More Atheist Ramblings

There is no such thing as christianity. There is a multi-national corporation called The Church that has a mythology that alot of people think is fun to talk about. These stories about arabs walking around in the desert 2000 years ago. Most of which never existed. Oh yeah, there was no Jesus. He didn't exist. At least, there's no record of him existing. Look it up. There are thousands of writers whose books survived through the years and not one of them has a credible record of this guy named "Jesus" or even his real name which I'll talk about later. I also love the way the bible is written. With all the thou's and shalt's it's so funny that people go around saying that stuff today when all it is is the way people talked in the 14th and 15th century when the books were originally printed. Oh, and I also love that people call the guy from Jerusalem "Jesus." If you were able to go back in time and be in Jerusalem when he was there and asked for a "Jesus" they'd look at you with a blank stare. Because the actual pronunciation of his name is more like "Yeshua" or "Ye-heshua" in the original aramaic. In the language that they spoke back then his name would be Yeshua. Just like James in Spanish is Jaime or John is Juan.  The word "Jesus" is an english transliteration of the greek word IESOUS. And Yeshua's dad's name was Yusef not Joseph and the guy they call "John" is Yochanan. See this is something that I as an atheist know that almost no "christians" do. Now, I ask, does that make me more of a christian than them? Well, I think not, but I think it means that there is no such thing as christianity.

My View of Nuclear Weapons

Here is a quote from neo-nutcase Joel Rosenberg, "[Iran's President] Ahmadinejad believes he has been chosen by Allah to annihilate the US... The only way that is remotely possible, is for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them against America and Israel. How then could the West deter or contain Iran’s messianic, apocalyptic leaders?....Yet many in Washington do not see the problem. [Iran's leaders] believe their life mission is to kill millions of Jews and Christians and usher in an Islamic caliphate." 

There are many people in the US with the same view as him but the problem is that they aren't thinking far enough ahead. If you think past Iran getting a nuke you realize very quickly that they would never be able to use it. Every country that has tried to acquire a nuclear weapon other than America has been met with fear and criticism from Americans and the US government has always done everything in their power to stop or slow it down. This happened when China wanted nukes, when India wanted nukes and when Pakistan wanted nukes. They said it would be the end of the world, but it never came. The reason it didn't come is because other than the United States no one has ever used a nuclear weapon and nobody ever would. The reason they wouldn't is two-fold. One reason is, if you did happen to blow up one of our allies with a nuke, your country would be counter-nuked about 450 times 30 seconds after the nuke hit the ground. The second reason is that it takes away the power and prestige a country recieves you get from having a nuke. A country like Iran, or North Korea for that matter, isn't trying to get their hands on a nuke so they can use it. They want a nuke so they will be taken seriously by other countries. It gives them some leverage to use during negotiations but the leverage a nuke gives you is predicated upon their not using it. When a country sees that every country with nuclear weapons are permanent members of the UN Security Council it gives a ton of incentive for them to acquire them so they can be a power player too. 

Eight different countries have had nuclear weapons and only one has used them, us. Some of these countries have even been at war since they developed the weapons and have never used them. We are the only ones that have, so I find the logic that somebody else can't have them but we can is pretty flimsy and sanctimonious to say the least.

The real answer to this question is full nuclear disarmament and a global ban on nuclear weapons in the from of a treaty. The ban has to be serious though. It has to include automatic war by all of the other countries in the world and seizure of the nuclear weapon immediately. In this scenario it would probably be more likely that one rogue nuke might be detonated but it has the added bonus of ensuring that no matter what happens the whole world won't be annihilated. As it stands right now, we have enough nukes to destroy the world many times over and it could happen as long as nuts like Joel Rosenberg and people like him have any say on who has nukes and when to use them. I would never be scared of another country nuking us, I'm much more afraid of us nuking someone else. 

-James D.

Torture Memos and Such

I just finished watching this week's Real Time with Bill Maher and one of the topics for discussion was the past administration's support for torture. I love to see the 'publicans go from saying we don't torture, to then saying there were a few bad apples, to now saying "Well... we did torture but at least it worked." I imagine there have been times when torture did work. In fact, I would guarantee it. But unfortunately it's just not worth it. The saddest thing was to find out the frequency with which it was done. I mean waterboarding somebody once would be bad but waterboarding them hundreds of times is absolutely shameful. If it didn't work the first time, it probably isn't going to. I agree with something Howard Dean said on the show, he said that without America being a country of high moral character, where's the arguement that we are saving people from bad dictators under bad conditions? If we torture and do the same thing those dictators do, then we aren't liberating people, like the citizens of Iraq for instance, we are just conquering them, and that's something the United States shouldn't be in the business of doing. I also find it funny that a party that prides itself on its moral underpinnings the way the Republican party does, it's awfully hypocritical for them to then go out and condone something like torture. 

I think Obama should release any and all documents, videos and memos on the subject so the people can see what the last administration thought was right. Of course more than half of the populace knows or we would have McCain in the White House, but I'm hoping that maybe some people who believe themselves to be moral and also Republicans see the videos and realize that their party is much less righteous than they had once believed and maybe they'll quit supporting those criminals.

What Would Jesus Do? He would be a Democrat and elect Barack Obama. 

My Atheist Way of Life

I'm an atheist. I don't believe that a god exists. I think it is an obvious conclusion to make based on all the factors in play on the Earth at this and all previous times. I wouldn't say that there isn't a set of circumstances or instances that could come into play to change my mind, all I can say is as of yet, I am an atheist, and a strong atheist at that. A strong atheist doesn't just say that there's no proof either way on whether or not a god exists I say that there is proof that one doesn't. My proof is based on thousands of personal experiences, readings, thoughts, attitudes, conjectures and late night finger biting sessions and would be impossible to sum up or even provide an excerpt that would be sufficient. I would never be able to fully express my feelings on this particular question because naturally if I were able to do so everyone would come to the same conclusion I did. I can however speak a little about it to give you a better idea and you can decide for yourself. 

I'll start with one of my favorite questions that more science-initiated christians usually ask me. They ask, "Do you believe that Newton's Laws can be circumvented? That matter can be created out of nothing?" They are of course referring to the idea that since matter can not be created nor destroyed then there must have been some sort of magic for the universe to have popped into existence from the Great Void or whatever. Well, this question is my favorite because it's so easy to answer. The answer is, there was no beginning. You have to first realize that as humans we can only ask questions that come from our own experiences. We interpret the world through our eyes, and since there is a beginning to a human life, birth, we believe concurrently that there must have been a beginning to the universe's life. There wasn't. Since matter cannot be created nor destroyed it means it has always existed. There was never a time when it didn't. It is just like looking at the symbol for infinity. Where is the end of the line of an infinity symbol? The universe is just like that, no beginning and also, no end. On a side and more complicated note, you'll remember Einstein figured out that space and time are one thing. There can't be one without the other. So had there been a great void, time wouldn't have existed so when time "began" it was with matter already there. There isn't a "before" time. There either is time or there isn't. 

I'd also like to address another one of the religious' more inane utterances. This idea that they see "god" everywhere. The beams of light that show through clouds and look like a stairway to heaven, or the beauty of one's own newborn baby. They say the see god's handiwork everywhere and this is proof of his existence. I like to answer questions like these evolutionarily. Meaning, I try to ascertain why something like this would make an animal more suited to continue to produce offspring in a world that is very competitive and the strongest have to survive. I will begin to answer this question with a question of my own. Would it make sense for an animal to be created that when it began its life and everyday there after hated the looks of everything he saw? That every tree, speck of dirt, the sky, other animals and every human being looked displeasing or disgusting? Would it make sense to create an animal that hated everything and was miserable all the time having to look at things he hated twenty four hours a day? I think that pretty much sums it up. It only makes sense that we see beauty everywhere. It is a great adaptation and a beneficial one that we love our environment, that we are pleased when we see a rainbow or a snowflake. It's part of why we are such a successful animal and at the top of the food chain that we love novelty and are curious about exploring all the sights and sounds and that wonderment is found everywhere. I also think it curious that the things we think are ugly are creatures that are far away from our animal family. We love the looks of most other mammals, cats, dogs, sheep, mice, and dolphins but scowl at insects like spiders and flies and worms, and reptiles like alligators, crocodiles, snakes, lizards and many other animals outside of our mammalian family. You have to think hard to think of an ugly mammal. Um. . . . vampire bats. There, I thought of one. I think these answers are self-evident and if you have any questions feel free to email me at jamesdawkins@gmail.com and I'd be happy to answer any of your questions or read your comments. 

-James D.