It's the simple things that make me wonder....

.. how anyone in their right mind can believe such utter shit!

If priests can literally turn wine into blood, the international blood supply shortage is over.

But they can't because such a suggestion, my friends, is bullshit.

And also, since when are christians vampires???

The irony is endless.

Atheist WAR!!!

As soon as you read this, you'll understand where the previous "report" came from.

Over almost a year, I've been having a discussion with a really bright but REALLY resistant (to evidence) friend.

This friend claims that certain murderous assholes - Stalin and Mao,who my friend claims were atheists themselves - waged genocide in their countries in the name of atheism. My friend smartly did not include Hitler, who many suggest was an atheist but who was not only a very devout and outspoken catholic, he was buddy-buddy with the pope of the time - and that partnership is how the vatican came by a very large cache of art, artefacts and gold.

The idea that Mao and Stalin incited war and genocide in the name of atheism is utterly false. Despite my having asked for substantiation, none has been offered, nor have any links to substantiation been proffered. So, for the moment, until my friend can provide any support for the suggestion of genocide motivated by atheism, I claim bullshit.

This argument, that Mao and Stalin, among others, lead atheist wars, has been put forth by any number of others, but none of them has produced any evidence to support their claims either. If my friend can produce viable evidence, legions of people who hate us (us being people who have no beliefs and require evidence for claims) will be crowing from the roofs of their religious buildings, and the current Prada-loving, fur-sporting pope and his baby-raping ranks of dress-wearing liars, and the legions of uneducated fools who call themselves protestant ministers will be right up there with them.

I really, really like this friend, who has a very excellent mind, generally, but who, in this particular area, is highly resistant to even acknowledging the facts that exist and are obvious.  If I didn't care much about this friend, I'd let it go but I suspect a very human basis for this friend clinging to their very holey (not to be confused with holy) paradigm - being an authoritarian and abusive parent, now deceased.

The current conversation, you may be surprised to understand, sprung from my having posted a hilarious (in a really disturbing way) YouTube of Dr. Richard Dawkins reading his hate mail, surrounded by students, who obviously love him.

It is hilarious because Dr. Dawkins speaks with a very educated, Oxfordian accent. It is disturbing, as the letters he reads are from christians who wish Dr. Dawkins all manner of death and destruction: not very christian.... or maybe very christian, given how bloody often christians, those peaceful, loving people, scream and yell for the murder and death of anyone who disagrees with them or has the audacity to ask for the slightest evidence.

By the way, if I come off sounding angry, you'd be right; I am. The more people make idiotic suggestions they refuse to back up, and to which they add insults about my intelligence, the more I am angry.

It is 2012. Our international scientific community has shown humans endlessly fascinating, substantiated, undeniable FACTS about us, our planet and our universe: that humans in first-world countries persist in believing in ridiculous fantasies that have murder and genocide at their core - it is BEYOND ME and yeah, it totally pisses me off.

This is today's excerpt from the conversation:

Tell you what: prove me wrong. Dig me up something researched, supported and verified, that supports the idea any of those regimes you mentioned killed people in the name of atheism. The possibility the main players were atheists has no bearing on their murderous regimes unless there is evidence they said/wrote something to the effect of "We're killing all the religious people." If you have something like that, I would LOVE to see it.

If you want evidence of a genocidal, murderous maniac, you need only look as far as the god of the christian bible who takes credit for slaughtering some 2.5 million people, if biblical 'history' is to be believed, and who delighted in it AND expected his followers to do the same; but just the men, babies and 'married' women. The virgins they were directed by this loving god to keep as 'spoils.'

Or, in more recent history, you can look to Britain, where people were killed by the thousands in the name of religion, alternately catholicism or protestantism, depending on who occupied the throne, without any evidence at all for the existence of the thing they were killing real, live humans for.

Jewish people have been persecuted in the most brutal way for 2000+ years for having "killed" a person for who there is NO evidence of existence! If your family was tried and convicted on the most sketchy, easily disproved 'evidence' for generations! ... Think about that! An entire culture of people has been subjected to horrific treatment for more than 2000 years on NO EVIDENCE! It is outrageous, and I seriously question the morality of christians who make no effort to confirm the foundations of their beliefs - particularly the existence of their main character (who bears a very, very striking resemblance to about 25 other main characters) - yet accept this!

You and I both know there has never been and will never be a war or genocide in the name of "I have no beliefs in things for which there is no evidence." Scandinavian countries have VERY high rates of atheism and, correspondingly, high educational standards, excellent social and cultural standards, low rates of violence and crime - and are historically uninvolved in wars..... so, yeah.

Like I said, I read my ass off. Every day. I follow people and feeds and blog writers who make this stuff their life's research; I read books, I talk to folks, I listen to various talks (TED is a great resource). I get all sorts of "you're wrong," and "you're insulting" and "you're disrespectful;" people tell me I have a 'belief' system but they don't or can't define it; but I DON'T get researched, linked, substantiation or information: I get opinions, "I was brought up like this," and "respect my 'religion,'" NOT research. Atheism is a 'belief' system like "off" is a TV channel. I was brought up like this too but to not question one's 'faith' is frankly morally bankrupt.

INFORMATION, evidence and proof. Simple. Otherwise, I and the guy with the strainer have JUST as much evidence for our positions as does a person from any other paradigm.

Something like 20% of north Americans are atheists (those that are "out") which means that 20% of north Americans are evidence-based thinkers. If I were the pope or an imam or a minister, I would make it my life's work to find EVIDENCE because holy cow, what a coup it would be to win over all those souls.

Large family of people convicted of murder: no body recovered....

The Planet
March 2012

More than 15 million members of a family have been convicted of murder in a shocking trial lasting almost 2000 years, and 6 million family members sentenced to death for the murder have been killed in gas chambers and by lethal injection.

The charges were laid more than 350 years after the alleged murder by the First Council of Nicaea, led by several men, including the so called "St. Niclaus," who currently works as Santa Claus in north America, where the case is currently located.

Despite the prosecution having moved forward with the death penalty for so many of those charged, no body has ever been recovered and there there is no substantiated evidence the deceased person, a 33 year-old male, existed at all. There are no eye-witness reports of his existence and no testimony was provided by anyone who ever lived with, knew or saw - or even was alive - at the time the alleged deceased was said to have lived.

No member of the alleged deceased victim's family has ever appeared as a witness. In fact, no family members have ever been discovered by the defence or the prosecution. Description of the alleged victim - a blond, blue-eyed, pale-skinned male - are inconsistent with descriptions of alleged family-members, who are described as "middle-eastern" and "Jewish" people with dark skins and black or dark-brown, curly hair.

Several 'witnesses' for the plaintiffs have been shown to be frauds, and the testimony of others has been rejected because they were either not alive at the time of the alleged murder or, if they were alive, had no first hand knowledge of the events either due to being infants or to having heard about the alleged events third-hand many years after the alleged events.

Corroborating evidence was presented by four men but was rejected, as the evidence is highly contradictory and lacking corroboration and substantiation by any other witness. Two of these witnesses do not report the alleged victim's birth and the two that do provided no substantiation, documentation or proof of any sort.

Beyond that, none of the four witnesses was a contemporary of the alleged deceased, each having lived long after the time of the alleged murder, respectively 65, 150, 220 and 350 years after the alleged murder.No record of birth has been discovered for the alleged victim or for any alleged family members - mother or father or siblings, despite the alleged existence of material - an alleged death-shroud - that might provide DNA.

In fact, the current owners of the shroud have refused to produce the item or to have it tested. The item was never entered into evidence and the source of potential evidence has, itself, been proven a fraud. Suggestions that the alleged victim is was not human so was able to "rise into the heavens" following the murder, have been proven impossible by biologists.

Certain disputed documents suggesting the alleged victim's mother was human and the father "supernatural" have also been disproved by biologists as the alleged victim was male. A 'human'  with only a female human parent would necessarily be female, the realities of biology and genes having been taken into account.

The alleged site of the murder has never been discovered and no eye-witnesses to the murder have ever come forward, nor did any of those reported to be present at the alleged scene, report or corroborate having been at the event. Experts say the total lack of corroboration by any of the several hundred witnesses alleged to have been present at the murder is strong evidence that the murder never happened and indeed the so-called victim did not exist.

Despite a complete lack of any evidence for the person in question or for the murder, and despite the passage of nearly 2000 years, more than 15 million people stand convicted still, for a murder, according to experts from around the globe, did not and could not have happened.

The prosecution in this case represents an equally-large number of plaintiffs who have categorically refused to accept there is utterly no evidence on which to proceed but who have, for nearly two centuries, refused to accept the facts and to withdraw their case and who continue to call for the deaths of the remaining charged family members.

Frustratingly, although there have been many competent judges sitting the case, and many, many experts have been called to testify, the prosecution refuses to accept admitted evidence, verified and corroborated historical documents, or the corroborated and substantiated evidence of mass fraud and has, on many occasions, fired and carried out death sentences against sitting judges.

In order to yet prolong the proceedings, the prosecution has developed a system of producing witnesses from the relatively new field of "apologetics," which was developed in the last century. None of the members of this field suggest they were present at the time of the alleged events but they say, regardless, their role and goal is to rehash already-discounted 'evidence' until such time as the defence accepts it. The prosecution and its witnesses, the apologists, staunchly and loudly support life-long incarceration and after-life torture for all participants in the defence.

The case continues with no end in sight.

Every once in a while...

Image courtesy www.LifeHacker.com

I miss my dad. Maybe it is more accurate to say I miss the dad I wish I'd had - not that the man who was my dad wasn't a great man; he just had his weak points, like how stubborn he was... but then, the apple didn't fall very far in my case.

I remember once we had this weird little argument about writing by hand versus writing on the computer. I said I enjoyed writing things by hand: I find it more creative because it gives me a better, literally direct connection with what I'm thinking.

He disagreed with me and hauled out his always-annoying preamble, "You should," in this case followed by, "learn to type because it is way faster and allows you to write as fast as you think."He totally missed the point about the connection to the writing and the value of slowing down and joining brain to page by hand....

So today, almost nine years since my dad died, I came across this article on writing by hand. It's good. Click here to read it.

So frustrating to come across this and not be able to forward it on.

I respect all religions ... except yours and that one and that other one....

Like this one?...

Opener: This blog has LOTS of links in it. If, after you read the blog, you go back and read/watch everything linked here, you'll be half way to genius!

Over the last two days, I engaged, as I am wont to do, in a 'conversation' with a person who was, to quote them, raised in a religious home.

Such growing up is all well and good but, once one is an adult, one should perhaps put some adult consideration to the things one grows up believing. One should also make an effort to understand what one believes, because, if one does not, and they get into it with me, well, it doesn't go well.

The original discussion began with comments related to a recent decision in Quebec regarding an overview class on religions - plural - and ethics. I read the reports and it seems that the course meant to introduce students to the variety of religions practised by people who live in Quebec, not to indoctrinate the students with any particular religion.

Not surprisingly, the parents in one family brought suit, alleging that this course prevented them from devolving their particular brand of religion to their kids. I think it might have been the ethics part of the course, the part that would suggest one person's rights have no precedent over another person's, they disagreed with. Some christians feel theirs is the ONLY religion that has merit, history, archaeology and all that. Which of course is bullshit.

I will acknowledge here that I can be bloody blunt and how blunt I am is directly related to how ridiculous people's comments are. They correlate directly: the dumber the comments, the more blunt I am.

So here's how it all rolled out. The first bunch of comments are here for context. ALL initials have been changed to protect the innocent, and the guilty - the most guilty being represented by NIV; I am represented here by MOI, being an all-caps version of Moi, being the French form of ME.
"JW: It is called the education system ... there is nothing wrong with kids learning about other cultures and to become educated as I think that is the point of the education system. If the parents disagree then home school.

BF: I think they're crazy. Teaching about religion isn't the same as teaching religion. I'm glad this was overturned.

BF:The writer's got no case. If you don't like the way the public system works there are private systems for individual religious beliefs. I believe teaching children to follow one religion before 18 is child abuse and should not be allowed. If adults want to choose religion they can. Leave the poor kids alone.

GJ: I loved the acerbic remark made by an advocate of public schools when charter schools became a brief fad in _________ 15-20 years ago... "Charter schools are great preparation for life in a gated community." 

Public schools have a great cross-section of people of all attitudes, income levels, faiths, degree of social conscience and attractiveness. They're sort of  LIFE in that regard. Customizing curriculae to suit parents, on religious grounds or any other, is a non-starter... as you point out, HM (original poster), that's to be done at home.

NIV: I always find it interesting when people say "I want my kids to choose when they get older about religion (sic)" - how are they supposed to do that if they are not exposed to it in the first place?

MOI: It isn't a question of having the OPTION of educating our children, it is a responsibility.

Schools have NO place providing religions education to children for several reasons:
1. there is no basis to the claims that the product actually exists
2. There is no consensus, even family to family, on how and when the product should be consumed
3. There is no agreement at all on which parts should and should not be included
4. There is, proof, however, that education suffers greatly from the inclusion of stories about people made from dirt, boats packed with "the entire world's animals" and strident protestations that observable, testable, verifiable, falsifiable FACTS do not actually exist.

Last time I checked, the key goal of an educational institution is to teach their students HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

BF: While I generally agree, MOI, I think there's a difference between religious teachings and teaching people about religion (he's making this point because I contradicted myself, so he's right to make it). Making children aware that many people believe many different things, most of them completely outlandish, has it's place and purpose.

MOI: I absolutely agree. Understanding religions is important, because despite specific religions' deficits, it is important to understand how they work.

More to the point, understanding religions, how they work, how they were established and by who, serves a great purpose in terms of understanding where to draw the line when taking on or accepting things that are not grounded in fact.

MOI: To NIV's comments, learning about religions -plural - and being exposed to a religion are not at all the same thing.

Exposure can result in infection but a good education will usually prevent infective exposure in the first place.

NIV: @MOI, I'm not going to get into a religious debate with you, but my point was that if kids don't know anything about different religions (my emphasis), whether being exposed to it from their family beliefs or other means, or learning about it (some kids are being kept even from LEARNING about different religions), then how do they expect kids to make choices for themselves about it. I totally agree with Janette's comment - there is nothing wrong with learning about different cultures and religions.

NIV: I don't agree with exposure being an "infection" - we all have our own beliefs on things - to slam or put down what other people believe is just wrong - we need to respect everyone's beliefs, whether or not it is the same as yours. (Also my emphasis, as this is the key to the writer's demise)

MOI:  (please read this carefully... there is no name and nothing here, with the exception of the last question, that refers specifically to anyone)

I don't agree that beliefs should be respected simply for existing and that people have them. Case in point: In some countries in the world, people believe that women having any pleasure from sex is wrong - and add to that, they still think that women are responsible for men's sexuality in the sense of 'tempting' them. As a result of that belief structure, little girls have their inner labia and clitoris cut out, without aesthetic, usually in the middle of the street - because such circumcision is a community event.

Now, my friend: do you respect that belief?

MOI: I agree absolutely that people and children should learn ABOUT religions but being exposed to A religion is an entirely different thing, and that's what I mean by 'infection.'

Children rely on adults to tell them the truth, so when an adult takes a kid into a religious setting, the child trusts what they're hearing from the adult (which comes with a certain fervour on the part of the adult), is true.

Kids don't have very good critical abilities - which is to say, they don't have a developed capacity to analyse information; so when adults say, for instance, "This 600 year-old man called Noah loaded two of every animal on the earth into a boat," kids believe that is true because the adults say it, and the kids don't have the analytic capacity to comprehend that two of each of just the genus "spider" would weigh 5000 pounds, so the story can't be true.

It is, in my opinion, critical for kids to know about religions - all of them - in a way that sets none of them apart or implies any of them are true or have more merit than any other.

For the record, the Ethics and Religious culture sounds an excellent course. It strikes me that the parents who were opposed to their children understanding that their family's religion isn't the only one, have some serious issues.

Here are the details:
https://www7.mels.gouv.qc.ca/DC/ECR/index_en.php

(Now. I have not mentioned NIV at all. I haven't witten anything directly to NIV and I have, I believe, kept my comments general, meaning not directed at anyone. Here's where it goes weird really fast... )

NIV: Congratulations, MOI, you've succeeded in officially offending me. I take issue with lumping me in with those fanatics (and I did this when and how?) who have used their beliefs and morals taught to them and twisted them around to suit themselves and I really resent being lumped into that category (Um.... ). I had a religious upbringing, and I am NOT out doing things that I shouldn't be doing - I do know the difference from right and wrong (ok... ). You can keep your atheism to yourself (So, atheism, we might understand, is not one of the things this writer is willing to accept. Also, an important distinction: atheism is a 'belief system' in the same way that OFF is a TV station or 'bald' is a hair colour). I'm done here.

MOI: I didn't dump you into ANY category. You said, and I quote, "We need to respect everyone's beliefs whether or not the same as yours," and then I asked you, based on my example above, if you were going to stand behind that statement.

I did not, however, dump you into ANY category; you, however, just identified yourself as belonging to a category - religious. (sorry for repetition... poor self-editing but this is how is in the original so this is how it stays)

Nobody, and certainly not me, said anything at all about whether you personally know the difference between right or wrong.

But, based on your answer here, and the fact that you choose to be offended, I can tell you this: what didn't note in your "respecting everyone's beliefs" statement is "as long as they're the same as mine and as long as their definition of right and wrong is the same as mine."

I know this because of your last point: "You can keep your atheism to yourself." THIS, my friend is proof that you don't believe your own statement; you certainly do NOT respect my point of view.

NIV: Nor do you respect mine - AND NO, I ABSOLUTELY DIDN'T SAY as long as they are the same as mine - I said that you have your beliefs and I have mine (ah, no, you said I could keep my atheism to myself).  I said - I'm done here. No further comment unless you can be nice about it.

MOI: How do you get that I don't respect your beliefs?? Holy crap, NIV, I'm responding to YOUR comments! I also grew up in a christian home and come from 10 generations of Baptist MINISTERS.

I'll say this again - and this has NOTHING to do with ANY specific person: beliefs deserve no respect simply for the fact that they exist - and that is evidenced by the little fact of female circumcision I posted above: that practice deserves no respect, nor does whatever religion or part of religion it derives from.

NIV, I quoted you. I'm not slamming you or your beliefs. I'm just asking you if you will support what you say here.

NOBODY said you don't know right from wrong. YOU made that suggestion.

YOU said I was lumping you in with fanatics.

NOBODY said or suggested in any way you are "out doing things [you] shouldn't be doing. YOU introduced that idea into the conversation (and I will note here that I am fantastically interested in exactly what this person IS out doing that they shouldn't be, because that was the comment of a guilty mind, as was the "know right from wrong" comment).

You also said, and again I quote you, "You can keep your atheism to yourself," which is neither nice nor respectful. Telling someone, essentially, to shut up is NOT an indication of your respect for their position.

Now. I ask you again: do you, in fact, stand behind your statement that "we need to respect everyone's beliefs, whether or not the same as yours? (sic)"

If yes, do you respect the fundamentalist christian practice (this and the following underlines are my emphasis... you'll get it in a sec) of refusing medical care, particularly where it relates to children, even to the point people - and children - die from lack of medical attention? This practice is based on the biblical assertion that god answers all prayers - and that promise is reiterated by the figure of Jesus.

Do you also respect the islamic practice of wife-beating, which is founded in the Koran?

What about the biblically founded marriage practices some mormons adhere to - multiple marriage, for instance, which occurs often in the christian bible (yes, I can absolutely tell you where these verses are and who is said to have practiced multiple marriage) and in the koran?

I am only asking if you fully support your statement. I'm sorry to know you're upset by being asked to confirm support your own position.

I think the original post had to do with what amounts to a survey course - meaning an overview course on religions - plural - and ethics and whether "forcing" kids to learn about religions and ethics in a general way was a good thing.

I say YES. An understanding of religions, and the differences and similarities between them is a good thing. Same for ethics - and maybe more so with ethics, because ethics tells you why everyone has rights, how responsibilities apply to those rights and why YOUR rights do not trump someone else's. See Jessica Ahlquist for example.

As for the idea that all beliefs should be respected simply because they exist, hells no. See the widespread rape and abuse of children and by members of the catholic church for example.

(I have redacted a bunch of humorous but non-relative stuff here. If you really want to see what I removed, let me know and I will post the deleted bits into comments)

NIV: ‎This debate is going nowhere. Here is what you said: "THIS, my friend is proof that you don't believe your own statement; you certainly do NOT respect my point of view." So, that's how I got that you don't respect mine (What? Because I pointed out that due the writer's suggestions that I keep my atheism to myself, it is obvious they don't respect my point of view? Hello circular reasoning - this is a big part of learning how to be a christian and of christian apologetics).

In any event, of course I absolutely do not support any of the above things you mentioned  (such a slippery avoidance of all references to all of what she doesn't support being part of the christian tradition...) - but again, these are radicals who have twisted the teachings they learned, e.g. Book of Mormon (which mormons will confirm is a 'newer version' of the bible - meaning it's pretty much a ripoff, crap revision), or the Koran (which is ALSO based on and references the christian bible), and used them for their own interpretation, which are very wrong.

My point that was missed, is it seems to me that Christianity seems always be slammed or put down or what not (sic sic sic...), yet it seems none of the other religions get near as much scrutiny (such an interesting comment from someone who hasn't even slightly scrutinised their own religion... ). 

There are a lot of things that need "fixing" in all religions (this is a really interesting statement, given that things are always being 'fixed' in religions so that religions conform with morality - y'know, like how we don't haul our non-religious or other-religioned neighbours out for public stoning and we don't force raped women to marry their attackers, which is biblically mandated, by the way... ). Are we done now? I know I am.

(but then they're back... )

NIV: It is simply common sense - what I meant about respecting other's faiths and beliefs - the example of Christmas - this has been under attack for a long time - the point being if someone wants to say Merry Christmas, or Happy Hanukah, or whatever, then THAT should be respected - not subjected to scrutiny. NOW I'm done.

MOI: Ok. So, respect belief except mormon and islamic. Got it. Also, christmas is based on a pagan holiday so pagan beliefs are ok... right. How do you feel about the holidays for the other 20 or so gods who were born of virgins on December 25th?

MOI: Oh... Sorry... Didn't see your last point that religions shouldn't be scrutinized... Looking at them too closely does expose their inconsistencies...

"

So, long story short, NIV was not amused.... Later, the person who posted the original story messaged me privately following this discussion to say that NIV had called to find out if I am employed by his company (I am not but I do contribute to them occasionally), and also to refuse a job with that company because I had participated in the conversation above. I  think that is called shooting oneself in the foot or, alternatively, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face; or, more colloquially, full-on ass-hattery....

No word if NIV has sought medical help to correct the triangulation that surely occurred from having their body crammed into such a tight, tight corner....

Baking Soda. Cure all. True.

Many years ago, my then father-in-law (TFIL) told me whenever he felt a cold or a tummy-ache coming on he downed a glass or two of baking soda and water.

At the time, it seemed ridiculous - in the same way as Windex being a cure for anything skin-related. As it turns out, he was not only right, he was ahead of his time.

These things I know:
Big Pharma does NOT want to research or develop any drug that will cure you. You being ill but alive is the key pillar of their business plan.

Monsanto and others corporate killers like it, also prefer you sick, fat and addicted because those states help them continue their orgy with Big Pharma.

Big Pharma and its bed-mates will block with prejudice any information or products that actually work and will defame, ridicule and debase any person or entity that might expose the public to this reality:

The best cures for almost anything are the most simple things.

Here's what else I know:

1. If it comes in a box or a bag or across a counter after being excreted from a box or a bag, coagulated over heat and then left to sit under a light, it is not good for you in any way.

2. If you didn't grow it, you do not know and you will never know what's in it. The word 'organic' on the label means NOTHING; there are no standards in Canada, the US or in Europe that define exactly what "organic" means. However, "organic" does NOT mean without pesticides or other poisons; it only means a part - any part of the growing, cleaning and packaging process - is chemical-free.  The label "organic," however, has an alternative spelling: PROFIT. This is because most people are lazy and do not understand, nor do they care to understand or research or read anything that might shed light on reality. This is called the ostrich effect.... The cure for it is a computer and Google....

3. If it is prescribed to you, the goal is that you live to consume it for five years, which is the per-person profit model for ANY drug marketed and particularly cancer drugs. Those drugs are NOT meant to cure you, only to keep you alive long enough that you contribute the correct amount of dollars of profit to fit Big Pharma's model.Where it comes to fast-killing cancers like lung and pancreatic, do not think that Big Pharma is in any way altruistic in developing drugs for those: their goal is to prolong your life (which, in the cases of those cancers is really your suffering), not to cure you.

4. It is probable that many of the 'drugs' you've consumed are not drugs at all but placebos: a wide swath of studies show in 30% of cases, simply thinking one is consuming a drug is enough to cure. This is particularly true with anti-depressives.

5. Specific to cancer, however, consuming garbage (all fast-food), putting garbage on one's skin (sunscreen, which blocks the skin's natural production of melatonin, which is absolutely necessary for the body's natural production of vitamin D, which is essential to the body's ability to fight cancers and MS), soaking in chemicals called "bath products," hair colour (a monthly application of highly-toxic chemicals to the scalp) will lead to the body's natural processes breaking down, it's defences being highly compromised; and voila, highly increased rates of cancers in every country where these things are common. How can one see - simply - if this is true? Check the stats in counties where fast foods and chemical preparations have invaded recently and see the spike - not rise; spike - in cancers.

Don't get me started on the marketing of cigarettes to children in countries where there are no laws to prevent such marketing. If you smoke, not only are you killing yourself and making those around you sick, you are literally providing the dollars by which those companies manufacture and sell addictive, cancer-causing products to CHILDREN.

Not only is smoking ridiculously unhealthy - in about the same way as shooting oneself - it is immoral and unethical because it contributes to the addictions and deaths of other people and in that way is not unlike other forms of genocide. Yes, I realise that is a highly controversial thing to say. But think about it....

But back to baking soda: It seems that the crap first-world humans ingest and put on their skins screw with a simple mechanism - the PH value of the body. An incorrect PH level seems to be the culprit in many illnesses but specifically cancers.

A search I just did turned up almost 2.5 million articles on baking soda and cancer (and other illnesses and treatments).

Is it possible that simply downing 1/2 a teaspoon of baking soda in a glass of water each day is enough to bring the body to what seems to be the optimum PH of 7.4?

I'm going to do some reading on this, but I'm already convinced. Turns out my TFIL was right, at least where it concerns colds (they're called "The Flu" now). If the body's PH is 7.4, the body is then inhospitable for cold bugs. It really, really works and it seems to work in cases of tummy upset too - and definitely in cases of hangover, by the way (not that I'd know)....

You too: get your finger out and do some reading....
This link will take you to the first page of the 2.48Million results. Have a read and write a comment.

Ah, no, I wasn't speaking specifically to you....

For those to whom this is not obvious, one’s Facebook page is a collection – a peg board of sorts - of all sorts of stuff; opinion, references to things, photos, shares, links. If one goes to a friend’s page, one must be prepared to see and read things one might not otherwise seek out.

Likewise, if one goes to a friend’s page - meaning one consciously clicks on that page or has consciously added that friend’s page to one’s own stream - one cannot complain about the information the friend posts. 

There are two choices; follow friends and suck it up or don’t follow them. Period.

Telling them what they can and cannot post – not allowed.

Inserting veiled threats? Also not allowed, juvenile and not intelligent….

Bottom line? You, dear reader, have the right to come here, read this and comment on it if you wish. You do not, however, have the right to not be offended by what is here (or on my Facebook, if you’re subscribed to my page).

You also don’t get any points for making the false assumption that anything I post is meant in any way to be ‘advice,' nor do you get to show off that you're belly-button-gazing by assuming I'm speaking to you personally. I am not. What I write and post is information and that is all it is (except in the rare occasion that I DO post something for a specific person - and they will absolutely know it is there for them). 

If you take to heart anything I write here, take it personally or are offended by it, that’s not my issue. You choose to read so you have the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of that choice.

I am well-educated and old enough to have had a life of experiences so yes, occasionally I do think I’m right about stuff and yes, perhaps more often than occasionally. But YOU dear reader, are in no way forced or coerced into agreeing with me or even reading what is written here….

This is the conversation that ensued from my having posted the above general interest article on my own personal Facebook. The commenter below chose to come to my page, read the post (which I did NOT write but with which I fully agree) complained about having read that article and then suggested that I was targeting them. Ridiculous. 

This person is a senior administrator at a school for gifted students, and occupies a prominent spot in the "should know better than to argue illogically" category.

To be clear, I in NO way coerced, cajoled, enticed, entrapped, dragged, induced, pleaded, begged or even invited the following person to come to my page, nor did I send the page or the link to them. They came upon my page by choice, so their implication, “you shouldn’t post stuff that makes me uncomfortable” is annoying. 

Here's the article; please read it.

(The Truth About Christmas [NSFCWCC] (Not Safe For Christians Who Celebrate Christmas)

Commenter:

I don't understand the need for provocation, unless you get a kick out of being a provocateur. Besides, isn't it a bit lazy, especially for someone who touts himself an Ivy League academic to use the Bible, a text that one doesn't believe in, to establish anti-Biblical "fact?" (Moi: the bible is excellent at disproving itself, for the record, so yes, many intellectuals use it in the way described here. The commenter is referring to Christopher Hitchens, who read – and fully comprehended -  more in his 62 years than 20 other people read in their lifetimes combined and was able to quote, reference, cross-reference, adjudicate, and elucidate the bible in an immensely scholarly way ….)

It's a bit like shooting someone for being an NRA member. You are better than this.(this, in case it isn't obvious, is a bit of a slam....and yes, it might be appropriate to shoot certain NRA members; particularly those who are unaware and uninterested in the NRA's political policies and bent).

Moi:

Did you actually just say you don't understand the need?? Seriously? You don't understand the need for people to UNDERSTAND what they're actually doing?

People have the constitutional right in this country (being Canada, if anyone is interested) to believe whatever they wish. They also have a corresponding RESPONSIBILITY to understand their beliefs and by understanding them NOT to inflict them - and convolutions and outright falsehoods - on others, like me, who like FACTS and who don't wish to be marginalized, scorned, hated, mistrusted for saying "HEY, wait a minute, here's how this particular thing actually came together."

Commenter

I understand the need for thoughtful conversation, which this isn't. I understand that people can understand what they are actually doing. I am pointing out that this comes across as provocation, no matter how well intentioned it claims to be. It doesn't come across as a serious exploration of anything other than "Aren't I clever?" (Merry Christmas, bitches???} And, going straight to "Are you advocating for a dictatorship/1984 style of Just Do What Big Brother Says???" is the presentation of a false dichotomy.(really?, when this commenter is telling me not to question things? um.... )

People have a constitutional right to believe what they want. I would suggest that a corresponding responsibility might be to have some respect and decorum with those, whom you claim to respect, who might have a different point of view. Who is being "marginalized, hated, or mistrusted?" Finally, by posting the original post, who is doing the inflicting?

Moi

‎1. This IS the basis of thoughtful conversation; however, these comments are very much an attempt to end that conversation. "You shouldn't challenge religion because it makes people uncomfortable" is not a valid argument. I refuse - and I cannot make this any more clear how MUCH I refuse - to be cowed into silence by the fact that some people will NOT consider what facts exist.

2. People MUST understand what they're actually doing, when what they do and what they think they believe informs so much of life and culture.

3. It is only provocation because people are so very, very unwilling to consider that their beliefs may not be grounded where they think they are. "I didn't know that," MUST also apply to people's belief systems. (I will add in here again that nobody is forcing anyone to read my Facebook posts. Provocation requires a different setting).

4. If your doctor came to you with all sorts of witch-doctory, which he/she believed in, was bonded to, which had been passed down in their family, and, yes, which they had the right to believe, and wanted to doctor you based on those beliefs, would you say "I must respect those beliefs?" I think not.

Beliefs are NOT protected from questioning or revision or termination when those beliefs are shown to be false. Otherwise, we'd still be sacrificing children to appease other gods. (This link is to an article that appeared today, widely in international news. The act is abhorrent, so all you Christians remember, before you start casting aspersions on these people, that child sacrifice is part of your tradition).

Religion and religious beliefs are NOT - and in no way deserve to be - protected from questioning. That people become so angered and uncomfortable and accusing when those beliefs are put to questioning indicates a certain fragility of those beliefs....

5. Are you saying that my posting interesting information on MY feed - which one can subscribe to or not - is 'inflicting?' Are you suggesting I censor myself so as not to offend those who have every right to read or not when absolutely no offence is intended? Are you seriously suggesting that in the area of beliefs; that I never post anything that might challenge?

I will tell you quite categorically, that will NOT happen. Facebook - and my blog - are both opt-in and no, I'm not putting any disclaimer on either of them.

The FACT is this particular holiday IS a remake of SEVERAL earlier, pagan festivals. The FACT is that early christians reviled this holiday nearly across the board and there are still many fundamentalist christians who do not celebrate this holiday at all for these reasons and who think it an abomination that any christian does celebrate it.

The FACT is this holiday was not celebrated at all prior to 1850 and not established as a holiday until 1870 - and that shortly after that, people who sell stuff realised an opportunity to sell more.

The fact is, IF the main character existed, he absolutely was NOT born on December 24th or 25 and the fact is that several other 'gods' were alleged to have been born on the same date by the same method, so there should be some scepticism about the entire story.

If these realities are offensive to some, then I suggest those some should take a long hard look at WHY. It is not intelligent to cover one's eyes and ears and holler "DON'T SAY THAT! DON'T SAY THAT."

I am always confused and often shocked by how vehemently people will defend things which they also refuse to understand.

Religion and beliefs of ANY kind are not sacred ground, not in general and not on my page. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, perhaps it should be reconsidered. That applies to every other aspect of life and it does, despite the suggestion here that it shouldn't, apply to religions as well.

Whether I challenge beliefs and traditions, and whether I respect those beliefs and traditions has absolutely nothing to do with my respect for PEOPLE.

I respect my friends very much and my respect for them is in no way tied to their beliefs or their faiths - or lack of. (To be clear here, my respect for my friends in no way necessitates a respect for what they believe. Bullshit is bullshit regardless of how lovely is the person spouting it).

That respect does not necessitate my censoring myself - and those who respect me shouldn't ask that of me and I don't ask it of them.

Commenter:

It's my failure. I just can't make the argument so that you get my point. I don't want to stifle your free speech; I just want you to be considerate of those to whom you speak about very personal things. I have always admired your intelligence. I believe the Taoists, however, when they suggest that intelligence, unlike wisdom, is temporary and fleeting. Wisdom, on the other hand, has endurance and resonance, but can only be achieved when intelligence is combined with empathy.

Moi:

The important thing here is this: I am not addressing anyone or speaking 'about' or 'to' anyone. I am commenting on, or posting information. Unless I post information directly to someone or on their wall, the information I put on my feed is GENERAL and not directed to ANYONE in particular.

I would not walk into anyone's church and start pointing out the fallacies of their faith. On MY Facebook feed, anyone who reads my posts is coming into MY 'church'...

I also want to point out that I refuse to use the term "You" in any other capacity than the general; otherwise, it comes to personalising a general commentary.

I understand that people have PERSONAL religions or beliefs but that reality does not preclude the other reality: that I have a right to comment, that those beliefs are just that - beliefs - and that people have a responsibility to know what they're talking about if they're going to get all up in arms when they read general information of the "Hey, did you know?" variety.

And I totally agree with the idea of wisdom vs intelligence. Which is why I understand the difference in respecting my friends for WHO they are, REGARDLESS of WHAT they believe.

Like I said, I adore my friends and my acquaintances because of WHO they are, how they live, how they treat their families and friends etc; and I am very interested in what they believe.

I am usually pretty confident that my friends and acquaintances are wise and intelligent enough to make the distinction between the who and the what. I also know that my friends and acquaintances - and most people for that matter - are good people regardless of religion/beliefs.

What I will never understand is the very common reaction to new information, where it pertains to religion and beliefs, of "how dare you," and "you have no right," and "you must be angry" or "you must have had some trauma caused to you," rather than, "I didn't know that."

I think those reactions come very much from the person not making necessary separation between who they are and what they believe - they take it as if information is about THEM when it is absolutely not. I would say, however, such reactions might reasonably be considered indications of such a person's insecurity about their beliefs.

This is why the question, "If all religions and their characters are myth, are you still the good and moral person you are now?" must necessarily be answered "yes."

That "yes" is why I am astounded by such angry reactions to information.

The fact remains that religions - all of them - are based very much in myth and also very much in the writings of tribes from 2000 years ago and, in the case of christmas, VERY much manipulated by certain forces that have obvious presence.

One cannot stridently demand that 'christ be put back in christmas,' when that is a very modern concept in the first place. A simple reading and comparison of the first four gospels will very quickly reveal how much of the modern christmas 'tradition' is a recent structure.

I should make it absolutely clear here that I have no dislike or opposition to the holiday. There are all sorts of social, psychological and physical reasons for a celebration in the dead of winter. However, I detest the commercialism and the coercive parts of the 'christmas' celebration - the expectation that one has lights on the house and a tree in the window and that one wears red and green and buys gifts for strangers and spends way, way too much money and is perpetually happy. I'm not a sheep...

It bothers me not at all that others choose that route but it is fraudulent to demand others recognise one's tradition when one doesn't understand the tradition and its roots oneself....

It does, however, piss me off to no end when people make judgements on my character and intelligence - and when they suggest I am unwise - because I have done (nearly six years') research into what I grew up believing, my own religion and my cultural heritage, and what my family has believed for TEN GENERATIONS, and post information on my own public feed.

And it bothers and astounds me that people are, in 2012, so inflexible and unwilling to understand the foundations of their traditions and resort to covering their eyes and ears and stomping their feet rather than taking the intelligent step to "I didn't know that."

Mary's boychild: The biological impossibility of the virgin birth

Recently, at work of all weird places, two colleagues tried to convince me there was positive proof that christ was a real person.

One of my colleagues said there is actual documentation - something like a birth record - of christ's birth. I searched Google for any mention of such a document or anything that could be considered such an important document and came up dry. I can safely say the allegation of a birth-certificate is false or the catholic church would be crowing like a million turkeys... ok, yeah, they already do that.  (Seems Obama is in good company in the missing birth certificate department, at least was for a while....).

The other colleague said proof for christ was a group of ossuaires - boxes containing bones, none DNA tested, one, and none possibly producing the slightest possibility of DNA linking to 'Mary' for whom there is utterly no evidence of existence. Click here for the link I gave him. It refers to an article that my colleague says is less "factural" than National Enquirer. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_36.htm

In the second case, my ernest but uninformed colleague is certain the ossuaries are the real McCoy and suggested I watch a documentary on them. The fundamental flaw in his argument that the bones contained are those of christ and his brother (otherwise known as Joshua and James - yes folks, JOSHUA, not Jesus, Yeshua being a Hebrew name NOT translating to Jesus) is the absolute lack of evidence such persons existed in ANY form.

I have watched the film and I have read a bunch of stuff on the making of it and the people in it and behind it. The Simcha character - the guy who supposedly discovered the ossuaries - has been widely shown to be bent to fraudulent representations in his subject matter.  There is no evidence to support the veracity of the claims those ossuaries contain anything other than regular old bones or that they date from ages ago. Carbon dating shows those boxes to be relatively young - i.e. 150 years according to some reports and 50 - 60 according to others.

More importantly, there is no reliable evidence to support the existence of the person in question, let alone his deity, although there is quite a bit - reams, in fact - that points to christianity's key character being just that: a character based on many that have gone before. If the person did not exist, then all questions related to those ossuaries are moot. The entirety of the christian religion relies on the existence of this 'person,' which is why every effort is made to support the myth. Without it, all is - and should be -lost. Click here for an article on the supposed discovery of the "holy foreskin." I know. Gross.

From a biological point of view, there is no way a virgin can conceive; once the deed is done, she's no longer a virgin, so that doesn't count (the bible says she was untouched, so I suppose one could argue artificial insemination but that's a stretch), or could be pregnant by virtue of a spirit; that idea is massively implausible.

In nature, there are organisms that reproduce asexually. In cases where females produce without benefit of males, the offspring are ALWAYS female.... This biological reality means that if he existed, christ was indeed human, created in the usual way by two human parents.

The idea of spirit impregnation is ridiculous, but would mean the resulting child would HAVE to be female, given a spirit cannot be understood to have a genetic structure. If it had, it would necessarily be human and not spirit and we're back to two human parents.

Mary, being female, could have only contributed an X chromosome to the equation. A male offspring would therefore be impossible, if one is willing to give any credence to the idea of a spirit. 

This biological reality means there is no possible way the bones in those ossuaries are anything other than human. For the record there is no biblical or extra-biblical explanation for who 'Mary" is or where she came from. The only small nod to her otherwise is when she disappears into thin air, conveniently, at the point in the story where she has outlived her usefulness.... For the record, the virgin birth story appears in only two of the four gospels and even in those, it is not consistent.

The four gospels were written many years after their key characters would have died, so none of the writers were eyewitnesses. Matthew was written more than 60 years later and the other three many years later than that.

Otherwise, the virgin birth myth is present in many, many mythologies, all pre-dating christianity, "many" meaning more than 25... But, as with Harry Potter, the presence of a book does not mean the story contained within is real in any sense.

Apart from the obvious impossibility of a spirit/human offspring, there is no credible evidence at all that the christ of the bible did exist, even if he were human. There were approximately 38 historians writing - prolifically - at the time; none of them mentioned this person. The only extra-biblical mention of a person with the title 'christ' (because that is a title, not a name) was by Josephus, who most scholars believe was a fraud and who did not live in the area purported to be the home turf of christ, so cannot be considered an eyewitness. Josephus's comments at the time run to "I hear there's this guy." That is hearsay related by someone who heard it from someone....

I appreciate people have faith but with faith comes a profound responsibility to understand what one has faith in. Believers should be driven to comprehend - they should be desperate for and focused on comprehension. They should know what their 'holy' books say - in detail. And they must understand how much of their books are scavenged from other, earlier mythologies.

They must NOT in any case rely on "proofs" that are anything but proof and are manufactured or manipulated. Believers should be brutally offended by the offerings of fraudsters who prey upon their beliefs - beliefs that are so strong believers will accept ANYTHING that looks to support their myth.

This is true in all religions. Muslims still believe their prophet was right in saying the world is a flat disk that is circled by the sun, despite the undeniable proof the earth is round and orbits the much larger (read; greater gravitational pull) sun. Belief in a flat earth is, however, no less ridiculous than belief in a talking snake, man-regurgitating fish, or flying horses.

In my case, coming from 10 generations of believers - ministers in every one of those generations and five in this one alone, and from a highly, culturally religious family - the NEED to comprehend lead me to research which lead me to atheism because biblical things do not and cannot stand to scrutiny.

I cannot have faith in a 'god' that waited until humans had been on the planet some 100,000 years before revealing itself, nor can I ignore excellent science that proves the earth is much older than 6000 years;  I cannot have faith in a 'god' that constantly destroys what it creates; I cannot have faith in a 'god' that orders the death by murder of (if the bible is to be understood) more than 2.5 million people; or who orders parents to kill their own children or the children of others; or causes bears to rip  children apart because they laugh at a man's baldness; or makes a law that a woman who is raped must marry her rapist; or decrees we must keep slaves and tells us how to treat them and to what point we can beat them; or who finds people's car keys, assists football teams to win games, but ignores the millions starving. The bible is immensely historically inaccurate and most of the great stories are, again on scrutiny, highly implausible.

There is a GREAT freedom in not living one's life in fear of a wrathful and vengeful 'god,' in terror for one's afterlife, and in knowing that humans are intrinsically and necessarily moral and need not cower before an angry, jealous, narcissistic 'god' who cannot ever be appeased by the beings it is reported to love and from whom it must have constant adulation but who, despite all that supplication, it constantly threatens with eternal near-death.

The tartan of a life

This post is a Christmas card for my aunt and uncle in that beautiful, warm, green place by the water.

You cannot know how much I love you and how important you are to me and mine.

Everything that is good is grounded in you, that place, the now, and the forever-will-be-part of the very chequered tartan that is my colourful life.

Boys are often dumb...

I am endlessly curious about and fascinated by what seems to be a generalised belief held by many men that the type of car they drive, the name given to the work they do, the fabric their clothing is made from or the leather used to make their shoes (Snake? Really? They don't see the irony?) conspire to enhance their general attractiveness and the size of their physical attributes.

Boys, this is not true. Yeah, that's a cool car (your music sucks and is way too loud) but it doesn't make a man of you; yeah, your big, fancy title is interesting but you're probably being paid WAY too much for the actual amount of work you do and in today's times, post Lehman Bros et al, that title and your what's written on your pay stub are suspect; your suit is great but the likelihood you picked it yourself - pretty slim... and those shoes mate? C'mon. As for the physical attributes, let's just say, it's not the gun, it's the gunner....

Here's a tip, boys: real girls - and boys - like the colour of your character and the depth of your ethics; when all the accoutrements are stripped away, without excellent character and ethics, what is there?