. Up until this point he was pretty harmless, but then he boarded the train to Delusion Junction and I just couldn't wait to read what he had to say next.

Him: Hauntings and other encounters with spirits. Some good some bad. It got me thinking that there's more out there.
Me: And what evidence do you have for these spirits? Just personal revelation?
Him: I saw them and heard them. So I started looking into it.
Me: Do you believe in other kinds of sightings, such as UFOs, are they legit?
Him: Yes, the universe is massive so I don't think it's far off to assume there's other life out there.
Me: Excellent. Can you tell me about these spirits? And why are these occurrences a sign of a god?
Him: Through the hauntings, I learned they fear Jesus, just the mention of his name makes them run. So those experiences strengthened my belief in God, among other things.
Me: Are you telling me you conversed with evil spirits and you physically saw them run at the mention of Jesus?
Him: Conversed no. I never carry on a conversation with them. And yes, they run.
Me: So they have a physical presence? If you didn't converse with them then how do you know it was a haunting? Did these spirits carry a sign? I'm a little confused.
Him: I knew is was a haunting because they came every night. They would say things to me, trying to get my attention but I'd ignore them. And I could see them watching me.
Me: Were you ever under the influence of any type of drug during any of these? Were you nearly asleep?
Him: No
Me: So they were talking to you and took a human form and you said "Jesus" and they ran?
Him: In human form no, demons and other evil spirits are low vibrational beings. They don't usually have the energy to appear in their true form. Plus some were once human, other never were. They look like a walking shadow. Have you ever heard of shadow people? A lot of people see and encounter them. But yes, they fear Jesus.
Me: This is fascinating. I just don't know what to say. Something such as evolution doesn't resonate with you but low vibrational beings that fear Jesus does. Incredible stuff right there. Where did you come up with that explanation?
Him: Well I believe my spirit is having a human experience. I'm not really concerned with scientific explanations as to why I'm here or how humans came to be. I want to know why am I having these experiences. There so much out there that's unexplained.
Me: I could talk to you forever. Unfortunately I have to get some sleep. It's killing me because this was a great conversation and I don't want it to end. I only wish you could embrace evolution/science the way you believe in woo.
Him: Neither have all the answers. Good night.

Some of the tripe this guy was typing was beyond hilarious. Less hairy species? Seriously? He never did say what he meant by that, even if it is obvious. Running spirits? Low vibrational beings? Jesus as an antidote? This guy had an extra helping of crazy and I'm so glad this conversation wasn't in person. I don't know if I would have been able to either keep a straight face or stop from slapping him.

From a fan of mine

In my last post, I mentioned an email exchange I had with a fan of my podcast. My co-host and I had a discussion on the show about the Pledge of Allegiance, how Americans should never expect foreigners to recite it in public settings and they really shouldn't be asking for it to be recited at all in international events.

This ticked off one of our listeners, so much so that he accused us of slamming theists all too often on our show, which isn't about atheism at all. His email basically pulled out a lot of the fallback responses from theists, like "If we are all just walking chunks of flesh then why should I believe anything you say?" etc. It was a crude email that was typical of uneducated theists only reciting what they had been fed in social media and on YouTube, as you'll see he referenced William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist and debater. I didn't keep that original email, but I did keep the rest of the correspondence we had.

You'll notice his replies are short and from the hip while mine are long and thought out. I won't fix his grammar and spelling. The first response is from me, and it comes after he said he appreciated our responses and that he would continue listening to the show.

ME: Thanks for sticking with us. I actually enjoy debating theists in my spare time and have watched just about every WLC debate out there. I have to admit he rubs me the wrong way, but I still listen to him. I think Sean Carroll did the best job of dismantling his Kalam, though I tire of philosophical arguments. I'm more of an evidence guy.

I thought about addressing your email in an entirely different way, discussing the fallacy claim, objective morality, etc., but I didn't want to turn you off any more than I may have already.

Again, thanks for sticking with us and if you want to discuss theism-atheism further I'm open to it as long as you don't let it keep you from listening to our show.

HIM: Hey buddy, thanks for the reply. Honestly, you would probably destroy me in a debate. It gets so complicated at times, I have to re-read, or re-listen about 10 times to fully understand the point! I personally think WLC is an excellent debater, he actually saved my faith! I especially liked his debate against Alex Rosenberg. I do enjoy studying philosophy of religion, as I find science doesn't always answer my questions. I thought WLC did well in the Carroll debate, especially since he is not a cosmologist. I listen to Hugh Ross for things concerning those matters. Are you convinced morality is subjective? I have to ask, do you "believe" in anything other than science? You know where I am going with this! Thanks for being so accessible, and keep up the great work on the podcast.

ME: The Carroll-WLC debate hit the nail on the head when it comes to refuting the Kalam because the KCA asks the wrong questions and Carroll proves that. It's a fine argument from the pre-Enlightenment era, but now it makes little sense. When WLC is shown his argument is false, he still continues with it, because he's merely a hired gun and is working on an outdated script. And you're correct, he isn't a cosmologist, so he should stick to what he knows. I have another argument that I believe refutes the KCA, but like I said, I despise philosophy. If you want to read my opinion on it I will gladly write it up for you. I enjoy doing this and spend a lot of time debating theists in forums.

To answer your question about science, we would first have to agree on a definition for belief. If you mean do I believe unconditionally everything science has to offer? Of course not, because that flies entirely in the face of what the scientific method is all about. Science isn't my religion, but there is no better way on this planet to decipher what is true when it comes to the physical world. The scientific method ensures questions get answered and conspiracies are all but impossible. The mere fact that science is transparent and scientists live for being double-checked and found wrong is the reason to trust it.

As for morality, yes, I 100 percent believe it's subjective and, like the U.S. Constitution, it's like a living breathing thing and can change over time, as it of course has. Even if there were a god, and that god is your god, he/she/it would still have an opinion as to what is moral, making it subjective. We are a product of our times and environment, always have been, always will be.

Like I said before, I wouldn't want this to affect our relationship. I appreciate your candor and honesty and the fact that you like our show. But if you want to keep this up, I'm game. You asked me some questions so I guess I'll just ask you one: What is your worldview?

HIM: Thanks for the reply, you're very intelligent when it comes to these matters. However, for me there is a big problem with a naturalistic world view. If morality is subjective, and we are just evolved chimpanzees, then everything that comes out of your mouth, or is printed in a science book, or even science itself, is purely subjective! How can one say that torturing somebody for fun is only subjectively bad? At least you didn't say "science is the only truth," like so many others I talk to will say. The statement "science is the only truth" by itself proves that science is not the only truth! You are too intelligent to say that, which says a lot about you.

Also, if my God did exist, he would be a maximally great being. He would be the greatest conceivable "good." Therefore, "good" would be objective. In other words, God did not choose good because it is good, but good is only good if a maximally great being possesses that quality. To answer your question about my world view, I am an old earth creationist. I have learned a lot from William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, and Fazale Rana. I am sure I will learn something from you as well! This will not affect our relationship, I enjoy hearing about your world view.

ME: I'm so glad you responded and I must admit my response is quite long as I use some info from Wiki, responses from TTA forum members and Iron Chariots. Since you were the first to mention fallacies I assume you will be OK with me treating our correspondence as a debate and pointing out when you commit fallacies, etc.

Your first statement "If morality is subjective ..." has many problems. You said you were an old world creationist, but that still needs some clarifying. You could be a gap creationist (god created life instantly and recently), a progressive creationist (god allows for gene mutation and natural selection but intervenes at key points to guide the process to create humans) or a theism creationist (god of the bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes.)

From the comment, I might guess you were a gap creationist because that statement about chimps means you might not understand what evolution really is. We are not evolved chimps. They are distant cousins to Homo sapiens on a geological timescale. Along the evolutionary tree we had a common ancestor, but we didn't come from chimps. I hope you don't ever make statements such as, "If we evolved from chimps then why are there still chimps?" because that is truly a gross ignorance that needs to be eradicated from this planet.

The topic of our discussion is objective morality. Based on this, your statement commits a few fallacies, including the evolutionary one I pointed out already. The examples you give are non sequiturs (another fallacy) in that they have little or nothing to do with the topic. Casual conversations are hardly subjected to such scrutiny as to be deemed important enough to be judged objectively by an all-powerful being. Same with textbooks, etc. These examples serve as a red herring in that you are avoiding the subject by invoking false dichotomies.

It's not that I disagree with the "subjective" portion of the statement, it's that it serves little purpose when trying to get to the heart of the matter, which is objective morality. What I say, think or do is purely subjective, yes. I am the subject, I am performing these acts or having these thoughts, hence they dictate their subjectiveness. It has nothing to do with determining if there is objective morality, so the examples are pointless.

Now, let's get to it. You brought up the example of torturing for fun and ask how it could only be subjectively bad. Torture is by definition unlawful abuse and/or creation of mental anguish. So any agreement is merely that people within a society should obey the rules of society. (Saying it is for fun is a nice touch but has little bearing on the degree of the act.)

For the argument to have any validity, all societies would have to agree on which types of mistreatment constitute torture, but even a cursory review of human history shows this is not the case. Violent interrogation, which one might think would be universally reviled, was perfectly acceptable to the Romans and Spartans (hell, even police/government agencies still do it).

Let's step it up to murder just for fun. Human sacrifice has been practiced by cultures around the world, as have judicial executions. The slaughter of civilians in war was widely accepted until fairly modern times. Some cultures did not consider it murder to kill people from other nations. At one point, samurai had wide latitude to kill peasants over the slightest discourtesy. Unless there is at least one type of killing that is universally considered to be murder, it cannot be argued that all societies agree that murder is wrong in any meaningful sense. This is the same for torture.

So to say these atrocities are objectively bad wouldn't quite be correct. I also think you may be confusing objective truth with objective morality. Again, let's go back to your statement. What comes out of my mouth or is printed on the pages of a science textbook could very well be objective truths, but it doesn't need an omnibenevolent deity to validate it. Those have nothing to do with morality.

You can certainly use objective tools to find out whether an action is morally good or bad, but the parameters you have to set up before doing so remain a subjective choice. One person may choose human suffering/human happiness as a parameter for determining morality, another person may choose his own well-being as a parameter and a third person may choose a religious scripture as his parameter. In the end, it all comes down to personal preference.

All fields of science have to make certain subjective assumptions to pursue objective truths. You need to subjectively value logic, reason, evidence before you can accurately gauge and measure objective truths. If you require that a science of morality to be 100 percent objective, then you're requiring it be self-justifying in a way no science can.

To quote Sam Harris in a debate he had with WLC: "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"

Your statements about "your" god commit two fallacies: special pleading and wishful thinking. While it's fantastic to be able to recognize the god you want, you are merely creating the being that best fits your worldview, a god you hope exists. No objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any "a priori" proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective. The moral principles theists claim to be "objective" usually coincide very well with what they feel subjectively to be true. The fact that you give this god the qualifier that he's maximally great means nothing and can't be proved. Why couldn't this god be maximally bad? And even if he did exist and was good, saying that he is the definition of good doesn't make it objective. If we as humans have to be told what is good then god is defining it for us, making it subjective.

Here is where it gets tricky and your worldview is important: Humans have been around in our current form for at least 100K years (it's closer to 200K but for the purposes of this discussion 100K will do nicely). I can produce mountains of evidence that proves this if you doubt it. We can easily show humans lived long before religion, before your god finally presented himself to us some 6K (or 2K) years ago. Did humans have objective morals then? How did we survive as a race if we didn't have a bible or personal revelation of god to keep us from torturing for fun and murdering for no reason? Why didn't we just die out from everyone committing every repulsive atrocity possible? Was god screwing with our free will and keeping us alive by squashing our urge to kill each other? That can't be, right?

Or maybe something a little more logical happened, you know, Occam's Razor and all. Maybe we formed tribes and packs, and realized it was much easier to survive when we worked together. Maybe we developed empathy through experience and protected each other from those individuals who didn't have the same moral compass as society. Then over the years we continued to learn and developed the Golden Rule, which means don't do something to someone you wouldn't want done to you. By the way, Confucius used the Golden Rule centuries before Christianity even existed so it's not a Christian concept. Also, we have witnessed empathy and morals in the animal kingdom countless times in countless acts. I can prove this, too. Where did they get their morals? God?

I have studied this from all angles and I didn't take my deconversion lightly. I can debate everything from philosophy to the bible, I can give my take on Christianity, Judaism, Islam and even Hinduism. I can discuss the historicity of Jesus, the irreconcilables of the gospels, the problems with the Old Testament, the problems with the New Testament, the contradictions riddled throughout the bible and I can hold my own with science.

I very much enjoyed this and hope I didn't turn you off. I'm pretty passionate about it and eagerly await your response. If there are other topics you'd like to discuss, I am all for it.

HIM: I appreciate your thorough response. To be honest, you're just way to advanced for me to have a proper debate with. At least I am man enough to admit it. You're very intelligent! Not making excuses, but I guess I kind of am, with a full time job, a wife and two kids, and trying to start up an early 60's surf rock band, I just don't have time to commit my life to studying all these things right now. I will say, William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, and Fuzale Rana do address everything that you have brought up. I have been thinking, why don't you send in either your rebuttal to the Kalam, or a write up about objective/subjective morality to William Lane Craig? I am serious, you are so advanced, I think he will take one of your questions as one of his "questions of the week." I have enjoyed our conversation, and hope I havn't let you down. Please do keep in touch with me, as I think you are very kind and respectful to other people with different world views. Take care!

At this point I think he is waving the white flag and he is actually asking to stay in touch. So I just try to end it quickly.

ME: Nah, his rebuttals aren't rebuttals. But that's cool. Just glad we are cool with each other. Thanks for the kind words and I'm glad you're sticking around. If you change your mind or have questions let me know in your free time.

HIM: Yes, they are rebuttals. There is a reason why he wins every single debate that he is involved in. Dawkins is too chicken **** to debate him, most atheist agree Harris lost by a mile, Carroll was shown why none of his lame, outdated models would work, the panel voted 4-2 in favor of Craig when he debated Rosenberg, and the Atheist Wire newspaper said "Hitchens got spanked." Are you sure the reason why you don't want to send in your thesis isn't because he could easily refute it? If Atheism is so obviously true, why does WLC keep winning these debates?! Deep down you know he shows that theism is true, but you just choose to ignore that fact. Anyway, I will definitely continue to listen to the podcast, keep up the good work!

I found it very telling how one line in my brief response got him to start to show his true feelings and unleash a little vitriol.

ME: I knew you'd be back! He won all of the debates? Hmmm. Anyone who thinks Sam Harris lost his debate to WLC must be Craig's mother or have his same last name. It was the most embarrassing one-sided affair I've ever watched and I've seen a lot of them. Not sure where you're getting your info.

And exactly who told you he won the Carroll debate, theist bloggers and Christian websites? Did you watch the debate?

Of course both sides would declare victory, just like political debates when each side spins it their way in the moratorium. But Carroll didn't try to win the debate, he even said that, he just completely dismantled the antiquated KCA. Anyone who actually followed the debate and listened to what Carroll said would know he said models don't have to be perfect, they only have to be possible. It's a moot point to say they don't work.

Your rhetoric about what I feel "deep down" was comical at best and I'll let it slide. I'm an evidence guy, just like in poker. If the story doesn't add up, I'm calling your bluff. WLC's story doesn't add up in the 21st century. And neither does yours here. You played that weak card a little too early. Do you think if I really believed the Christian god existed that I would piss him off like this? LOL! And if, as you admitted, you're not equipped to debate me on your own about such issues, how do you know WLC has won anything? Because you're being told he won? Kinda like being told what to believe by the church? Hmm.

BTW:  Dawkins hates debates, but when he does agree to one he wants to be debated by legitimate clergy, not a hired gun throwing around science terms he really doesn't understand.

I have a real problem with WLC but I won't get into that here. My disdain for him came WAY after I saw the debates, so this attitude I have toward him didn't affect my objectivity when I was searching for the truth years ago. I listened wholeheartedly to him when I was at a crossroads and he just didn't do it for me.

Are we having fun yet?

Tell me, have you read the bible cover to cover? And you said WLC restored your faith. Why did you lose it in the first place, and are your beliefs solid now because of his debates alone?

HIM: Answer this question honestly, and think before you answer. Would you personally debate WLC? Also, I am not dumb enough to say if we came from monkeys why are they still here. It does not matter if one type of murder is universally accepted or considered wrong, that doesn't change the fact that it is objectively wrong to murder somebody (we're not talking self defense here). It doesn't matter if all societies agree upon one type of torture, it's still objectively wrong. What society says about it has nothing to do with it, you atheist don't seem to grasp that point. Are you familiar with special pleading? You are guilty of it, sir. Since everything is subjective, and we are all just walking chunks of matter, why do you stand up for same sex marriage? You shouldn't care about it! I know what you will say, but really you shouldn't care, even if it "infringes on your rights." Atheist are very closed minded. I need to get back to work, have a great day!

ME: Ever notice WLC ALWAYS goes first in a debate? Why do you think that is? It's because he insists on it, including many other stipulations like a favorable location, time constraints, etc. Why? Because he then uses a tactic on the level of a high school debate team by altering the topic of the debate to something he can manipulate, forcing his opponent to do one of two things: spend his 10 minutes refuting the BS that WLC just pulled, thus surrendering his 10 minutes and playing defense for the rest of the night, or he can go ahead with his prepared 10 minutes that actually addresses the subject, and then will be subjected to WLC's underhanded cries of foul, accusing his opponent of not addressing the points he brought up, and declaring his victory. It's something that ignorant audiences and inexperienced debaters fall for and is why so many theists believe this guy wins. It's manipulative and unprofessional at best.

You have not proved at all that murder or torture is objectively wrong, you are just more and more guilty of fallacies, namely an appeal to emotion and an argument from adverse consequences. Everything related to behavior and morality is subjective and no one has ever made an argument that refutes this point without trying to insert a god they can't prove exists. And even if your god did exist, like we've discussed, this god would need to be defined so I can dismantle him for you as well. You never answered my question about the bible, btw.

Your points about special pleading and same sex marriage completely miss the mark. Please point out how I am guilty of special pleading by insisting we are all responsible for our own actions and don't answer to a made-up deity. And you never state why I shouldn't care. I know why we should care, but you never state why. Please complete at least one thought in your responses.

Your strawman fallacies are beginning to show as well, lumping all atheists into your narrow view of them and then knocking them down. Empathy is one of the most valuable attributes we have as a race and those who can't recognize that are the truly close-minded. No special pleading there.

While I appreciate how busy you might be at work, I notice you cherry-pick only that which you are comfortable answering. Why is that? Many followers of Christianity choose to cherry-pick the bible and its tenants so this behavior isn't surprising.

Hope work is going well.

HIM: You never answered my question about debating WLC. I think I know why, it's because you would get your ass kicked in a debate against him. You are making all atheist look bad with your weak arguments. Anyway, I apologize for being rude, I am not normally like that. I think you guys do a fine job and do so in a professional manner. I will recommend all of my friends to listen to your podcast. I am not at all being sarcastic. Good luck to you, and have a great day.

At this point I replied to him and sent it off, only to find out he had eliminated his email address. He really didn't like me tearing apart his hero and it got to him just when I thought the exchange was going to end. He didn't answer quite a few questions I posed to him and I'm not sure if that's because he just didn't have time, he was upset by what I had said or that he just didn't want to have to think about those things. I see it all of the time when talking to theists who really haven't given any critical thinking to their worldview. Maybe he will reach out to me again someday, with a different email address I'm sure.

Why hit and run?

Lately, when I have a chance to debate theists, they have been doing what is known as a hit-and-run. We have a casual conversation, no mud-slinging or ad-hominem attacks and then they say something really asinine and split. Of course you likely have surmised that I have had these debates electronically.

Case in point: In real life I'm sort of a pseudo celebrity in that there are a lot of people who know who I am from my media companies. One of my media adventures is a popular podcast (it's not about atheism). But every once in a while a topic will come up where my worldview is expressed. I don't actually mention being an atheist, but it's clear I'm not happy with religion or theism.

Recently, a listener contacted our show to express his disappointment in my (and my co-host's) point of view, and he rattled off a bunch of theistic mumbo-jumbo. I made sure not to apologize to this guy and thanked him for his patronage and if he felt he couldn't listen to the show anymore that I would understand. He replied with a very cordial email, stating we were very classy for replying and taking the time to deal with him, etc. Eventually we ended up having a back-and-forth conversation about his worldview and mine. We debated a bit and he admitted he wasn't in my league when it came to addressing such things. I said that was fine, I'm just glad he was going to remain a listener and not be offended. But in the end, he made some ridiculous points, said I was making all atheists look bad and would be crushed by William Lane Craig in a debate and that I'd be chicken shit to debate him, etc.

So I replied and my email came back undeliverable. I wondered at first if he blocked me so I tried to email him with my personal email and it turned out he literally closed his email account. So I can only imagine he created this account for the sole purpose of contacting our show with a boatload of insults, never envisioning we would respond and actually have a conversation. (I may post our exchange on here soon.)

A week or two later, I was on Omegle chatting with another theist and we had a real pleasant debate for about 30 minutes. We started to discuss morality (absolute, subjective and objective) and it was completely cordial. Then he went on this long diatribe, made some easily refutable points and then disconnected. So I couldn't reply and I never saved the conversation so I can't post it.

I have a hypothesis as to why they are doing this. It's a virtual version of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "La la la la! Can't hear you! La la la!" They get in too deep with the conversation, they don't like what they are hearing (maybe it's causing them to rethink their faith?) and they throw in an insult or two and then split without having to deal with the repercussions of making said statements.

It is frustrating because I'm being cordial, taking the high road and I'm getting taken advantage of in the process. I would be a rude ass except that would just cement in their minds that atheists are evil baby eaters or whatever. Oh well.