Josh Brecheen hits the big time.

Looks like newly elected Oklahoma State Senator is getting a real education in foot in mouth disease. Since his editorial has been posted in The Durant Daily Democrat on December 22, 2010 there has been national reaction in the forums blogs and other places as well. Sadly it looks like we [none creation people] are going to be the losers in this battle. If you have been keeping up with my blogs you know that I have mentioned the idea that those that are faced with facts tend to hold tighter to their faith. SO while in the court of public opinion we may have some momentum, in the end Sen. Brecheen is going to be in the Statehouse and we will be going about our lives.

I normally do not send people to other websites. But this one is so good you just have to take a look at it. Josh Brecheen is a perfect picture of what is the radical republican right in America. I would challenge any of you all to look at this and not laugh at his honest to goodness website. p.s. be sure to read about his wife. 

But with that in mind when looking up this ignorant, about evolution, man we find that his fame is growing faster than a 40 day rain. Here are a few of the websites he is mentioned on Atheist Nexus, Friendly Atheist, Science Blogs[Greg Laden], The Sensuous Curmudgeon, Newsodrone and many more.

PZ Myers even wrote a reply, point by point, on his Pharyngula website to the crazy talk that Brecheen was spewing. Needless to say I hope this will shine the light of knowledge in that part of the country. But I have been to and lived in that part of the country and I do not hold out much hope for the triumph of logic and reason.

Another update on Josh Brecheen.

It has been good to see the mostly positive reaction to the ill-conceived comments of Oklahoma State SEN Josh Brecheen. If this man is looking to make a name for himself, he certainly is. He put an editorial in the local paper from his senate district, The Durant Daily Democrat. In addition to the uproar over several things wrong with attempting to try to have creation taught in public schools, the comments in the newspapers website have been lambasting him for his outrageous views in other subjects as well.

Being a native son of Oklahoma, it pains me when I see this sort of pubic display of foolishness. But even more so when it is done by our government officials.

Here are a couple a links to learn more about this issue and this man. 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/when_did_oklahoma_start_electi.php

http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10775841/article-Reader-says-Breechen-badly-misunderstands-evolution-and-science-?

http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10776295/article-Brecheen-says-the-religion-of-evolution-is-plagued-with-falsehoods?

Response to Senator Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma

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. [You put intellectuals in quotes so we do not know exactly what or who he is referring to here. “it's” means, “it is.” This makes no sense grammatically.]

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. [This clearly is a stated opinion.]

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. [No. Evolution is a study of science. Evolution has no dogma. It has no group meetings, It has nothing such as a tax-exempt status. It is simply an area of study such as aerodynamics.]

The religion of evolution requires as much faith as the belief in a loving God, [This again is a stated opinion and is clearly an un-American statement as faith in a deity is not required in this country. Plus he makes an empirical statement comparing faith or two different items yet fails to show the relationship between these two items. This is a logical fallacy. ] when all the facts are considered (mainly the statistical impossibility of key factors).

Gasp! Someone reading this just fell out of their enlightened seat!!! [Again this is a logical fallacy, It is an ad Hominem attack.] “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. [This is another logical fallacy called a straw man.]

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. [This is a reasonable expectation as one wouldn't expect to learn about religion in a science class.]

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. [Two issues here, One, while your English professor may indeed a great English teacher, he is not a teaching biology and may be much more interested in the ability you have to make a persuasive argument. Two, I am sure you were not forced to write anything for any class. As more than likely you were a voluntary student and could end your time in school anytime you wished. Please, try to refrain from dramatics.]

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). [Again, in an English course, the standards are different than in a biology class. This example really has no relevance and is a personal experience as well. Your biography states that you are a motivational speaker so it comes as no surprise that you are able to excel in an formal English class. But The example you need is one from your biology professor.]

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”. [Another logical fallacy. This is a false dichotomy . Failure of the evolution model is not confirmation of the creation model.]

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. [Again, another logical fallacy. This is an appeal to authority.]

Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth. [Stated opinion.] 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. [Another logical fallacy. non-sequitur . You make a statement however the purpose of science is to continually search for weakness in there accepted views plus also challenge the conventional wisdom. There is nothing wrong with science concepts being challenged. Unlike with ideas that result from dogma.]

Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings is incomplete and unacceptable. [Stated opinion.]

For years liberals [false generalizations] 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. [These statements include several logical fallacies. One is the special pleading of “the rules changing” when they are not demonstrated to do so and the logical fallacy of ad hoc reasoning or Special pleading when you exert that a ideology is changed to suit the actions of the liberals. Plus you use the term liberals as if it is a disparagement which is also an opinion and it is a gross generalization that all of these people are liberal without proof to support your statement.]

We [Who are we? Those that understand and accept the conclusions of evolution surely cannot be included in the “we” you speak of.] must discuss the most recognizable icons of the evolution religion [Again, a stated opinion.].

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 [Not sure what “gue” means.] transitioning into a hunched over monkey which then turns into a business suit. [Not sure where you get your information but that is not only an logical fallacy it is also an irrational statement. Never has a money been shown to turn into a business suit. That would be a total non-sequitur.]

[“On The Origins of Species” which was the first published work of Charles Darwin on the subject dealing with evolution never deals with the subject of human or ape evolution. If you had read the work you would have realized that. Plus this work was publish in 1859 and as in any area of study much more work has been done on it. Do we still use the same means of transportation we did when the locomotive and automobile were invented? Are we still using the same type of phone that were shown to the public in 1876? Are we still using the same telegram and telephone and radio devices that Marconi and Tesla came up with at the turn of the last century? Senator Josh Brecheen, your explanation on this subject is far from knowledgeable.]

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.[It shouldn't be any surprise that factual data is believed.]

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. [Natural selection is the process that is used to achieve adaption over time in nature. The process of change over time is that the adaptation leads to more and more divergent speciesazation. This was predicted in Darwin's work and has been found to be true in many examples. You clearly understand the common and divergent process that can happen in a short time. It is the same divergent process that happens over 100.000 to millions of years.]

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. [Thanks to the genetic record, this has happened. This is why there is no doubt as to the relations between species any longer among scientists that understand these processes. Plus a general example is shown with animals such as seals, walruses, manatees, sea lions and other animals that live on both sea and land that are mammals. Since the process of natural selection takes place over many thousands of years the offspring of one seal will never produce an animal that isn't related to the parents but given the period of time the ancestors will not be the same species as their prodigy. Of course the process requires much more explanation than I can do here easily. To find out more please contact graduate researcher Abby Smith in the Endogenous Retro virus field in The University of Oklahoma. She is well known statewide and nationally for her work in genetics]

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. [You need to learn what a transitional species is. You do not seem to be using the terminology correct. A TS is any species that is between any other two. All plants animals and all life when they are a live are actual and transitional species. Homo sapiens are transitional species.]

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”. [Again you show you lack of understanding of the topic as there is clear understanding of the transitions and you also show you lack of understanding of the scientific use of “theory.' Theory means a set of data in a discipline that supports a most likely concept. This theory is also able to predict and be used as a model for understanding new information and can be used to predict how the process operates. This applies for cell theory, theory of gravity, theory of relativity and so on. Many of the theories in science that we rely upon everyday are accepted as fact just as evolution is.]

I will be introducing legislation this session to ensure our school children have all the facts. [Please make sure you have the facts first.]

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

Josh Brecheen

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

When History goes wrong.

Over the past few months the History channel has totally gone ape-shit crazy. [To use the technical term.] I am not sure of the reason or the source of the change but in the past couple of years about the time the name changed from “The History Channel” to History. Shows such as MonsterQuest, MysteryQuest, Ancient Aliens, Decoded, Ice Road Trucker, IRT: Deadliest Roads, Swamp People and many more of the psychobabble of programming that they have on the channel now that have nothing to do with history other than there are idiots that think these events are somehow real or entertaining.
Granted I did get tired of the constant World War II stuff that they used to have on here but now it is more like they really could careless about facts, reliable dates, the work of actual and respected historians and presenting competent programs that help to increase human knowledge instead of programming that uses phrases like; “Someday science is going to have to accept that these claims may be true” and “what if” and “It is possible” and “may well be and “could of.”
Respectable science has looked at these claims many many times and they all fail short of facts and proof. Is it possible? Well I guess in absents of actual information then yes it is possible. But is it likely? HELL NO! To be honest, I do not find the ancient stories of stone age person to have any relevance in Today's world.
The worse part is there is absolutely not attempt by the producers of these show to present balance or to show other opposing views. The whole flipping program ONLY presents a side that shows that these lame brain ignorant ideas “may be” true.
At least with the ones of religion I am not expecting them to present a equal view. But these lame ass shows and especially the Ancient Aliens one particular have no business being on a channel that is suppose to be primarily for educational purposes.

It just drives me nuts to hear these fools on TV without no one to counter their outlandish claims.

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.

Why atheist will lose the war against religion.

I have been what I call a devoted and or a committed atheist for about 10 years now. After getting free from the repression of the “Steve Abrams” family of Kansas. Yes, the Steve Abrams that was on the Kansas State Board of Education that thought evolution wasn't such a good thing to teach in science classes in public school. So I have seen a few things change in the past few years in my life and in the current cultural discussion. I may go into that later but this deals with were I see us now as the new atheist movement.

There is a discussion of those that are leading the charge that we are to be either accommodationists or confrontationalists. I saw a panel discussion on this very subject at the Skepticon III in Springfield, MO a few weeks ago. It doesn't seem to make any sense to me that there is no difference in thought between the two camps as to how they view the supernatural or that divine. The issue comes down to the way to deal with the religious adherents. This is the area that I want to talk about.

With the ones that think we really have no need to deal with the adherents in a way that would cause confrontation, let me remind you that the fundamentalist adherents are a large and vocal group that have no reservation whatsoever to push their dogma onto use wholesale even to the place of discrimination, persecution and arrest if they could do so. I am sure many of you, like me, have withdrawn from the evangelical or fundamentalist background. Those of you that have surely realize the fervor and the emotional appeal that the dynamic religious leader has upon the group of adherents in the congregation.

I recall with clarity the way I would yell and jump and “praise” god when I was in a worship service. I wanted us to out to the places of “sin” and bring the word go god to them and see the power of god in action. To see it fulfilled. I knew that when the word of god was spoken that it wouldn't return void. [what ever that means.] I was one to confront the atheist and the morally lax to their face. I was one to prayer around the abortion clinic and boycott those things that I was told were back, such as movies and so on. But I was not unique in this point of view there were many others that had the same vigor and held the same view. In a way that was a very comfortable thing because as long as I was acting in the light of the Lord. So I knew that I was doing what was god's will. No one could convince me otherwise.

But as I have been involved in the atheist or skeptical or freethinker realm, it seems that there is none that take up the fervor that the dogmatic adherents banner. It is more of the intellectual and mental aspect of the cause that is the driving force of this movement. I have seen Richard Dawkins speak twice live and have heard and read much that Christopher Hitchens has said and wrote and many of the other movers and shakers in the new atheist. But this doesn't meet the level of one of the evangelical churches that is in your city and your neighborhood.

What do these men get for their barely provocative views? They get criticized by the so called old atheists. The ones that have been going along to get along for so long that they do not even realize that they are part of the reason that the radical adherents have been able to make such inroads in our public and private lives. I am even skeptical o f the alliance between the gay and the atheist community. I have notice that homosexuals are much more accepted by straight atheist than atheist are by religious homosexuals. TO WIT: At least I believe in God.

My goal is to help create and mobilize discussion and action to show the public that we are here and we are a force to deal with in our country. Our numbers indicate the hidden strength we have. We have just now have to have the courage of our convictions to stand up for what we believe. After all, if it was easy, anyone could do it.

What do I mean? It can be different for each person. Anything from keeping a marker and wiping out “In God We Trust” on our currency to attending and debating adherents in their religious places that are “open to all” and “welcome all.” Keep in mind that we, as taxpaying, atheist pay for them to have a special position in the country so we have every right to attend and discuss the things they are doing with the privilege they have within our country. The more they try to control our government, the more we should try to destroy and demolish their beliefs. They only believe in a fiction anyway so why not make them face the facts. Make them stand and prove what they believe in. My only weapon to use against these radical adherents is my mind and my voice. I see no reason to let the radical right overtake the moderates and liberal believers. As Hitchens and others have said, I am an anti-theist.

But the accommodationialist want to look at the least offensive religious persons and use them as a reason as to why we must work with them. That is bullshit. In every way if they want to join us then fine but we should by no means accommodate the moderate or liberal versions of a delusion just because they seem to agree with us on some issues. The point of view when they agree is, “You should agree with us.”

But until we see the adherents as an attack upon our species and our progress as humans then we will continue to flounder and fail to make this world a batter place for all who occupy it.

Goodbye Sweden

This is related to Chapter Eight; part thirty, HUMANIST POINT OF VIEW from my blog.
Here is that link: http://trueleftvision.blogspot.com/2010/11/chapter-eight-humanist-point-of-view.html