Letter from Oklahoma Senator Josh Brecheen concerning evolution and creation.

One of the bills I will file this year may be dismissed as inferior by “intellectuals” so I wanted to devote particular time in discussing it’s merits. It doesn’t address state waste, economic development, workers comp reform or lawsuit reform (although I have filed bills concerning each) but it is nonetheless worthy of consideration. It is an attempt to bring parity to subject matter taught in our public schools, paid for by the taxpayers and driven by a religious ideology. I’m talking about the religion of evolution. Yes, it is a religion. The religion of evolution requires as much faith as the belief in a loving God, when all the facts are considered (mainly the statistical impossibility of key factors). Gasp! Someone reading this just fell out of their enlightened seat!!! “It’s not a religion as it’s agreed upon by the entire scientific community,” some are saying at this very moment. Are you sure? Let’s explore the facts.

As a high school and university student forced to learn about evolution I was never told there were credible scientists who harbor significant skepticism toward Darwinian Theory. I easily recall a full semester at SOSU where my English 1 professor forced us to write almost every paper over the “facts” of evolution. That professor had a deep appreciation for me by semester end due to our many respectful debates as I chose to not be blindly led. I specifically remember asking how in 4,000 years of recorded history how we have yet to see the ongoing evidence of evolution (i.e. a monkey jumping out of a tree and putting on a business suit).

Following a 2001 PBS television series, which stressed the “fact” of evolution, approximately 100 physicists, anthropologists, biologists, zoologists, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists and other scientists organized a rebuttal. So much disagreement arose from this one sided TV depiction that this group produced a 151 page rebuttal stating how the program, “failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the Darwinian evolution”. These weren’t narrow minded fundamentalists, backwoods professors or rabid religious radicals; these were respected world class scientists like Nobel nominee Henry Schafer, the third most cited chemist in the world and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School.

Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth. Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. That’s where we should have problems with state dollars only depicting one side of a multifaceted issue. Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings is incomplete and unacceptable. For years liberals have decried how they want to give students both sides of an argument so they can decide for themselves, however when it comes to evolution vs. creation in the classroom, the rules somehow change. Their beliefs shift, may I say... evolve to suit their ideology.

We must discuss the most recognizable icons of the evolution religion. Darwin sketched for The Origin of Species a visual to explain his hypothesis that all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor. The tree of life scenario, engrained upon most of our memories, depicts gue transitioning into a hunched over monkey which then turns into a business suit.

Darwin himself knew the biggest problem with his visual (cornerstone concept of his hypothesis) was the fossil record itself. He acknowledged major groups of animals, he coined “divisions” (now called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record. The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over). Even Christians believe in biological change from species to species (adaption) over time. The taxonomic hierarchy which includes species, genus, family, order and class must be visualized for understanding separation from phyla and species classifications. As an OSU Animal Science graduate I readily admit the adaption of animal species from interbreeding such as Santa Gertrudis cattle, a “weenie” dog or even a fruit fly. Even the difference among lions, tigers and cougars could be attributed to species adaption and interbreeding if one so decried. Additionally, human differences seen notable in ethnicity proves that change among species is real but this is NOT evolution, its adaption. Changes with the classification of species is DRAMATICALLY different then changes among Phyla. Phyla changes would be if an insect, with its skeleton located on the outside of soft tissue (arthropods), transformed into a mammal, with its skeleton at the core of soft tissue (chordates). Phyla changes must be verified for Darwin’s common ancestor hypothesis to be accurate.

The rapid appearance of today’s known phylum-level differences, at about 540 million years ago, debunks the tree of life (common ancestor) scenario. This biological big bang of fully developed animal phyla is called the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion’s phyla fossils and the phyla of today are basically one in the same. These phyla fossils of that era are fully developed, not in a transitional form. In fact we don’t have a transitional form fossil crossing phyla classification after hundreds of years of research looking at sediment beds spawning the ages. There are certainly plenty of good sedimentary rocks from before the Cambrian era to have preserved ancestors if there are any. As for pre-Cambrian fossils being too tiny or soft for secured preservation there are microfossils of bacteria in rocks dating back beyond three billion years. Absolutely ZERO phyla evidence supporting Darwin’s hypothesis has been discovered after millions of fossil discoveries. Darwin’s cornerstone hypothesis where invertebrate’s transition into vertebrates is majorly lacking and so is Darwin’s “theory”.

I will be introducing legislation this session to ensure our school children have all the facts.

This discussion is to be continued in next week’s column..

Josh Brecheen

I have not changed any of the spelling or grammar from the source article.

http://durantdemocrat.com/pages/full_story/push?content_instance=10717736&need_to_add=true&id=10717736#cb_post_comment_10717736

Atheists and sexuality

Often when religious adherents encounter an atheist for the first time a common comment they say is that they don't think pornography is right. I have heard this several times from different religious adherents in various places and times around the country. Of course this represents a very gross misunderstanding of what an atheist is. As I have stated before it has little to do with what one does but with what one fails to believe. Usually this is due to the lack of evidence to conclusively show that there is a supernatural nature to, well, anything. This being the very defining characteristic of an atheist. If you notice there is nothing in it that relates to or is dependent on anything sexually.

So why is there such a misconception among the religious adherents about the sexual mores of atheists? There are several paths that we can take to lead us to the answers. One is due to the belief that adherents see their morality as being derived from a supernatural source they make the mistaken assumption that the absence of this moral code would result in the practice of what that code set up as prohibitive. This is, of course, nothing but a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur. The facts of the issue are much less enticing.

While it is true that as a generalized group, atheist are more likely to be accommodating or practicing in some sort of sexual behavior that is otherwise prohibited in most religious dogma. The reality is much less fatuous and frivolous. As we are “fortunate” to learn that the promoters of such sexual moral codes are often the ones that are the ones that are often most entangled in the same behavior that the try so hard to restrict. It has been said before that the more one protest or wishes to restrict a behavior are the ones most likely to be the ones involved of most willing to accommodate it's practice in their own lives. From this, I personally view that the more a person or group promotes restrictive sexual behavior the more likely it is that somewhere in the group these taboos are practiced. Is there a sexual restriction that seems unusual from an ethical point of view? I would say that this is either used as a cover for some other sexual behavior or for the particular sexual behavior that they are against in their dogma. This is my opinion but it is based upon the reports and experiences that are reported in the news from time to time.

To this end, I find that atheist are fortunate in that these dogmatic hang-ups that so many religious adherents are forced to suffer through. The prohibition of natural behavior is something the religion is quite good at. When it comes to food, sex and clothing, religion has something to say almost every time on these subjects. So it should come as no surprise that normal sexual behavior is one of the most restrictive areas that the adherents of religion focus on. Things such as homosexual partners, sexual actions, number of sexual partners, time for sexual behavior, age of sexual actions and so on have “answers” in the dogma of religious adherents. Theses answers, of course, are already part of the moral and ethical codes of human behavior. There are reasons for and against certain sexual behavior and the reason for practicing them. Atheist are more likely to be less restrictive of sexual actions that are committed by mutual consent by adults.

Biologically there is no reason for most of the restrictions that religious adherents push including the right or a woman to control her own body and the time and place she wishes to have children, if she even wants to have any at all. It is a real problem for the male dominated religions to accept the idea that woman are able to exercise the freedom that men have been able to enjoy for so long. This is really a none issue with atheists other than wishing that a person makes the best decision for their particular situation.

So under the banner of atheist, there is plenty of room for persons of atypical yet totally acceptable sexual behavior to find acceptance. It is not uncommon to find a person at an atheist meeting that is homosexual or a couple that by choice desires to not have children or even a relationship that involves more than two persons. The only level of acceptance is that the people are pleased in the conditions and are not trying to force or otherwise promote illegal activity. Rape is still viewed as a violent action and is generally viewed as a action that requires the perpetrator to be punished. Sadly, even this has exception with in the range of religious dogma.

To surmise, atheists are not the sexual perverts that the religious adherents may believe that they are. That would more likely be the actual religious adherents themselves. Atheist are generally more accepting of a wider range of sexual behavior than the religious adherents. This acceptance is borne out of the idea that it really doesn't matter after all. As long as one can function and productively contribute then that should be the moral standard for acceptance of a person. Not the person they have sexual relations with.

Chapter Nine; FUNDAMENTALISTS, THE BIBLE IS NOT INEHERENT part thirty-seven

First, ask if they believe if the Old Testament still applies to a Christian Today. This will guide the rest of the discussion. As stated earlier, many fundamentalist state that they think the Bible is free of errors and contradictions. For my purpose and definition I would call “free of errors” as meaning that internally or externally is there anything inconsistent with the or contradictory in the text of the Bible or reflected in reality.
The good thing about this is with the Internet one can research the topics through the quickly. The idea that a person would hold to the view that these Bible stories are perfect and without error can only be defended in the arena of apologetics. This of course it the discipline of making 1+1=3. There is a whole area of religious study with in theological universities where the carefully contrived explanations of the biblical contradictions and errors are explained carefully to allow the faithful the foolish notion that what is clearly in error is actually correct.
One commonly known story from the New Testament is that of the death of Judas. As the story goes Judas, a follower of Jesus, was the Disciple that turned Jesus over to the Roman authorities for him to be judged and face his eventual death. He was asked by the Jewish authorities to reveal which one of the group was the Jesus and Judas worked out a signal that he would kiss Jesus when he greeted him and when the sign was given Jesus found himself arrested and so the story goes on that Jesus was taken before the Romans and then the Jews and then he was taken outside the city of Jerusalem.
Regardless of what the theology or point of view is of the story it is clear that there are two very different things going on in the Bible in Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18-19. In the story in Matthew, Judas filled with guilt or regret returns the 30 pieces of silver to the Jewish priests and he hung himself. Then the priests bought a potter's field cemetery for foreigners. They didn't find the idea of putting the “blood money” in with the “not so much blood money” treasury.
In the Acts story the death of Judas says Judas himself bought a field and died after falling head long on his stomach and his guts all busted outside.
It is clear that these are not the same story. In one the field was bought by the priests, and other by Judas. In one the money was returned first and the other the money directly bought the field. In one Judas hung himself and in the other he died by falling head long and his bowels gushed out. [I am not sure what medical condition could cause this by the way. But this is another point of contention with the Bible.] What is similar is that Judas was the one that betrayed Jesus and he felt bad later about it then he died and there was a place called the Blood Field.
This one example is enough to show that the Bible is not totally free of errors. But this is only one of many through the Bible. There are factual errors, internal genealogical errors, misquotes and out and out lies. Another one example is the words above Jesus on his cross. This is suppose the sign for the charges against the criminal so others in the population would not make the mistake of doing the same crime and thus find themselves on the cross as well. In Mark it said to read, “King of the Jews.” Luke says the signs reads, “This is the King of the Jews.” In Matthew it quotes the sign as reading, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” Finally in John, he says the sign had the words, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” Now I have been to many concerts and other events where the place you are sitting or standing can determine what you can see. So maybe the sign was so big that the guys reading it wouldn't have been able to read it all. But it is more likely that the sign is a construct of writers later on that felt that it was important to have a sign on the cross. The only thing that is consistent through out the four quotes is “King of the Jews.” Maybe it was Jesus, maybe the guy was from Nazareth, maybe it was the King of the Jews. We can't really be sure.
There are many of these inconsistencies through out the Bible and I will touch on another one from Genesis. So what came first? Adam or Armadillos? Well if we look at the words of the Bible from Genesis 1:24-27 it looks like God thought that making cattle and creepy animals and all the other animals first then God got around to making man. Seems to me that if man is made in his own image that that particular design would have been the most easy to make. I know that mankind has a long history of making images and contraptions looking like a man or woman. However, God may have been trying to save the best for last. Then again he might have been on a bit of a bender since he was talking to himself. But not to disrespect God for that, I have been known to have discussions with myself. I do realize that I am actually just talking to myself though and not another person with me. But I digress.
The other story of God makin' stuff “in the beginning” is found in Genesis 2:5-7. It seems this time God was in such a hurry to make man he didn't even have time for it to rain yet, but he did make the oceans fill up from a spring coming out of the Earth. Then God scraped up some dust and made man. I guess this is alright since we are all made from star stuff in reality but the spring thing watering all the Earth...Well let's just say, God you have some 'splanin' to do. But to continue, After God made man from the dust of the Earth, God notice that there wasn't anything else on the planet and figured that it would be good for man to have a helper. Well God rolled up his sleeves and got making all types of animals for man for his helper. I can just see it God making all types of animals like a supernatural clown making balloon animals. Then God asks, Hey you, you want an aardvark for your helper? Then God goes all the way through the alphabet getting to the Zebra and still a “no go” with man. It seemed like man was not really thrilled with God's selection of helpers being animals. Then God is just sitting there thinking to himself laying on his stomach and blows on the dust on the ground in front of him and up pops a female. Adam looks and says WHOA MAN! That is how females got the name woman. Not really, but it fits the story. Actually it says that God made woman from Adam's rib. I wonder if that would be smoked or with bar-b-que sauce. Both of the scenarios are equally ridiculous.
Of course, this is the only time that a man gave birth to a person. That just goes to underline some of the basic sexist point of views that this and most religions have toward woman. In order to make woman subjected to man this stupid story of woman being birth from a man's rib had to be concocted. That took a divine surgery for it to happen. It must have been a result of stem cell research. But as it happens again these two methods are very different from one another.
In one man was made first, then all the animals. In the other, man was made after all the animals were made. In one animals were made from the dust of the Earth and on the other version it must have slipped the writer's mind about what the animals were made of. In one version man and woman were made at the same time and in the other woman was second and came out of man. Again these are not small areas of discrepancies but fully contradictory stories of an event. To be totally honest they are so divergent that with one you can promote the equality of woman and with the other the subservience of woman. These are more than mere grammatical errors and have far reaching influence for those that may be an adherent to them. Plus both are equally ridiculous.
If you wish to find more of these many areas in the Bible there are several website that can provide many additional examples and discussions can take place with those that think the Bible is still consistent. One is the website errancy.com. This website has apologists comments, so you can read for yourself the way they try to twist and turn the written words of the Bible to fit into the adherents supernatural World view of nature.
The reason why showing that the Bible isn't the the handwritten, direct, inspired word of God is because there are so many people that try to use it to support their views on so many issues. These range from homosexuality, stem cell research, separation of church and state, gender equality, education curriculum, evolution, foreign policy, race relations, health and welfare issues and many more. If a person can turn from seeing the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God to a moral book of ancient stories it will save lives and help people gain respect for their fellow man and woman. Do we really need a God to teach us how to do good? No. But it seems damn certain that you need a God to make people to gather to do wrong to their fellow man. It has been said before and will be said again that religion makes it adherents that would normally not do harm to their fellow man but do it willingly and encourage others to follow suit.

Coming Next Time;

INTELLIGENT DESIGN VIEW OF EVOLUTION part thirty-eight

Chapter Nine; MY TEAM COMES TO PLAY part thirty-six

Of course I would insist that any course on world religion or religion in general have a section on atheists. It is clear that the atheist community has something to say about a great many number of subjects. Everything from climate change to fair housing, political corruption, good business policies, how the wars are being conducted, public funding of religious based organizations, equal rights for all Americans and so forth.

Keep in mind that while many atheists may actually take interest and have views on these and a great many more subjects the views held can be quite diverse. In Sam Harris' book The End of Faith, he makes great points about good reasons to minimize the influence of religion and why it should be minimized as much as possible. He spends a great deal of time dealing directly with Christianity, Islam and touching on Judaism and other faiths. But near the end of the book where he is trying to make his case for ending faith he slips out of the garden and begins trying really hard to justify a form of mysticism that separates the Conscience and objective awareness and the duality nature of our conscience existence.

I feel that Harris is either trying to hard to tie in a eastern philosophical view or exert his belief in some sort of a mystic world. While Harris went to some great lengths to try to make the connection to human happiness at the end of the book but he fails to make the step by step link cited in his book that, “spiritual experience, ethical behavior and strong communities are essential for human happiness.”

I would say that to a degree I found this distressing as he seemed to be endorsing a version of a spiritual nature possibility a forum of Buddhism. This however seemed to be the point of his book since he ends the main section of the book with his title. I would have to conclude that the end of faith would lead to a spiritual nature.

This is an example for me that atheists can agree with one another most of the time but have serious disagreements about other subjects. I thank Harris greatly for his book as it has done much for promoting a positive and a more concise view to the general public of what many atheist see as what is wrong with religion and why religious adherents can be use to hid more radical beliefs within the same general belief system. While the typical Methodist may disagree with abortion, it was that religious protection afford to the more radical Christian groups such and Operation Rescue and others that led a person like Scott Roeder to shoot and kill Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas while Tiller served as an usher at his Lutheran church. Roeder's radical views found a home in the radicalism of such organizations though I understand that he was almost universally condemned by even the abortion opponents. At least at the time. If some fellow Christian was to come against the views of Roeder, Roeder's defense could be something as simple as, “You don't understand what god wants to happen to Tiller.”

Statements like this in a religious context cannot be disputed. Yet I continue to be amazed by the religious adherents who will over and over again say that “they” are the only ones that has the “truth.” I would not expect to hear this if I was to speak about my objections to Harris' conclusion as I mentioned earlier. I feel as reasonable people Harris would at least attempt to listen to my reasons for disagreeing with him until he either determined I had no knowledge or comprehension of what he was talking about or he was able to see my perspective or some other alternative. Many believers also feel that if they were to loose their faith that they would have been a fool for all their life in which they based their actions upon their religion. I can see this but it brings to mind a story I heard where a researcher into some concept made a discovery breakthrough and when he did the presentation of the concept one professor that had been looking into an alternative view for several decades stood up in the audience and told him that he was thankful to him for reveling the errors of his ways. Then the professor led the applause for the presenter. I use this example to show that having accurate information is the goal of the rational thinker. While to the adherent, faith is the goal. So to destroy the faith is to destroy their world.

That is one great advantage to being a skeptic vis-a-vis an atheist. Disagreeing with each other and vigorous debate is a keystone of education and knowledge. But the acquisition of new reality based knowledge in religions either causes them to split, have war, or modify into a new belief system to accommodate the new reality. Believers that are convinced by themselves or by others that the actions they take in the name of their religion are right in spite of how they cause harm to their fellow man will stop at nothing to reach their goals. The actions that require one to have faith, rule out reason as faith rules out science. After all, “God” cannot have his followers second guess their actions or purposes with reason, logic, facts and science.

According the the book Atheists, Atheists are much more likely to support causes that have nothing to do with their belief system when it indicates an injustice. An atheist is also a more honest person than a person which holds dogmatic beliefs or are of a right wing mentality. There were other somewhat surprising but somewhat confirming results in the book that show atheists not only to be more honest and more self aware of the state of their behavior and mental state but are also more critical of people that both share and do not share their opinions. I would have to contend that this is in of itself a good definition of being a skeptic. If only the adherents in the religions were able to or encouraged to question those that provide the answers openly instead of having the same dogmatic message yelled into their brains or chanted week after week until they are mind numbed, we might have a much more peaceful and advance planet to live on. To wrap up this section I would like to just add;

GO ATHEISTS! YOU'RE NUMBER 1!

Coming Next Time;

Chapter Nine; FUNDAMENTALISTS, THE BIBLE IS NOT INEERENT part thirty-seven

Chapter Eight; WHO IS ON YOUR TEAM? part thirty-five

So the top four areas of faith or lack there of, cover about 5 billion people. These are the best teams humanity has to offer for our posterity. To bad we cannot have head to head contest and the winners get the other adherents followers. A sort of “World Series of Belief”. Not so much to count numbers but to be educated in the others religion and judge it on its own merits.
Stephen Prothero in his book Religious Literacy makes the case for religion to be taught in the public schools. I agree fully with Prothero about this point and the benefit would be great to the civil mindedness of the common student. Imagine a person not getting upset because a person wears different clothes or dresses in a particular way because they realize that they may have a different but socially important belief system.
To me, the most important class on religion and World religions would be one on the effectiveness of prayer and miracles. Education in these two ares could help reduce the violence and prejudice between two groups from the beginning. Not only would this take the mystery and distrust out of religions that a person may not be familiar with but it would also give them equal footing in the discussion of relevance. This curriculum would have to be well made as to present it from a secular point of view. That is the only secular purpose that the government could have in this education. My hope would be to educate the religion out of someone.
The big mega-churches in the community would have their dogma reduced down to educational packets the same as the smaller groups of adherents. And at least while in the secular school, all things would be equal. And to me this would mean a diminishing of all of them because what would then be the most important is the education and knowledge of such things not the adherence to the beliefs themselves.
But Prothero makes several other good points for the teaching of a religious class in public school. There is much from our culture and literature that is based upon the stories and teachings in the Bible. Questions such as:
Who wrote the writing on the wall?
Who was Noah's wife?
Where does the phrase “go the extra mile come from?
What does, “From Dan to Bathsheba” mean?
What are the 10 Commandments?
What is the Golden Rule?

These are just a few from the numerous references of the literary aspect of the Bible. There are also from other religions and tribal beliefs that an education in religion would be helpful for.
The whole idea of learning about other religions is like learning the rules of the game. In order to be a fan or to play a sport you first must know the rules and goals of the sports. I see a good secular education in world religions to be similar to that. You are not learning just about your favorite team. You learn about them on your own effect but your learning about the other teams they may play against. It would be foolish to not have some clue about the team your favorite is getting ready to play. After all, before every game the commentators take time to highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the match up and then let the two teams play it out on the field of play where the rules govern how the winner is decided.

Coming Next Time;

MY TEAM COMES TO PLAY part thirty-six

Chapter Seven; RELIGION SHINES ITS LIGHT part twenty-six

Religion has truly surpassed the power of every invention that has followed it. As the Bronze Age, Iron age, middle ages, the age of enlightenment and the Modern ages have come and gone and gone, religion has been the enemy of progress every step of the way. To the faithful, things like the Hubble Space Telescope, nuclear weapons, and climate change are nothing compared to the power of a faith that believes in a god. If anything man can learn comes into conflict with the faithful, the Bible will win out. It either has to be wrong or misunderstood of the work of Satan because the Bible cannot be wrong according to the faithful. This concept is shown is several ways.One way is the refusal to accept scientific answers to the questions that it provides such as in astronomy, paleontology, biology and other disciplines that function quite well with the facts that lay outside the Bible's stories.

But not only does religion have the power to terrorize, it also the power to influence every level of behavior of the adherents and to some degree the people that live in the society of the dominate religious belief. Things such as clergy gender, celibacy, wearing of the hair or jewelry, view toward homosexuals, what type of food to eat and role of women and many more issue are all answered conclusively by the dogma of the religion. Each religion either pushes that they are divinely right or at least the best choice to please and honor their god. Even in the pluralistic beliefs such as Baha'i Faith.


It is true at the heart of Christianity and Islam that woman are to be shunned and controlled, the natural sexual desire are to be repressed and avoided at almost all costs. While in America there is a virtual smörgåsbord of religions of almost every school of thought one can think of. The reality that many woman are either forced into or brainwashed into accepting the second class status to men is intolerable in the natural order of humanity. While it has taken several centuries for this progress to happen, it is still a work in progress. I recently went to a Christian service at Willow Creek-Chicago and the video taped message was about Ester from the Old Testament. The story told how the King banished his wife for daring to respect herself enough not to parade out in front of his people. For this "crime" she was banished. [I was surprised she wasn't killed.] But to select a new wife the ordered woman to walk before in dressed in their most beautiful clothes and one thing and other Ester was selected because she was more beautiful. To me this is nothing more than pure sexism. Plus this story is being taught Today in one of the more liberal mega churches in America. Of course the person giving the message turned the story around about how "brave" Ester was but the thing is that her and all woman were viewed merely as chattel to the wishes of the King and other men.


In Christianity, the Catholic Church praises Mary the mother of Christ but vilifies Mary Magdeline the follower of Jesus. They will not let men and women clergy marry. This can be seen as a subjugation of women in that a man is afforded power and a woman is not able to share in the power as his wife. Woman are forbidden to be priest and leaders of the church outside the office set up for them which at even the highest level an ordained priest is given a higher position than the highest ranking nun. But this oppression is not unique to Catholics.


In Protestant religions the range is wide and deep. Woman can lead, or are prohibited to lead, woman can wear anything publicly acceptable or a woman must wear a full length dress with her hair uncut and covered. A woman can speak and teach in church or she much remain silent and only learn via her sexist husband. But in all of the Christian Protestant religions men come out ahead of woman. It is true that the men will say that woman are honored and respected in church and given a place of honor and respect. But this rings in my ears as the words I have heard when asking Muslims about the status of woman in their society. It is just a different tune they sing the song too. I mentioned the Shakers before, that they were a group that didn't believe in having children, so they had to adopt or recruit people in. But woman had somewhat of an equal status in the church. But the jobs for the woman and men were very stereotypical such as men worked in shops and farmed and woman worked in the home and did the domestic chores. Despite laws against it, this prejudice still exists in business and society as well.


Then we get to Islam which also has a wide range of expression as well. I lived in St. Louis and had many friends that were Bosnian Muslim and the woman and men were very western looking. I am not sure if this is from their home culture or the desire to adapt into the St. Louis culture and fit in. Even though I was usually able to pick an Bosnian man or woman out among other because of the physical appearance the woman always dressed as the American woman did. I wish all Muslims were as these people are. I believe the world would be a much better place.


But it is not, When I was in Saudi Arabia I was treated to experience the discrimination of woman in the total culture. Sure they view it as protecting them or honoring them but who says they need any protection or even wish to have your honor if given the freewill and other options to choose from? On the public transportation buses in Saudi Arabia the front door had a picture of a woman in a burka holding a child's hand with the prohibited sign going across them. Then on the back door, the same sign without the prohibited sign. I hear of the huge mall that was built in Saudi Arabia that actually had two levels one for woman and children and one for men. I only got to talk to one woman while I was over there and she was with her brother. [I actually had to have him talk to her.] They were very polite and she seemed quite content with the idea of being under the burka and the restrictions that are placed upon her. She even reflected the views of the Saudi Cultural Information tents that were present at our location at the Khobar Towers when I was there during the Gulf War.


Oddly enough, a Saudi citizen could drive across the King Faud Causeway to Bahrain and not have near the restrictions of the home country of Islam.


I did enjoy my experience with the Saudi people and for the most part are very polite and friendly to us as we were guests in their country. Even though I was serving in the Army in the time I found it an honor to be in their country. I just had a different view than they do. It was during my talks in the white Saudi Culture tents that I got to talk to several Imams and other Muslims about their religion. They told me that Islam accepts both Judaism and Christianity. However one cannot practice them openly. But as long as they practice privately only in their home then they are not going to be persecuted. Also that if a person moved to Saudi Arabia and they were a different religion, they would not be forced to change. They may be educated about Islam to avoid making mistake or violating the laws but they could convert of their own freewill. What a tolerant place!


I did, of course, find this quite confusing but I was a devout Christian at the time myself. So who was I to say. Here I was a Christian fighting on behalf of a Muslim country, Kuwiat. King Richard would have had my head.

Coming next time:

DOES ALLAH REALLY CARE? REALLY? part twenty-seven

Chapter Seven; HUMANS IN THE MIST part twenty-five

When paleontologists, archaeologists, anthropologist and other professionals who research the history of Earth through geology, fossils, and ancient sites of man and animals, a picture begins to develop. Like all primates, humans are very social and territorial animals. Similar characteristics are common to the varieties of primate species. But when the dawn of man came, modern man arrived on the planet pretty much the same as we are now but the Earth was a much different place than it is now. There were many other animals that have long since been extinct. While there are several ideas as to what lead to Homo sapiens to become what they are now. Several are worth touching on.

The consensus is that humans first appeared in the sub-Saharan Africa. From this rise, mankind quickly migrates to the Middle East, Europe, Asia, across the land bridge to the Americas and across the seas and oceans to Australia and other islands of human civilization. One idea to keep in mind is that over the 200,000 years of human existence the access to parts of the planet have came and gone with successive warming and cooling periods of the planet. Based upon archeology, human tools found indicate the level of technology that we had at different parts of the planet, so an idea of the paths and times we migrated and advanced around the globe can be made. Of course Homo sapiens are not the only species to use tools. The use of tools by man's ancestors has been around since at least Homo erectus, about 1.4 to 1.7 million years ago. So the advancement in tool development can not only indicate a time period but also a species of humans.

Some of these artifacts include the presence of animals hides, sticks and stones, and pottery and stone items used for holding water or food. The presence of domesticated animals, namely dog's bones present in close proximity to human artifacts and remains are indication of the progression of of the evolution of the human species. Also domesticated animals such as horses, bovine, swine and other modern domesticated animals are indicators of the advancement of mankind's dominance over his environment. These reflect a early time of human history and development of basic tools. The details of this period of time is almost completely unknown. [That's why we call it prehistoric.] But most of mankind's history is spent during this prehistoric era. Depending on the view of when mankind came into its own that period began about 200,000 years ago.

While prehistoric man would be not much different from us Today, except for his height, he really didn't begin to develop his intellectual skills until he was much further along the path. I have heard that if you were able to take a prehistoric man and raise him in Today's world that he would fit in perfectly. This is of course in sharp contrast to a recent video I saw on You Tube by "Ozmoroid" creationist geometry lesson.xxxiv It talks about how the height of mankind has gotten shorter since the time of Adam.

Archeology and physical evidence doesn't support this assertion. We have clothing and outfits that were worn by person more than 3500 years ago and these show that people were actually a bit shorter instead of taller. Structures built in those ancient times often have smaller door openings and ceilings when they are intact or reassembled. These are just a few inches not the drastic increase that Ozmorid put forth in his video but it does show the point that humans in general are more likely to get taller than shorter.xxxv I found it humorous that the idea postulates that Adam lived 6000 years ago and that due the the rate of decreasing height, humans should simply disappear in about another 4000 years. [I'll keep that day open on my calender.] While the future of humanity is uncertain for sure, it is uncertain because we simply cannot see into the future not because a silly hypothesis is laden with misinformation and ignorance. But the prediction of the end of the world is the specialty of the devout of many faiths and views.

As man advanced with simple tools and observations of the natural world. He began to form a cause and effect view of the world. Things like the weather patterns, seasons, migrations, stars, planting seeds, accidents, communication, and mutual protection become more clear. So man begins to work on using this knowledge to his benefit and the benefit for the clan or tribe. So begins the basis of science, deduction and observation. Not all these cause and effect relationships are accurate in the view of modern man. Just because the last time a meteorite was in the sky a king died or a enemy was defeated doesn't mean that every time a meteorite appears in the sky the same event will happen again. The failure of mankind to recognize that the same celestial event that they see is the same that there enemies or other nations or kingdoms would see seems to be like a foreign concepts to the writings of most ancient texts. After all there is only one sky, in spite of how often the broadcasts meteorologist insist on calling the space above us the “skies.” The ancients didn't understand as we do Today the concept of a shared experience.

The very idea that the sun comes up in East and sets in the West day after day is something that was important to ancient man to know. The knowledge of the progression of the sun in the sky over the year was important for crop management, animal tracking and hunting, when to travel to avoid coming cold weather, how to manage the domesticated animals for breeding. These are all ideas that took many generation to discover, yet are essential to how mankind lives in the world Today.

To have a festival for a better harvest as a cause and effect relationship Today seems archaic but that is how people lived in the past. A “meaningful” sacrifice had to be made according to the rules of the society.

The one or ones with the knowledge of the the seasons had the power to command respect. In a way they almost would seem like gods or at least demi-gods to the common uneducated person. So with basic knowledge of time a person could again be empowered to force their will upon their own people. If a violent storm came it was because the people sinned. If the crops failed it was a sin and a sacrifice had to be made. If the livestock got sick it was because evil was in the tribe and the evil had to be purged. So with the knowledge of time, a whole system of society could be created and called religion.

As man learned to master fire the use of this gave man the power to light the night and use it to keep away predators from his home. Oral language soon included its visual counter part in writing. Now a person could get the words of a person not even with them. They could even have words from people that had died. A great advancement to mankind. The idea of carrying knowledge forward help mankind avoid having to “reinvent the wheel” over and over again. During this period man was able to make more advance tools of stone and use the knowledge of those not with them in writing to help advance their tribes and clans.

However with the advent of written language, what can only be hypothesis at this point as the tribal stories began to take on the written form and past on from generation to generation. While the idea of a way to move a block of stone more easy is a very useful piece of information for stone age man to have. The story that this was handed down by the great stone god of the East is not really a helpful concept. But man was making more time available for himself so instead of following our naturally evolved natural to be nomadic, man began to build town and settlements. The best places were near were there was water for crops, drinking and so on.

I know most of this is a rehash of the stories told for the past few decades but sometime it is good to restate it to remind us of were we came from and where we are now. So please bear with me as I finish with the section.

So now man has a few cities and the populations grow as the ease to have the necessities of life begins to make living in larger groups more desirable. Cities in the Mid-East grow as do cities in Asia and Europe. One wonders at this point if trade for mutual benefit was the next step in human development of was the advent of war? Or was it something different all together?

Was it the idea that you have what I want so I am going to take it from you? Or was it the idea that your stories are different than ours so we must kill you and your ideas? Or was it simply a matter of a misunderstanding of whose animals got to the watering hole first that started the first war? Regardless the first war did begin and sadly we have not found a solution to that yet. But a more effective way to conduct those wars has never been a problem for mankind.

Man develops a more advance way of making items. These are made from bronze and have a much higher degree of strength then the stone tools of the past. Plus bronze was much lighter and could be used for many purposes. A leader of a city could adorn his soldiers in it to make them harder to kill and injure in a battle. Plus the spears with bronzed tips surely gave the army an advantage of a stone equipped enemy. So the armies advance and the victor has his will pushed upon the defeated. So their stories of history and the world are the ones that are passed down. So science and technology builds its tenuous relationship with warfare.

So, not only are the stories of the victory passed down the stories of power and glory grow as victories grow. Sometimes parts of the lore of the vanquish would be integrated or accepted into the prevailing mores some of these would benefit the society some would benefit the ruling class. One such idea is men are given the power to have women subjected to them. Maybe a conquering army might give the woman of that nation to the men as a “prize” and then the children born would be raised in that society increasing the city and country and society even more.

Once religion was created by man the power to motivate and control the population could be done with little intimidation as long as there were enough regular examples used to serve to keep the people suitably terrorized. Killing all the people in a conquered city or making an fatal example of a sexual deviant in the view of their gods. 

xxxiv http://www.youtube.com/user/ozmoroid#p/u/12/rOV9lI_yNyk

xxxv http://www.macleans.ca/science/technology/article.jsp?content=20050404_103140_103140 

Coming Next time: 

RELIGION SHINES ITS LIGHT part twenty-six

Chapter Six; RELIGION AND POLITICS IN AMERICA part eighteen

Recently, Nevada United States Senator John Ensign had a 'consensual affair' with a campaign staffer who was “married to an official Senate staffer,” the statement from his office said.i Ensign who, like me, was a member, of the Christian men's movement Promise Keepers, said that, "I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions." Somehow when the term consensual affair, I don't really think the woman's husband was consenting to the affair.


Ensign was one of the vocal republican Senators calling for Senator Larry Craig of Idaho to resign after Senator Craig was arrested in a Minneapolis airport men's room sex sting in 2007, which Craig plead guilty to. Ensign also figured prominently in the book The Family, by Jeff Sharlet. ii


Craig was also a vocal Republican . In 1998, he called for the resignation of President Bill Clinton after news of his liaison with Monica Lewinsky was revealed. Ensign has not resigned his senate seat but resigned his leadership position in the Republican party. Ensign's wife, Darlene, is standing with him and has said, "I love my husband," in statements, “and that the affair has made their relationship 'stronger.'”


While the affair is bad enough, one would conclude that it reflects a serious ethics violation in as much as the woman, he had the affair with, was the wife of one of his campaign staff. Yet even with this the biggest issue is the hypocrisy of this man.


The same scandal with a Democrat would still admit the issue, but the career of a Democrat is much less likely to be destroyed. Bill Clinton survived his scandal and ended his term in office with high approval ratings. Other Democrats have similarly been able to overcome the sex scandals and either keep their office, and at times even been reelected. The point, of this example, is to show the hypocrisy of this party that reflects the values of the American religious right. Time and time again they fall prey to their own natural human desire. These people lead the charge for traditional American values yet time and time again are the worse of violating the values that they say they support. Not to mention that traditional American values doesn't really mean anything to begin with. It is a slogan to help polarize and separate one group of Americans from other Americans. So the honest way to look at traditional American values is that these value followers seek to attack and criticize people they see as different from their key talking point.


Getting back to Sen. John Ensign, I do not fault Ensign for being human. I do fault him for not realizing that humans cannot be held to a unrealistic standard of behavior imposed by religious dogma and promoted by political parties. His calls for the resignation of both Bill Clinton and Larry Craig should serve as his own standard of conduct. Anything less shows the continued double standard that the Republican party and its religious right holds for violation of certain ethics.


Non-believers have an advantage over religious adherents in that they can be trusted. Most non-believers are non-violent. They do not wish to fight or kill others. Non-believers also have a desire or quest for facts, or as I call it, truth. Therefore, their motives are usually clearer.


So, I ask, Why would a non-believer be a candidate for someone to be more trusted? Surely this runs counter intuitive to conventional wisdom. Or does it? As I have mentioned through the earlier definition, non-believers do not have a dogma, in which they subscribe to, so they only have the natural world to base their motives and actions on. You will not see an atheist trying to limit the rights of a group based on two or three lines in an ancient book. To be honest,an atheist my actually disagree with a person’s particular view but still be supportive of their right to have the view.


An atheist cannot justify killing , more than 3,000 people in a single day attack, to follow the belief of a religion. They surely wouldn't dream of a gift of several virgins after the attack. And if they survived the attack, they would expect nothing less than to be put persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


You will not see an atheist sequester scores of followers that feel they are obeying the words of a supernatural being. You will not find an atheist using dogma as an excuse , to have young girls married off to older men just because the men say they have reached “womanhood”. Religion cannot motivate an atheist to blow up trains or buses or strap bombs to their chest, walk into crowed shopping areas and kill innocent people. Any religion that asks its adherents to subject their will to the dogma of religion is not worth following. There is a common good for all people. Society works best when we follow these ideas. These need not be dogma, only rules of social behavior.


That doesn't excuse bad behavior or non-believers from violent acts. People's motives that are not directly dogma-based can cause violence and oppression. Clearly, as I viewed the smoke coming up April 19, 1995, at the Murrah bombing that killed 168 Americans, I could not have believed it was directly, religiously motivated. Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were, however, ideologically motivated by a segment of belief, which is dogmatic. Just seven years before that April day, I took my oath of enlistment into the United States Army by a former Air Force officer roommate, after going through the MEPS processing in the Murrah building. I have seen first hand the vile poison that comes from the radicals from the right of political thought. Not to say that left political radicalism is any good either but the idea is that the right seems much more indoctrinated into the idea that violence is a action that is a viable option. Taking up arms against the “enemies” of freedom can even result in patriotic pride and the previously mentioned polarization and separation from mainstream society.


When a group removes oneself away from opinions that can calm, challenge provoke, educate, and moderate their points of view, they will soon find that the path that their thoughts lead them too is one of self destruction and possibly harm to others.


The same can be said about the April 20, 2000 , Columbine School shootings in Lakewood, CO. I was not in Colorado, when that happened. The same deeply held belief and distortion of reality motivated the shooters in that tragedy. The point is that the belief in a supernatural dogma adds to the likelihood that otherwise “good” people will do bad things. If one is not willing to question what they believe, then they can be manipulated into doing things they cannot believe they would otherwise do.


Every atheist I have talked to feels strongly that we, as humans, must do what we can to better ourselves and help our fellow man. If there was anything like dogma for an atheist, this would be the one and only thing I think that would qualify. Oddly enough, most of the religions that support the right to life would be surprised to find that abortion is really a non-issue to most atheists. By that, I mean that it is a split topic among atheists. The main idea is that if abortion is legal, it should be safe and accessible. People, like admitted murderer, Scott Roeder, arrested and convicted for shooting Dr. George Tiller, act as if the law was insufficient to deal with his preferred issues and he took the law into his own hands. This is another example of how removal from socializing and moderation of different points of view can lead to radical and deadly actions.


One point of view on abortion is, is that is that since humans have one time to go around in this life. A woman should not have an abortion since that is a life that can add to the advancement of humanity. Another point of view, is that as humans (women) have the means and the right to decide what happens to their bodies. I find both points valid. The main difference is that as non-adherents, we do not have to satisfy a religious dogma to deal with the situations of issues. We can do what serves the best result in the situation. Of course this can be viewed as self serving. But, it can also let a person act best for the situation, instead of relying on a dogma. If a woman is raped, should she be punished? This is the dogmatic view of some religions and right leaning politicians. Are you “sinning” if you speed? Some think this is a sin against God and that an incentive to not get a speeding ticket is not enough. Is having an intimate relationship with someone of the same opposite sex any persons business, but the two adults involved? Many religions have strong views, although I would contend they are based upon prejudice and false information. There are millions of people having sex everyday all day long and not only do I not know about, other than by understanding about statistics, I really could careless as long as it doesn't endanger my health or safety.


If one can understand this , then you can get insight as to what being a non-believer is all about. Dan Barker, of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, said,in his biography that near the end of his time as a Christian pastor he was going through the motions. Ostensibly, since announcing he was an atheist would basically end his occupation. After giving even, what he felt, was a half hearted message, people would still come up to him and tell him that the Holy Spirit moved them through his message. When I heard this, I understood what he was talking about. I found the same hypocrisy in religion as well. Barker said that he now could understand how religion worked. It was not only him, as the preacher, that helped set up the false world of religion but also the followers, who were party to supporting the messages they heard. It is a truly self-fulfilling prophecy.iii It was a seed planted many years ago, when my friend Dave, as mentioned earlier, told me that you could use the Bible for any purpose you wished. In our society we certainly do that.


We have a series of marketed religions in the United States, since the state doesn't sponsor, support of endorse a religion. [Or so we try to keep it from doing.] Basically, for any perspective one has, there is a church already in place in America to serve that view. If not, one can easily be made to fit that image. An example of this ranges from churches that allow multiple wives, such as the Yearning for Zion cult in Texas, to Unitarian Universalist congregations found in many cities throughout the county.iv The UUs, as they call themselves, say you can believe any dogma or none at all. It is as close to an atheist church with a remnant of dogma as I have heard of. Of course, a totally non-religious church would be The Ethical Society.v They call their Sunday morning gatherings platforms instead of a service or sermon.


To go on , I have met very liberal, non-believers and very conservative non-believers. One of the more famous atheists is Christopher Hitchens. He has many views that I disagree with. It is interesting to listen to him on a talk show and be in total agreement with what he is saying about how religion ruins everything. Next, he is defending President George W. Bush. But, that is the point I want to make. It isn't a dogma that an atheist has, it is the lack of dogma that makes us the people that we are. I also have the feeling that I could convince Hitchens to the validity of the points we disagree on. While he has reason that can be disputed, he would likewise listen to logical arguments. If he felt I made a valid point he would accept it. Like me, he has no dogma to defend. It doesn't change his strength of character, to admit he is wrong or to adopt another point of view. I do not lose my faith if something I currently believe in is show to be false. I just adapt a more accurate point of view. But faith is so manically that if a tentacles of faith is shown to be wrong that the person can see this is a valid reason to doubt their entire system of viewing the Universe. It can truly be quite disturbing and even dangerous for someone to face the fact that a thing they believe may not be as true as their faith as assigned meaning to it. This all by itself is a strong enough reason to take a stand against religion.


This helps explain the motivation of non-believers. Non-believers do not have to “spread the word” to every human on the planet , for a heavenly fireworks display to take place and we can do the inverse bungee jump to heaven. We do not have to make a long distance journey to walk around a rock in a black box. We do not need to have a messianic cartographer make our map for us. Then kill those that he says are on our “promised land.” We can be happy on any suitable piece of land as long as it provides what we need. It is more likely that a non-believer will act in his or her own self interest or the interest of something tangible, than the delusional dogma of a religious adherent.


The religious adherents often have to remind themselves of what it is they believe and why. It is not at all uncommon to find a Christian bookstore in a small town with many books on a variety of subjects and other items of interest to the believer. They will buy books, t-shirts, music, paintings, stickers, rings, and other items to help them remain blinded as much as possible to the possible “evil” influence of the “world.” But, it is hard for me, or other like minded people, to walk into a store and find books on the subjects of disbelief and fighting the influence of religious dogma. To be quite honest, most major authors on these subjects range from preeminent scientists, to former pastors, to journalists, to doctors and other career fields. Due to the approach of being a secularist, the diversity of topics can range from dealing with medical aspects of homeopathy and psychic surgery, to aspects of the nature of life and The Universe , to political ramifications of a religious groups’ actions. This can cause the books written by such people to be in many different sections of a mainstream bookstore. Quite different from a Christian bookstore indeed.


Walk into a Christian book store , the theological thinking has been done for you. Rarely will you find any book that will challenge the faith that brought you into the business, initially. The thing is a Christian bookstore is very deceptive. They are not really Christian at all but they are actually denominational book stores. This means it is easy to be immersed in the familiar and friendly ideas that do not threaten your way of thinking. But try looking for topics that do not fit their dogmatic point of view and you will be looked at as if you just stepped off the mother-ship. But if you go to a secualr bookstore you will have the ability to find books that might actually challenge your knowledge and help you to become a more intelligent person. I am glad I have to look for books and items that I wish to read. It certainly can be eye-opening. But of course many adherents seeking out a book on a topic are not so much interested in seeking an opposing view as they are to shoring up the view that they think shores up the view they think the Bible hold already. After all there is no reason to challenge a faith that is well grown and well entrenched.

xxivhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061602746.html

xxvhttp://jeffsharlet.com/

xxvihttp://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/

xxiixhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061602746.html

xxixhttp://theethicalsociety.com/

Coming next time: Chapter Six; 

HERE IS YOUR SIGN part nineteen

Chapter Five; HOW DOES THIS GOD THING WORK? part fourteen

It is typical for many Christians to use common key verses from the Bible to support their view of the world. Many verses are heard regularly in their church. Some key verses are repeated to enhance the adherence of those that follow the denomination. Depending on the focus of the church, different verses are emphasized. My experience has shown that many adherents do not read their Bible or study their religion, more than the hour per week they are in the church building. They do not realize, step by step, their defense is shored up by their lack of knowledge in the faith they adhere to and their failure to investigate their own religion and dogma. In a way, this is useful. If an adherent is presented factual information about the Bible or other religious books, (s)he may be more likely to come out of that faith and into the rational world. [I wouldn't hold my breath on that , though.] When I was a child and looked at older people, I thought they must be smart. The older people around me seemed smart. The truth is most older people just get older and rarely gain in intelligence. Quite the opposite happens to be honest. Seniors begin to view knowledge with contempt and suspicion. This is how most older people in the church behave. They view the youth with contempt, unless they adhere to preconceived views. This is one of the main motivations for getting the Hell scared out of children and having them convert at a young age. If you can get the kids to believe the impossible then they will have a better chance to believe the total package of dogma that goes along with it.
Most followers would not even know what book in the Bible verses were from or the context they are written in. I contend that facing a believer on their home turf is not for every skeptic. Not that I am advocating that , but, we do live in a nation and world full of adherents. In my experience, all non-believers I have met or heard study the Bible and know the Bible better than most devout adherents. Not only is it a difficult task to take on, it is much harder than one would think. It would seem, the adherents would be hell bent to tell non-believers all about the advantages of their belief. Many of the beliefs that I have accepted, would not let a person stand down from one that was asking about the lessons of the others faith. It was a requirement of my religion.
It is easy enough to use god for any answer that you don't have an solution for. But, as a god is made, the answer to questions become increasingly more complex. You can rely upon scared text, but the support the text has in itself need to have evidence to prove it’s sacred text or it is only self affirming. If it is self affirming, then it relies upon a closed system of faith.
I have been face to face with pastors that told me I am free to visit their church , but not to disrupt their class, because I wouldn't accept their text. They either didn't know their own religion well enough or didn't trust that their adherents, [income source], could not defend what they believe.

The sign of the cross of The First Baptist Church of Moore was destroyed from a category five tornado that hit Moore, OK, on May 3, 2000. Many homes, businesses, and lives were destroyed from the massive winds that swept through the southern and eastern part of The Oklahoma City metro area. Prayers were offered by survivors in the resulting news coverage that resulted. Many people thanked God for saving their life even though the homes were destroyed. Not a single believer in God, on the news coverage, said that God should have stopped the tornado or put it in an area that wouldn't have caused so much destruction. This metal sign became a symbol of that particular disaster.

In the ancient times and even up into the Enlightenment, people often used God as the answer for what they didn't understand about the natural world. The “hand of God” was often assigned to such phenomena as storms, earthquakes, plagues, sickness, volcanic eruptions and other natural occurrences. As man discovered more about the world we live in and the Universe around us, he learned that a giant turtle doesn't hold the Earth. He learned that the Sun doesn't rotate around the Earth. He learned that a great god out at sea does not cause the tides to surge forth on the shores.
We have learned that the stars are not placed upon crystal spheres in the sky. On and on, at the time “God” was given as an explanation, rather than cause and effect. The universe grew, God shrank, and God became more ambiguous.
As man found answers to some of these questions, the power of God as the answer, lost merit, even stories based in “sacred” writings. As man discovers more about the natural world, believers are forced to make God even more abstract and unknowable than their predecessors. Some adherents to the young Earth concept, say, the naturally occurring phenomenon, like fossils, erosion, corrosion spectrometry, glacial movements, plate tectonics and other natural time indicators, are placed in a state that indicates a “false” long history. Furthermore, the methods used to determine the ages are either misinterpreted or bias toward old ages.
Some intelligent design answers , to fossil placement, are that God put them in place. Another is that the processes used to determine the ages is inconclusive or wrong. I have heard both. It is interesting that they will use one or the other, depending on what the particular ID supporter is talking about. It is amazing that experimentation and the scientific method must hold up to scrutiny and testing, by other scientist in the field, to be accepted. However, with ID there is no such method to verify concepts. Almost no original research is done in the ID community. It is speculated that they read the work of researchers, searching for holes or ways to support their point of view of a short age Earth.
On March 26, 2009 , I went to a Evolution vs. Creationism debate in Yukon, Oklahoma with Dr. Charles Jackson, Creation Truth and Abbie Smith, Researcher at Oklahoma University, HIV research.
Miss Smith asked Dr. Jackson if he had first hand or original research. After several stammering and stops, he admitted that he didn't. Miss Smith confirmed, she does first hand research , with her results checked by other scientists, for validity. This shows direct contrast of actual science versus the ID supporters.
I admit , that people who study ID know the scientific terminology and jargon. This certainly helps to sound more reasonable to a layman adherent. I have reviewed Michael Behe's books and find them quite impressive. He is very detailed in his presentation of inconceivable ideas. However, when addressing the scientific community, the weakness in their arguments is evident. To be honest, it is not much different than a pastor using the Bible to develop a sermon. All a pastor needs to do to improve his sermon, is to add a few key verses, i.e. “ No weapon formed against us will proper” or “If God is for us who can be against us”. He need not bother to follow any theology or internal logic. He can yell or speak loudly, and for good measure, provide an alter call.
Even with a god that is all powerful , all knowing and all loving, there must be mechanisms in place for the actions of that god to manifest themselves in reality. Doing something in an immaterial world has no effect in the natural world without a means to use natural reason to bring it into being. After all, the immaterial world doesn't exist. I would say that our imagination is more real than the things of the supernatural world. At least the things I imagine can to some degree become real. There are ways to to do that. However, to do this feat from the immaterial world, I need an amazing device; I call it The Supernatural to Natural Matter Transfer Device. [All the cool gods are getting them. Check your local supernatural electronics store.] What most adherents want to say is, my imaginary friend can do anything he or she wants, and it will become real in our world. If this isn't an example of a person suffering from a delusion, I don't know what is. It is like a small child. “ I want it. I want it. I want it.” It is a temper tantrum of supernatural proportions.
Maybe a device similar to a Supernatural to Natural Matter Transference Device [patent pending] is what these gods use to make their miracles. Instead of walking on water, as we would see in the real world, this god is walking on a bridge, that we cannot see. It was built with the SNMTD [now available at Radio Shack] and then disassembled the same way. Making up stories about reality is fun. You don't have to bother with reality at all, just like with religion. As it is supernatural, who needs to see it. There is no need to prove form or function or adhere to the Laws of Nature. Cause and effect is so silly a notion that one need not even address it. If something doesn't make sense, make up something else to be more confusing and inexplicable.
Still, for a person of faith, there must come a point when the view of the world comes in contrast with the alleged nature of a god. I would say that when addressing the physical existence of a divine, most believers have to admit they’ve not seen such a thing. At best, they will say they have felt “His” presence or provide some other ethereal explanation that seems totally understandable. But, if someone were to say the same of other gods, they would assume that person had been standing too close to the paint mixer. Not only would they admit it, but they would go so far as to say they don't need proof; they have faith. “And faith is all I need to know God is real.” Many very devout adherents have said this.

I have to admit, a statement like that is good enough for an almost non-fiction God.

Chapter Three; LOOKING DEEPER part eight & STILL SMALL VOICE part nine

While I was in the Army, stationed in The Republic of Panama, I started getting involved with hermeneutics. I was stationed there for 15 months and had a lot of free time to fill. I studied using The Amplified Bible that was given to me as a gift from a good friend of mine, in addition to other study books. Here is a quote from the web site of The Amplified Bible about why it was made; “It attempts to take both word meaning and context into account in order to accurately translate the original text from one language into another.”i
There were questions raised in my study of the Bible that I found out other people had written about. No one can walk into a Christian bookstore or any book store and find Bibles full of pictures of ancients places in the Mid East with the captions indicating the facts of scripture instead of the reality of archeology. I do, indeed, concede that there are many biblical archaeological sites. But none of these on there own merit indicate anything supernatural. There are numerous other books that will help put all the pieces in place for the devout believer, wishing to find the truth. I wish I could set down in this book the path to lead someone to reason and peace in their own life, apart from religion. But, just as each path to “God” is unique, the path leading out is also unique for each man and woman. I hope that this will at least show the path is out there and is worth finding. Sometimes it requires you to get deeper into your faith before you can come out. A short browse over the Christian literature will give you many options. One of the more popular of these questions are Lee Strobel's versions from his book, A Case For Christ:ii

Is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God?
How reliable is the New Testament?
Does evidence for Jesus exist outside the Bible?
Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual event?

I am not going to deal with answering his questions one by one here, in depth. I will leave that for a later time. Besides, it would be something good for a person that wishes to research on there own to do. This way you can see the questions and find the answers yourself, without my or Strobel's influence. I will just briefly give my point of view to his questions and leave the in depth response to a later time.
I will though give my replies to these questions. These questions lead me to find facts about the story of Jesus that I had not learned in my Bible studies nor heard in church or Sunday school. The most important thing I think an atheist can tell an adherent to do about their religion is to STUDY it. Study the secular and church history origins. Study the dissidents of the religion and why they disagreed. Study the relationship to the church to other faiths that were around before their religion was established. Study the history and culture of the source of the religion. Above all, be willing to accept what their research reveals to them. Reading Strobel's book was really the first time I had addressed these issue and it came in valuable to me when I was later in Saudi Arabia and talking to the imams that were trying to convert us to Islam.
If most Christians were to honestly study their religion in depth, and all the other adherents to religions were to study their faith as well, then I would conclude that most would have to say they do not believe the supernatural aspect of them anymore. This may be why so many colleges begin as bible colleges or seminaries, but end up being a more expansive liberal arts and science school. It is also why many followers of a faith loose their fervor as they find more about the facts. Some people may find this “loss” to be an incredible price to pay for finding the truth. But would could make one more peaceful or content than to know how things really work and to behave accordingly.
Reading Strobel's book started an actual religious education. I had read about it and wanted to read the book prior to a visit that I was going to have with my Dad in a few months. I wanted to be able to talk to him about the reality of Jesus and help him to see that what I believed was based upon facts not emotional faith. One that made sense to me within the culture and context of the places the words originated in. This information is not hidden from the general public. It is just a matter of searching for it and reading the sources.
To answer each of Strobel's Questions for myself:
Question One: Is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God? No, none that is reliable, that I can think of. Several additional pagan Christs include Krishna, Osiris, Alexander The Great, Mithra, Adonis, Attis of Phrygia, Quetzalcoatl are among a few of the ancient names that have many similar life stories as Jesus, including things like a virgin birth; temptation in the desert; killed on a cross or tree; had twelve disciples; rose again from the dead, and several of the familiar ideas that are incorporated into the Jesus story. All of these predate the Jesus stories by many decades if not centuries.
Question Two: How reliable is the New Testament? This is a question dealing with the organization and the authorship of each of the sections of the New Testament. Each of the sections that are and are not part of the cannon of the New Testament. Some rely on stories of general ethics and morality. As the different movements of the Jesus Christ story began to grow, they all moved to get their particular version established as the legitimate stories. But gone are the books and stories that supported the view of the gnostics and other early churches. The fight to have one book or story included in the cannon was going on until the rudimentary edition that is mostly known today as the New Testament. Again many of these stories predate the time in which they are suppose to represent in their “corrected” text. Some researchers have actually said that it was Paul started the Christian faith and gathered other stories and people that would support his idea of a risen savior.
One would think that the most important text to be written in the history of the human race would be much more reliably written than what has happened with the New Testament. The oldest versions are scraps and the collection of the books that make up the New Testament didn't come together until AD325. So no one really even noticed Jesus outside his family and friends until he was about to be killed or the actions of his followers. No one outside his followers ever saw anything supernatural happen. Yet the stories of Jesus are very lacking in there cohesiveness and completeness. Given the time that the followers had prior to Jesus being killed, you would think that a few older manuscripts would have been made. I do bear in mind that the volume of copies of the text is not validity of the subject matter in it.
Question Three: Does evidence for Jesus exist outside the Bible? There are certainly a lot of books written about Jesus of Nazareth. To this, I cannot deny. But the question is not, “Do books written about Jesus support his existence?”, now is it? However that is how it tries to support itself that the volume of books are an indication of fact. There are two common extra biblical sources for Jesus existence. Theses two are the works of Josephus and Pliny the Younger. These two accounts address the stories of followers of one called Christ and deal very little on the evidence of this person. The reference in Josephus is viewed by historians and scholars as an injected text to the works of Josephus and the second reference is just a passing reference to James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The conclusion I reached, based upon additional evidence as well, was that there was more proof for the existence of Santa Claus than there was for Jesus. So at best I see a man that may have lived and been a good and moral teacher but by no means exhibited the powers that were later on ascribed to him later by his followers.
Question Four: Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual event? It is a fact that crucifixions were very much an actual event. And they were used as capital punishment for crimes against the Roman Government and other governments since then. So it is quite possible that a 1st Century itinerant rabbi may have been picked to be crucified for his teachings if found to be subversive to the Roman Authority or to the Jewish religion, via the Roman Authorities. But what the question asks is if the resurrection real? Well, there really is no evidence for that outside the Bible. No human in recorded history has ever been dead two or three days then came back to life for an additional score of days just to vanish in a cloud. Or vanish in any other method as well.
The Arabs and Jews have contended from the very beginning of when the story was being told that Jesus wasn't crucified but he either got someone else to take his place or that he escaped at some time. But addressing Strolbel's question, No, there really is no good reason to believe that the resurrection was an actual event in human history.
I have read Strobel's book and found it to be very juvenile in dealing with what he would consider facts. Many of the confirmations that he uses are filled with logical fallacies and circular reasoning. He fails to take in consideration any actual opposition to the views he wishes to question. The questions themselves are good ones to begin with. But the questions only get you to the starting line. You must use your mind to find answers that you may not agree with. , there is really no reason to ask the questions to begin with.

[xiii] http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=45
[xiv] http://www.leestrobel.com/store.php

STILL SMALL VOICE part nine

To many people, if somewhere in the back of your mind you think that a god is real , then when a time of need or stress such as death or illness or job loss happen or the wholesale presentation of a religious dogma is presented, you are more likely to believe and follow that belief. The initial belief doesn't have to be a structured belief or a strongly held belief, just a vague concept of a God. However, if you think that we are just here for a short time [1 lifetime], one is more likely to try to improve the condition of humanity for ourselves and our posterity. Mutual goals and cooperation serve the needs of humanity and promote a higher quality of life. I see this behavior as the ongoing evolution of man. I can only imagine what we could have achieved if we worked for the common good instead of the suppression of ideas and the subjugation of other people.
I am sure there are many other stories like mine. Who knows , maybe the only place Bible stories will be told in the future are in kindergarten classes, where the little kids can be thrilled by the imagery, but the adults will not subject them to living to its horrible morals, traditions and dogma. On that day The Bible will find itself as a great work of mythology along many others, such as The Iliad and The Odyssey we have Today, that once were used in religion. To be honest, I see nothing wrong with old religions. They make for good movies and entertainment.

[Next posting: GOD IN CHAOS: Chapter Three; EVOLUTION AND RELIGION part ten]

Chapter One; LIVING IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD part two

Somewhere between my curious nature and my desire to interact with my environment, I looked critically at the world. So as a child, when my family went to church, I really had no idea what it was about. I liked the children sermons given at Our Savior's Lutheran Church. It was fun to go in front of the sanctuary and sit with the other kids beside the pastor, since he seemed to be the reason everyone was there.


When I was a child my family attended this church in Durant, OK. It is Our Saviour's Lutheran Church. It was my first time to be exposed to anything religious. The sanctuary looks nearly the same as it did when I was a child. I remember that the cross was quite impressive and I would stare at it endlessly, enjoying all the colors and shapes of the tile artwork.

Some things I recall about church at an early age involves a lot of people that I didn't know. We shared Sunday School classes with kids that were not in my regular school. When singing songs, the words in the hymnals were not sung in the same order as a book is read. You got dress up in nice clothes when you went to church. The buildings were nice and had a lot of cool stuff to look at. Plus, we usually went out to eat on Sunday after church. These were a few of the reasons that I liked going to church.




This was the first church I ever attended of my own choice, Bethel Baptist Church in Ardmore, OK. It was just a few blocks from my house so I walked there most every Sunday morning. When I was staying with my Grandmother the Sunday School teacher, Don Ray Thomason, would come out in the country to pick me up. It was a very nice and friendly place.

A few years later my family moved to Ardmore, OK and the family pretty much stopped going to church. Strangely enough, I was the only one in my family, for a long time, that went to church. It started when I was ten years old with a Vacation Bible Study. I told my Mother about the church; we visited the church; she checked the place out and decided that the people were OK. At the VBS, I remember one of my favorite things was working on the arts and crafts, wanting to make them as good as I could. But I thought the stories were nice, too. This began my personal journey with God and Christians.
At church, during the sermon, I would listen closely to the words the preacher would say and read along with the Bible. When a verse was given, I would start ahead and read after it. I knew that would give me better understanding of the context of what was being said. I knew from growing up reading The Hardy Boys book series and other books. One has to read the whole story to know what is going on in context. I enjoyed the challenge of learning about what was being preached and taught in the church. So, I was in church almost every Sunday. I went to Sunday School, the service, and when I could, the Sunday and Wednesday evening services, too. If we had evening visitation at the nursing homes I would attend.
To me, this was one of the first things that I did for myself, outside my family. Besides going to school, living in the small town didn't provide a lot of options for activities. So for me, church became my hobby. I actually went there so often that I would show up on Saturday to help mow the lawn. I quickly learned many of the stories and words of the Bible. It wasn't long before I could say the books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation forward and backward.
This was also the time when I learned to read aloud. It was a skill I was quite proud of. I had received the King James Version of the Bible, so I felt that reading those “odd” words as I was speaking was doing well. It was the only Bible I had honestly ever read. It was odd that it was not written as a paragraph, but in separate verses, one at a time. I actually liked reading the Bible. The stories seemed so odd to me, but it sure was good when a story came up in church that I had already read. As I was familiar with the story, the message was easier to understand. Plus ,it made it better when I reading the verses aloud in my Sunday school class, because I knew what the story was about.
It was, at times, excruciating to hear others my age and even older, struggle with words as they read. Especially the Hebrew names and cities. Of course, I just said them the way I was taught. I had to correct some of the pronunciations, as I learned how to say them when I got older.
Recently, I went back to visit Ardmore, OK and took the pictures of Bethel Baptist Church and reconnected with my first Sunday School teacher. Don Ray Thomason was a very important influence in my life as a young boy. As one that believes in God, he is a good example of someone who tries to live the values he professes. At the time I attended the church, I would often ride with Don Ray as he picked up people for church. He is still doing that Today, however, the church now has two vans so Don Ray doesn't have to use his personal vehicle.
To me it was important to visit them. [Don Ray's wife is Betty Jo, whom I also knew at the time.] They are a good example of living a good life and applying the principles of the life of Jesus, without a strong persecution aspect. I would say that to me, Don Ray and Betty Jo represent the prototypical positive image of what a southern Baptist couple should be. If it was only based upon how someone lived their life, they indeed provided a good example.
However, there is more to life than just a sterling example of behavior. There is the reality of the Universe and the way cause, effect and logical principles apply to life. At this point, many people are more than willing to accept a good life and live blissfully in the limited knowledge of what they have learned. But, that was not the path I chose.
One of my early joys was attending the adult Bible study on Wednesday nights at Bethel Baptist Church. I had my own study guide. In the days proceeding class, I would read and fill in the answers according to the text listed in the study guide. I recall the first one I had was on the book of Acts. Of course, this really is not much of a study of the Bible, as there are often more than one answer that can be derived from the text and your understanding of the text. Until you go to the class, you don't know which one is “right”. But the idea that I was a kid and doing the same study as the grown ups was pretty cool.


This is the interior of the Bethel Baptist Church In Ardmore, OK. With very little exception the sanctuary looks the same it did in 1976 to 1978.

I was like a newly hatched chick in a nest. I just wanted more and more of this stuff. I still didn't really understand why but my adherence to Christianity surely impressed many of the older people in the church. I often received compliments about my attendance and participation. This is also when I was told, strangely enough, “That God has something special for you in your life, Thomas.” This always seemed odd to me for several reasons. First, what could this special thing be. And second, how could this person have an idea like that? How could they possible know? But it was just another of the anomalies that I came across with religion. I smiled and said, “thank you”.