Atheism A Religion?: Another Facebook debate

Where I respond to a post from a facebook friend:

Anonymous- Atheism: The organized anti-organized-religion religion. 

Me- And not collecting stamps is a hobby 

Anonymous-  But you cant say that it's not a "Not Hobby" hobby. Some people might just really dislike stamps and are united in personally disagreeing with stamp collectors who think stamps are great. Sure, just because you don't see any postage on the envelope is not evidence enough to say that there might be a stamp  there, but that also doesn't mean that there isn't any postage at all. Maybe it's pre-paid postage . . . 

Me-.Yeah, I get your point, but that still wouldn't make it a religion. Uniting with others in disbelief doesn't make something a religion. Nothing like a doctrine or dogma necessarily follows from "God is not real". There are humanist, scientific, skeptical, and other philosophies that may follow, not from necessity but from proclivity and there may be some atheists that do follow something that resembles religion but religion does not necessarily follow atheism. 

Anonymous- I see you point as well, but I would argue that there are some religions that DO follow atheism. Buddhism does not advocate the belief of any gods as everything is an illusion. Jainism is a religion of self-reliance and self- control, god's need not apply. Also, LaVeyan Satanism, which is almost literally a"Not Hobby" hobby. An almost anti-religion religion. etc. I agree with you on your above point, but I would argue that the term atheism no longer only implies "no-god" but has become some kind of weird hipster anti-religion religion that pits Science (with a capital S) against religion in general. Those two things couldn't be more different, I'm certain there are many brilliant scientist who might also happen to be Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Zoroastrians, etc.  

Me-Yes, many people who are atheists are also the things you listed above as well as humanists, skeptics, and many other things that have nothing to do with god. This does not make atheism a religion. Atheism is one thing: A non-belief or a lack of belief. You cannot, logically, get from atheism to buddhism, Jainism or even humanist philosophy, but yes atheism is sometimes or often associated with these things. You cannot get from point A to point B simply because atheism has no doctrine, no dogma, no charter or guide book. You can be a libertarian, homeopath psychic who thinks bunnies are leaders of a conspiracy to control humans by way of drug injected easter eggs and still be an atheist.
Oh, and to call the modern atheist movement as "some kind of weird hipster anti-religion religion that pits Science (with a capital S) against religion in general"  dismisses the often genuine, thoughtful, and concerned people who are behind it. Many of these people are not out to necessarily eradicate religion but rather keep it out of places where it doesn't belong. Places where it has held sway for millenia for no just or defensible reason. Many atheists are okay with people believing what they wish and I am certainly one of those. Certainly not all atheists, but we don't claim to be a cohesive movement. I would say that rational, humanist atheist share this sentiment, however. If you listen to or read many of the most prominent you will find this. I do believe that, in whole, the world would be a better place if we lived our lives, based our laws, and generally believed things based on the best evidence we can muster rather than on faith. I don't see much value in the religious kind of faith. I also feel that some aspects of religion are good, but I don't think that these aspects are exclusive to religion. These things being community, charity, ceremony, etc.
Atheism has been quiet for a very long time. It's had to for it's survival. In the last two centuries it has slowly gained a voice. This is largely because of science(with a lower case s). Science has given it backing. Science doesn't say atheism is true it just says many religious ideas are false. And because science is so powerful and visible in our daily lives, religious societies are having a harder and harder time refuting it. On the other hand, religion still is a very powerful force in our country and many others. To suggest that atheism is a bully, as some Christians do, is not paying attention to history. 

Anonymous 2- There is a difference between a 'positive' view denying the existence of a deity and a 'negative' view which holds that the existence of a deity cannot be supported solely by rational argumentation. My father was an ‘atheist’ in this latter sense; however, he used the term loosely. He would be just as happy to call himself an ‘agnostic;’ -- it simply didn’t matter to him because he thought question of whether there is a god was, from a dialectical materialist point of view, immaterial (pun intended. ) I am most intrigued by people who assert ‘positively’ that there is no god. With such atheists I have had most illuminating conversations. In the end, though, it seems to me that ontological debates reduce to duelling tautologies. Yet the very fact that such tautologies exist fascinates me no end. It says more about human intellection than it does about any being exterior to human experience, but epistemology is one of my favourite studies. 

Me- Atheism is a term of belief, not knowledge. I hold both the first and the second view you state. Neither of which claim absolute knowledge. Atheism is a claim of belief or rather lack of it. I believe there is no god and I believe that rational evidence also doesn't support a belief in it.  What you are talking about is the difference between gnostic and agnostic. Gnostics claim knowledge, agnostics do not. You will find many atheists if not most, including myself, to be agnostic, although not all. Most Christians on the other hand would be in the gnostic category. None of this, however, proves that atheism is a religion.

Calling atheism a religion is just a way of saying, "See! Your basis of belief is no more subjective or rational than ours!". It is flat out wrong however. I point out in the argument above that not believing in God is to religion as not collecting stamps is to a hobby. Anonymous tries to refute this by saying that there could be people who incorporate not collecting stamps into some sort of anti-stamp club therefore making it a hobby. What he doesn't see here is that yes, that would be considered a hobby just as incorporating atheism into doctrine of a religious type makes it part of a religion. And he points to this in his next response giving some kinds of Buddhism and Jainism as examples of religions that are atheistic in nature. The difference is that THEY ARE RELIGIONS! Atheism is not a religion. Incorporating atheism into a religion then makes that religion an atheistic religion. It looks like this:

ATHEISM= NOT RELIGION

ATHEISM+RELIGION= RELIGION

There is a popular atheist saying that goes something like, "Christians are atheists to all other gods. We just go one step further". Not believing in Zeus is not a religion. Not believing in Vishnu is not a religion. Unless, of course, part of your religious doctrine says "you shall worship no other gods before me". Now you've got a religion on your hands. See the difference?

The Making Of A Skeptical Pumpkin

We decided to carve a pumpkin this year. We found some great Carl Sagan Templates here. Apparently Sagan is a popular pumpkin choice. I guess a scientist would be a pretty spooky idea for a Jack'O Lantern to some. You know, using evidence to support ideas and all. The carving was not as difficult as it seems but I found that if you just worked and 8 hour shift lifting heavy things then it is not a good idea to hunch over a pumpkin for two hours. 

  

  

We got our pumpkin from a northwest suburb in Chicago. From their website it looked like a fun, adventurous(for a school day) place to frolic in a field of glorious orange globes. We were sorely disappointed however. They have an exhibit there called animal land which we expected to be something like a petting zoo with farm animals. We should have delved deeper into the website. Instead what we paid to see was a collection of exotic animals kept in cages, some far to small and in no way mimicking a natural habitat. Cages of sleepy tiger cubs, bears, shivering kangaroo, large agitated wild birds, cages that were mere feet away from taunting children and oblivious adults all enclosed in a large tent that we hoped was adequate to keep the cold weather out. We stopped after the first tent. There were two more. 

We also saw a mechanical dinosaur very slowly eat pumpkins with a climax that was comparable to the point when paint actually dries. The corn maze left something to be desired... that is unless you are three feet tall. I believe the fun of a maze comes from the fact that is it hard to find your way out. Standing two feet above the highest stalks surely prevents this.  Later, my girlfriend discovered that the pumpkins were shipped from New Mexico.

So, if you like seeing pent up wild animals, the least impressive corn maze this side of Chicago and buying an out of state pumpkin you could have bought at ALDI for half the price, go to Goebberts.

"Slut" Is Another Word For Control

 The women's liberation movements of the last century have made tremendous strides but have yet to squeeze their way into the smallest aspects of everyday life and thinking. Slut shaming is one of these aspects.

Is there a problem morally with having multiple sex partners? Is there a problem with any sort of sexual promiscuity? As long as it is practiced safely and without deception, in my opinion, no. A big fat no. This is the same problem some people, often you will find men to be the root cause, have with the gay rights movement in a sense. They want to control who gets to have sex with who. Men may have sex with only women otherwise you are a "faggot". Women may have sex with only a minimal number of men and must be in relationships with these men or risk becoming "sluts". Straight men, however, can have sex with as many women as they wish and only seem all the more virile for it. (Notwithstanding cheating, which seems to be universally abhorrent.) I'm generalizing here and I realize that many people don't share these beliefs, but still too large a number of people do. I see it everyday on television, movies, on facebook and in day to day conversations with friends, coworkers, and relatives. Hardly a day goes by where I don't hear some form of shaming towards promiscuous women or women perceived to be promiscuous. It is most often not even realized to be blatant sexism. It's a double standard that the majority of people seem to be comfortable with without even a second thought. Oh, they know it's a double standard, but to most it's an acceptable one. Why is this? Well, that answer is seemingly obvious. Sexism has been ubiquitous throughout human history and men have been in the privileged position. Shedding sexism means men, who've never as a whole, really had to deal with any serious level of sexism, will have to let go of certain privileges that they've had since the day they were born. We, as men have had them so long we feel that we are entitled to them. Women have been subjected to sexism for so long that some may think are deserving of it, or that it is harmless.

"Slut" is a word used to control women into behaving the way men think they should behave. Is there a comparably ubiquitous word for promiscuous men? Maybe "man-slut" fills this role, but it is obviously derivative, holds no real power over men and is often viewed as comedic. Nobody looks down on a man-slut. You don't hear men called "whores" and "sluts" with the vitriol that is often used against women for having multiple sex partners. Everyone knows this is a double standard but props it up anyway. There is no justification for it. If you have one I would like to hear it . I'm certain that I have been guilty of slut shaming in the past but I will be no longer to the best of my ability.

Russian Blasphemy Law

Russia is considering a new law that would curtail blasphemy:

The religious offense law was drafted in the wake of performance group Pussy Riot's “punk prayer” in Moscow’s central cathedral earlier this year. Members of the group were sentenced to two years in a penal colony under the broad charge of hooliganism for a lack of more specific legislation. The bill calls for up to three years’ imprisonment for disrespecting religious sensibilities and is currently being discussed in the Duma.

 The law seeks to punish, with up to a three year prison sentence, those who "disrespect religious sensibilities" which no doubt means the religious sensibilities of the orthodox church specifically. In the town of Rostov-on-Don the musical "Jesus Christ Superstar" is being cancelled thanks to the complaints of 18 individuals who say the musical is presenting the image of Christ incorrectly. It seems the production is shutting down rather than risking possible jail time for upsetting the delicate sensibilities of the orthodox church.

I visited Rostov-On-Don(my gf's hometown) in the spring of this year. It's not a very big city though certain areas have some charm and the river is very pretty. The orthodox cathedral is a central part of many Russian cities and Rostov is no different with a fairly large cathedral located at it's center. We had a great time exploring many of these cathedrals in both St. Petersburg(where exist some of the most beautiful religious architecture I've yet seen in my limited travels) and in the area near Rostov. The Church On Spilt Blood in Saint Petersburg is particularly magnificent with incredibly intricate mosaics depicting biblical stories. My favorites were the miracles performed by Jesus and this one in particular of him walking on water.

I resisted the urge to giggle at this early version of a super hero

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union there has been a great resurgence of open religiosity in the country and many new restoration projects for the churches that survived the U.S.S.R. The problem it now seems is not a suppression of the church but of a suppression of any belief that doesn't support it.

There is a small town called Novocherkassk near Rostov-on-Don with a beautiful Byzantine cathedral located at its heart. We decided to take a look. It was a long train ride through the country side of gorgeous farmland and gleaming green hills and a good trudge up a steeply inclined road on a hot sunny day to visit, but well worth it. Let me stem the objections you may have: Yes, I am an atheist but I am also capable of recognizing impressive architecture. Religion has held sway over nearly all cultures throughout history an as a result of it's monopoly has created some of the greatest works of art. I also have a certain fascination with modes of thought, beliefs, culture and art based upon decidedly irrational ideas. I was excited to see as much of it as I could

Respectfully admiring the cathedral

When we made it to the church we took numerous obligatory photos and headed inside where we proceeded to take more obligatory photos. I spent much of the trip trying not to look American but that camera in my hand was surely an obvious sign. The translation guide sticking out of my back pocket wasn't helping either. We spent maybe fifteen or twenty minutes quietly taking pictures and doing some un-obnoxious gawking before the three of us sat down on some pews in front of the alter. Toma, a friend of the family, facing one way, and my girlfriend and I facing the other. As it turned out, the position of our faces in relation to the alter angered God and upon leaving we were sternly scolded by a couple of nuns who carried the righteous wrath of the heavenly father within them. That was perhaps the one instance during our trip I was glad I didn't speak Russian.

As we were leaving I snickered to my girlfriend, "If only they knew how truly heathenous we really are". They might have had a fit.

I bring this story up given this potential new blasphemy law. If that law had been in place then we might have been  arrested. At least it's not outside the realm of possibility given the vague language that has been proposed and given the charges against Pussy Riot:

Russian lawmakers are calling for jail sentences of up to three years for anyone guilty of offending religious feelings

So, offending the "feelings" of those of the orthodox church will be a crime. This is precisely the reason for the First Amendment in the U.S. and why atheists continue to make a stink over even the most minor infractions lest we slide towards something resembling this law.

I've heard it pointed out that when a religion needs government coercion in order to maintain itself it is already a failed idea.

Blasphemy Day: Free Speech Zone.

It's that day that is no different than any other day- Blasphemy Day. However in the spirit of it here are a few words I wrote some months ago:

Warning: Free Speech Zone 

Ideas are offensive. Every idea is offensive to someone somewhere. Whenever you express an idea publicly be prepared to be offended. Be prepared to defend your idea or walk away. You do not have the right not to be offended. All ideas must be open to criticism no matter how sacred if we are to live in a free society. Also, when someone criticizes your idea they are not disrespecting your rights, and they are not necessarily criticizing you. Calling an idea absurd, stupid, bad, idiotic, etc. is not the same as calling the person who expresses it those things. Good, smart people can have bad ideas. Vice versa.  

Note: There are places where this is generally not appropriate; the workplace, and in some limited sense, public school where a free exchange of ideas is only acceptable as long as it is not threatening, hateful, or disruptive of the learning process.

 ... and because for me no Blasphemy day is complete without a little Sagan:

Facebook Credulity

Foods that look like the organs they supposedly treat:

 First off, this is an obvious case of pareidolia. Does a sliced carrot look like an eye? Well sort of but it also looks, upon my first glance, like an anus. Does it prevent or treat rectal cancer? Not to be crass(that's fun of course) but it makes the point. Walnuts may look sort of like brains, but they also resemble testis. What does this tell us about the benefits they afford to them? Apparently nothing. How many foods can we find that resemble organs or body parts but don't do much to aid or improve function? Is this any different than eating rhino horn because the horn vaguely resembles a penis? A banana also shares this resemblance or a carrot for that matter.

The title suggests that this is God's way of telling us which foods are good for us. As if this in itself is evidence for God. Is this really evidence for God? If it is, God sure has a confusing way of getting ideas across. Couldn't he just have implanted the idea in our brain rather than making us do all this research on these fruits and vegetables so that we find that some that resemble organs also have nutrients that benefit those organs and then use post hoc reasoning to decide that's why they looked like those organs in the first place. Whew! Thanks God!

Symphony Of Science Does Climate Change

A new Symphony Of Science just released covering a more specific topic this time around:

This is one of those science topics, like evolution, that has become a controversial political issue whereas in the scientific community(you know, the community that discovers things using that method that is the only reliable way we have of actually knowing things) is not controversial at all. 

Faith Page on Friday

Sally Quinn writes on "God" in politics and comes to a surprising conclusion. Not surprising for heathens of course who believe religion and politics are like oil and water, they don't mix well, but to those who believe religion and politics are like peanut butter and jelly.

The political left are not the muslim loving atheists that the right so wishes them to be, but rather they are nearly just as willing to insert God in their politics to pander to a primarily Christian base. It's gets me all riled up when I hear someone like Rick Perry claiming that Obama is leading a war on religion as this is far from the truth. Just look at his faith based initiative continued from the Bush administration, albeit with an overhaul to avoid church state conflict(perhaps not enough by some). At the very worst, from the Christian Right's perspective, Obama is more inclusive with his religious language and on a rare occasion mentioning non-believers(as if we are deserving of citzenry) unlike conservatives such as Marc Rubio who seem to make a conscious effort to exclude anyone but Christians in their language:

And we're special -- we're special because we are united --
we're united not as a common race or ethnicity, we are bound
together by common values.  The family is the most important
institution in society.
   (APPLAUSE)
   And that almighty God is the source of all we have.
   (APPLAUSE)
   We are special.  We are special because we have never made
the mistake of believing we are so smart that we can rely solely
on our leaders or on our government.  Our national motto, ``in
God we trust'', reminding us that faith in our creator is the
most important American value of them all.
   (APPLAUSE)

So, the surpising conclusion that Quinn comes too:

When you add “God” to the Democratic platform you are essentially ignoring the fact that some 15 percent of Americans are either atheists, agnostics, secular humanists or simply say they don’t believe.

That doesn’t make them less good than those who believe. Osama Bin Laden, for instance, believed in God. What it does make them is disenfranchised. It says, this is a party and a country that doesn’t include you. They may not believe that their potential is God-given. Those who do must know that it goes without saying. So why does it have to be shoved down the throat of the nonbelievers?

She is right on target. This is something I can say amen to. God does not have a rightful place in politics. It is put there at the peril of believers and non-believers alike. I'm glad DNC had so little of it this year and hope that continues in the future. The right will continue to bemoan the lack of God and let them. I think there will come a time when the majority is no longer on there side.

Offensive Ideas Revisited: A facebook Note

 I have come to realize over the course of the last decade or so that I am an argumentative person. I love to argue. Most people who know me know this. In fact, some of them would exclaim it loudly.  I don’t argue to be hostile, to disagree for the sake of disagreement, or to be “right”. I don’t always go into a situation with the intent to argue, rather the contrary, argument is often thrust upon me. I also don’t discourage argument and on some occasions I seek it out, but only when I feel it necessary to defend a position that needs defending. I’m not one to keep my mouth shut. It used to bother me that people thought that I was argumentative. It bothered me because I, like anybody else, want to be liked. I don’t want people to push me away because I am too argumentative. I have great friends so most of the time this isn’t the case. Now, however, what really bothers me is that some people don’t understand why argument occurs in the first place. I think that there are at least a couple of reasons for this misunderstanding:

First, I find most people feel the need to express their beliefs to others. This is natural of course and I fully support that need where appropriate, but this can cause problems once someone else, who also feels the need to express themselves, does so. This seems to me to be the cause of many of the arguments I have with others. The scenario goes something like this:

 Person 1: I think it’s a shame that some people don’t go to church. They are going to hell. 

 Person 2: Uh, I don’t agree with that…

 Person 1: Why are you so argumentative all the time?

 It’s a bit over simplified, but I have been in similar situations many times. What happens is that some people feel it is okay to tell others how they feel but once they do so they do not want feedback unless it is positive. I cannot, in good conscience, go along with this when I feel the topic is important. In my opinion, not speaking up is a tacit agreement and simply by saying “I disagree” is considered argumentative to these sorts of people. (I do however, dismiss statements on occasion because I don’t feel an argument at a certain time, place or with a certain person will be a productive one.)

 Second, people often think that because there is argument, there is necessarily hostility, hatred, disrespect, etc. There is no reason that this should be so.  I have had many disagreements with many people who I am still very close to, people for who I have an incredible amount of respect. The only time that I feel anger towards someone is when they don’t allow me to express myself after they have already freely done so. 

 The thing is, argument is important. It helps you decide what kind of person you are. What you believe. It can help you come to new conclusions, to learn new things, to realize that sometimes you are wrong or that you believe more strongly than you had before. It can help you think more critically. If your beliefs are never challenged you will never learn how to defend them when you really need to. Even more importantly, it helps you understand others and what they believe. Not everybody thinks like you. The world is bigger than you. 

 I guess, after all this rambling, my point here is: If you have a problem with others disagreeing with you I suggest you let sleeping dogs lie and keep your mouth closed.

Don't Believe Teh Facebook

Facebook is not only a place to share your daily thoughts, ideas, and interests. It is also a place to express your credulousness. Here are a few of the worst items I came across in the past week and a half:

Sooo, does that staple of a college dorm room cause cancer thanks to a delicious wax coating? A quick Snopes search says no.

I also saw this:
 
on the "Wellness Uncovered Health Forum" which is a facebook page that claims:

"This page was created to help spread natural health and wellness knowledge on vaccines, GMOs, diet and nutrition to live a blissful co-existence with nature."

 Knowledge on vaccines and GMOs? Sounds informative... except its completely anti-both of those things without providing substantive evidence to justify that stance. Probably because there isn't any. It's also anti-Big Pharma as well as Big Farma, but lets get back to the point. The photo has a caption which says:

"Reason umber 4359 to go ORGANIC. Humans are still the only species that completely poison their food, the earth and each other for less crop yield."

Giving the misleading impression that the chart shown above, made by research from Firman E. Bear at Rutgers University, supports organic foods as more nutritious than conventional foods. In truth this study was not looking at organic vs. conventional food production at all but rather organic and inorganic soil types and so says nothing about the nutritional value of crops from using organic production methods vs. conventional.

Another one bites the dust. Then there was the Bill Nye quote:



Oh, that Bill Nye. First bashing creationism and now Todd Akin. Except... this isn't actually a quote from Bill Nye. It's pure fiction from a satirical news site called The Daily Currant. Thanks again Snopes.

... And one last bit of credulousness before I pull my hair out. The just plain crappy photoshop shop of Earth seen from mars. I'll simply send you to Bad Astronomy for that one as Phil Plait does a wonderful job.

The lesson of the day here is: Before you "like" or "share something on facebook at the very least google the damn thing. Just because you agree with it doesn't make it true.

A New Bloggy Thingy. This is what people do now right?

 Why am I writing a blog? Who am I? Why would you want to read any of this? Well, maybe you won't want to. After all, who is this guy? What does he know about anything? Why should I care about his opinion? I answer that with, "maybe you shouldn't care", but that is not why I am writing. I am writing because sometimes I see things that I believe are just well... irritating, wrong, things with a deep lack of forethought and just plain lazy thinking. This will be a place for my rants so that my girlfriend, who so patiently listens to them, will perhaps have some reprieve.

I am a skeptical person. I try to live my life with skeptical values in mind. This means that my beliefs are based on evidence to as much of a degree as is possible for me within my practical limitations. I am also an atheist. For a little more detail here is a note I wrote earlier this year:

I write this because I am often told that, because I am an atheist, I don't believe in anything. This is absurd and flatly untrue. Every person capable of thought believes in something.

What do I believe? I should first start but telling you what I don't believe. I don't believe in ghosts. I don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in Big Foot or the Loche Ness Monster or Chupacabra. I don't believe in UFO alien spacecraft from other worlds and the associated conspiracy theories. I don't believe that Lizard people are controlling the world. I don't believe in qi or meridian points. I don't believe that homeopathy is medicine. I don't believe that vaccines cause autism. I don't believe in a god or many gods or any god whatsoever. Especially not "one true god". I could go on indefinitely, but that's not the point of this post. 

I don't not believe these things because I don't like them(some I do and some I don't) or because they make me uncomfortable(some certainly do), but because there is no good evidence that would support a belief in them. You may say there is evidence and sure, I'll grant you that, but any evidence does not equal good evidence. For instance, a story told by a drunkard of seeing a dog driving a car is evidence, but would you be inclined to believe him? No, of course not because beyond it being implausible, which is not proof against it by itself, it simply isn't good enough evidence. You might ask him: Do you have a picture? A video? Can I see the dog? Can I inspect the vehicle?, etc.  Also, as a crucial point, the standards of evidence are higher the more unlikely an event seems. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 But these non-beliefs don't define me. I am the sum of my parts. I have many beliefs. Atheism is not my defining characteristic but simply one way of categorizing me. I choose to use it because atheism is in dire need of addressing in our society currently. I am also a skeptic, humanist, freethinker, nerd, liberal, brother, son, friend, boyfriend and on and on.  

What do I believe? I believe in science. More specifically, the scientific method. This is the basis of skepticism. Skepticism is what led me to atheism. Because of science I believe in many things. I believe the earth rotates and is round and revolves around the sun. I believe in evolution by natural selection and that humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and that all life on earth is related. I believe all matter is made of molecules which are made of atoms which are made of subatomic particles such as protons, nuetrons, and electrons which are made of even smaller particles. I believe that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. I believe these things not only because scientists say they are true but because they show me how they know them to be true. They give good evidence.

 I believe in love. I believe that love is caused by chemicals in the brain. I believe that this doesn't make it any less valid or true.  I believe that family and friendship is important. I believe that a purpose to life is important. I don't believe that purpose is innate or "god-given" but is given by ourselves. I believe that as individuals we decide what our purpose should be. I believe that causing harm to others should be avoided if at all possible. I believe that people should be able to love whoever they choose and believe whatever they wish so long as they cause no harm to others.

I believe that we can only know things to be true in any sense by looking for evidence. Faith is detrimental to truth. That is my belief. 

This is my belief system in a nutshell. I may elaborate further sometime in the near future. To answer that earlier question: I don't know much. I have no formal degree. I have a serious bent for skeptical issues, however, and for those unfamiliar perhaps I can clue you in on what that means. 

This blog is an exercise in creativity and for improving my writing and critical thinking skills. It might also be a release valve for my pedanticisms(is that a word?), rants, interesting sciency bits I find on the webbertubes, things that make my blood boil and my brain curdle and things that make me feel all warm and squishy with joy.

If you readers ever exist, super! if not I will be enjoying writing to myself over here in the corner.