Suck it, past-version of me! I only let ~320 days pass in between updates! I am not going to bother with the math because no one has a gun to my head.
Today brings you the very exciting world of an Atheist during the Holidays. The modern term obviously comes from the old English word hāligdæg (hālig "holy" + dæg "day") for all those who study useless trivia [for the rest of us, Wikipedia provides]. Holidays in the USA can refer to nearly any federal holiday, but 'The Holidays' almost universally refers to the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas. People put up bizarre displays, become annoyingly cheerful, and start cultural wars over Nativity Scenes.
Everything that follows is my own opinion, but I would be surprised if it wasn't shared by a majority of the silent Atheist community.
I am not offended by someone wishing me a 'Merry Christmas'. Nor do I care if they wish me a generic 'Happy Holidays'. In both cases it's fairly easy to guess the underlying sentiment (please leave my store/abode without stabbing me) and to take it with a smile. I *am* offended when *either* side attempts to force other people to use their own wording of the sentiment, or when someone gets offended at their casual remark being greeted by the other.
I get that Christians are super excited about their history this time of year. I also get that a growing number of people lack any declared faith and just want to enjoy this month without getting preached at every time they turn around. Look, until I am forced to sit through a nativity play at gunpoint,I am willing to give a truly neutral statement to both camps: The same for you. It's impossible to find offense with, and leaves everyone feeling moderately happy.
Similarly, I could care less about a Xmas tree with religious connotations or a nativity scene being erected in public places. If I actually cared enough, I could reserve similar spaces to produce my 12 hour long screed about the All Powerful Atheismo. My only objection becomes if there is public money placed into these actions.
Why do I draw the line there? Well, it's time for a culture flip. Let's suppose you found out tonight that your local Islamic community had staked out space in the 'town square' for a dramatization of the Prophet's early life. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that most of you would go 'meh' or even 'good for them' (I'll regret giving you that benefit of the doubt, won't I?). Now suppose you found out that your town council had given $10k to make the production happen.
I'd be fairly pissed off at that. Those are *my* tax dollars proselytizing uselessly. I didn't work that hard, and pay a total of $41 per year in local taxes, for my money to support a religion I didn't believe in.
Now re-read the last two paragraphs and insert your own religion for Islam. That is why I am opposed to public funding for religious Holiday events. If you are a follower of Islam, replace Islam with All Powerful Atheismo.
Finally, my own take on the two culturally prevalent holidays this time of year (sorry, I can't compare everything that falls in this window in one post).
Thanksgiving: My preferred name is Thankstaking. First, it's a cheap laugh at a simple inversion. Second, the name is fundamentally misleading. People talk about how thankful they are for the things they have received over the last year, and proceed to stuff themselves with food. Thanksgiving would seem from it's name to being thankful for the opportunity to give to others. I have a ton of respect for the minority who truly live this holiday as it is named - the people who gift food to the poor, their time to a kitchen, etc.
Christmas: Thanks to Futurama, this will always be X-Mas in my mind. Trailing slightly behind is my annual gift request email title 'Happy Atheist Gift Day' which involves some unwritten rules: receive more in useful $ value than you spent, with the twist that you average over multiple years (so giving crappy gifts one year will hurt your long term standings).
Bourbon count: 5
1.7.17
Re-Up! You're outa your mind!
Well! 12 month gap. I'd apologize, but I'm fairly certain no one reads this.
We recently discussed the un-caused cause and the tenets of atheism. (Hey, the universe is billions of years old, compared to that one year is a statistical blip). Today we're going to talk about cats!
Well, that is a little bit of a lie. We're going to talk about the scientific method, its flaws, and why it still wins in the end. On the way, I'm going to mention my cats anecdotally. Atheists put a lot of trust into science, and it's worth digging into the dirt a bit on it's flaws, and why we still trust it over a book you try to hand to us.
The scientific method can be summed up in what my first NCO taught me as a young 2LT - Trust, but verify. Smart people sit in a room and do boring thinky stuff until they come up with a theory to explain something. Then they devise an experiment to test their idea. If it results in what they expected, they publish both in boring papers that very few people read and (very rarely) win a million dollars thanks to the guy who invented dynamite.
The problem(s) with the scientific method is that:
1. Sometimes scientists lie. We've seen in with Tobacco, Oil, Asbestos, etc. Fortunately, Trust but Verify applies to colleges. Thus, we learn that Tobacco isn't actually good for your health. Sure, it takes a few decades, but eventually reality wins out. Unfortunately, a few billion people die as a result...eggs and omelets.
2. Frequently scientists are wrong, as are people writing about science. Paul Erhlich famously claimed in his book 'The Population Bomb' that by the 1970s millions of Americans would be starving to death. If you are reading this, you know it didn't happen. This is because the scientific method relies on the current data we have - Erhlich wrote before modern food science was really understood. Monsanto's gene altered crops changed the game. We like to look back and laugh, but the beauty of the scientific method is that while Erhlich was focusing on the wrong factors, other scientists were testing their own theories and producing the world we live in today. We can afford a million wrong scientists for the few that produce game-changing ideas.
3. Change is at best incremental. We all think of science as a series of Eureka moments, but sadly (or not, based on your sexual preferences) the streets are not clogged with naked Europeans discovering what Dark Matter is. This means I won't be alive when teleportation or warp speed is discovered. However, in my lifetime I've gone from internet being a by-the-minute dial-up affair to it being a utility - if i lose my internet i respond roughly to how i view losing my water. And that's pretty awesome.
4. The scientific method is only as good as the researchers themselves. Meaning, they only discover the things they set out to. Gone are the days that whacky experiments are done just for the LOLZ. Back in the 60s we had people drugging other people without their consent to discover if LSD could warp reality, if dolphins could become terrorists, if monkeys could survive being fired out of space cannons, etc. Today, whether you are in government or the private sector everything is tied to funding, which means science mostly is discovering boring things like if chocolate can cure diabetes or if Elon Musk can conquer the world without anyone noticing. He can't, by the way, as Jeff Bezos has already prepared a counter assault. Still, we'll keep on learning new things regardless.
This brings me to my final bit and the promised cats. This morning I was reading about the mirror test, and which animals had passed. I was shocked to not see cats included, because my cat Aerie uses the mirror on a daily basis. She will look into the mirror to see me in the bedroom and will call out if she notices me looking at her. This is a clear passing of the mirror test, and yet nowhere do I see cats as either passing or failing the test.
But it's okay. Someday science will catch up. Hopefully without billions dying, but who are we kidding? We're talking about cats!
Bourbon Count: 0!
We recently discussed the un-caused cause and the tenets of atheism. (Hey, the universe is billions of years old, compared to that one year is a statistical blip). Today we're going to talk about cats!
Well, that is a little bit of a lie. We're going to talk about the scientific method, its flaws, and why it still wins in the end. On the way, I'm going to mention my cats anecdotally. Atheists put a lot of trust into science, and it's worth digging into the dirt a bit on it's flaws, and why we still trust it over a book you try to hand to us.
The scientific method can be summed up in what my first NCO taught me as a young 2LT - Trust, but verify. Smart people sit in a room and do boring thinky stuff until they come up with a theory to explain something. Then they devise an experiment to test their idea. If it results in what they expected, they publish both in boring papers that very few people read and (very rarely) win a million dollars thanks to the guy who invented dynamite.
The problem(s) with the scientific method is that:
1. Sometimes scientists lie. We've seen in with Tobacco, Oil, Asbestos, etc. Fortunately, Trust but Verify applies to colleges. Thus, we learn that Tobacco isn't actually good for your health. Sure, it takes a few decades, but eventually reality wins out. Unfortunately, a few billion people die as a result...eggs and omelets.
2. Frequently scientists are wrong, as are people writing about science. Paul Erhlich famously claimed in his book 'The Population Bomb' that by the 1970s millions of Americans would be starving to death. If you are reading this, you know it didn't happen. This is because the scientific method relies on the current data we have - Erhlich wrote before modern food science was really understood. Monsanto's gene altered crops changed the game. We like to look back and laugh, but the beauty of the scientific method is that while Erhlich was focusing on the wrong factors, other scientists were testing their own theories and producing the world we live in today. We can afford a million wrong scientists for the few that produce game-changing ideas.
3. Change is at best incremental. We all think of science as a series of Eureka moments, but sadly (or not, based on your sexual preferences) the streets are not clogged with naked Europeans discovering what Dark Matter is. This means I won't be alive when teleportation or warp speed is discovered. However, in my lifetime I've gone from internet being a by-the-minute dial-up affair to it being a utility - if i lose my internet i respond roughly to how i view losing my water. And that's pretty awesome.
4. The scientific method is only as good as the researchers themselves. Meaning, they only discover the things they set out to. Gone are the days that whacky experiments are done just for the LOLZ. Back in the 60s we had people drugging other people without their consent to discover if LSD could warp reality, if dolphins could become terrorists, if monkeys could survive being fired out of space cannons, etc. Today, whether you are in government or the private sector everything is tied to funding, which means science mostly is discovering boring things like if chocolate can cure diabetes or if Elon Musk can conquer the world without anyone noticing. He can't, by the way, as Jeff Bezos has already prepared a counter assault. Still, we'll keep on learning new things regardless.
This brings me to my final bit and the promised cats. This morning I was reading about the mirror test, and which animals had passed. I was shocked to not see cats included, because my cat Aerie uses the mirror on a daily basis. She will look into the mirror to see me in the bedroom and will call out if she notices me looking at her. This is a clear passing of the mirror test, and yet nowhere do I see cats as either passing or failing the test.
But it's okay. Someday science will catch up. Hopefully without billions dying, but who are we kidding? We're talking about cats!
Bourbon Count: 0!
6.7.16
The Un-Caused Cause
Oh boy! Our first true philosophical post!
Bear with me on this one. I could spend a few days reading a bunch of fancy articles and repeating them here, but instead I intend to use my own words. I do encourage you to check out the wikipedia article on this for a mostly unreadable synopsis of common views on the Un-Caused Cause (henceforth the UC).
We live in a universe where action tends to cause reaction. In short, when we ask the question 'Why did X happen?' we can usually trace X back to Y.
Not so with the UC.
For Theists, the UC boils down to the existence of G-d. Genesis begins with the line "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
This implies that before there was a 'beginning' there was a G-d. We do not know how he came into existence - we are told instead that they were there before time. We are not told how G-d came to be, simply that they were. Whether reading the Bible as a series of parables/metaphors or as a factual account, anything before G-d creating the heavens is the UC.
There's a lot of debate and speculation here that I'll leave to apologetic thought to explain. Put plainly, we are not given a cause for the origin of G-d. Only their effect of creation.
On the flip side, for Atheists, the UC boils down to the Big Bang. Off the top of my head, I believe that some physicists have gotten within a few nano-seconds of the BB in terms of their modeling everything that came after. But, no one can offer an acceptable theory as to how conditions that LED to the BB came about. Granted, everything after the BB seems to line up (with the annoying exception of dark matter and dark energy) but as to how we arrived there? *shrug*
Both sides tend to fixate on the other's UC as 'proof' that they are being foolish.
False. Both sides have the same logical gap. We cannot show an X that leads back to Y. In this, both parties are essentially telling their adherents to go with what they feel to be true.
At the end of the day, the difference between a Theist and an Atheist boils down to which theory they place their faith in.
Also, whether or not they are putting on pants on a weekend.
Bourbon count: 5
Bear with me on this one. I could spend a few days reading a bunch of fancy articles and repeating them here, but instead I intend to use my own words. I do encourage you to check out the wikipedia article on this for a mostly unreadable synopsis of common views on the Un-Caused Cause (henceforth the UC).
We live in a universe where action tends to cause reaction. In short, when we ask the question 'Why did X happen?' we can usually trace X back to Y.
Not so with the UC.
For Theists, the UC boils down to the existence of G-d. Genesis begins with the line "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
This implies that before there was a 'beginning' there was a G-d. We do not know how he came into existence - we are told instead that they were there before time. We are not told how G-d came to be, simply that they were. Whether reading the Bible as a series of parables/metaphors or as a factual account, anything before G-d creating the heavens is the UC.
There's a lot of debate and speculation here that I'll leave to apologetic thought to explain. Put plainly, we are not given a cause for the origin of G-d. Only their effect of creation.
On the flip side, for Atheists, the UC boils down to the Big Bang. Off the top of my head, I believe that some physicists have gotten within a few nano-seconds of the BB in terms of their modeling everything that came after. But, no one can offer an acceptable theory as to how conditions that LED to the BB came about. Granted, everything after the BB seems to line up (with the annoying exception of dark matter and dark energy) but as to how we arrived there? *shrug*
Both sides tend to fixate on the other's UC as 'proof' that they are being foolish.
False. Both sides have the same logical gap. We cannot show an X that leads back to Y. In this, both parties are essentially telling their adherents to go with what they feel to be true.
At the end of the day, the difference between a Theist and an Atheist boils down to which theory they place their faith in.
Also, whether or not they are putting on pants on a weekend.
Bourbon count: 5
29.6.16
Tenets of Atheists
Hi! This is going to be relatively short, as I told you in my last post that Atheists don't have a unified dogma. Nevertheless, I believe anyone who claims the title of Atheist believes in some variation of the four following tenets (yay arbitrary numbers!).
----
#1. There is no Reload, Restart or New Game Plus mode to life.
From a video game analogy. There is no reload, restart or NG+ available. This means that when you die, not only is the game over but that there is no chance to retry with what you have learned. In short, your existence is a speed-run on hardcore mode. When you die, the game's source code is wiped from your perspective.
What does this mean? Live your current life and don't waste any time thinking about the possibility of what might come after. An Atheist does not subscribe to the notion that 'there are no atheists in foxholes' - indeed, they are the people screaming obscenities as shells rain down. Because death is an ending, and an early ending means a low score.
#2. Truth is what we can observe and verify.
If I hear a voice, but no one else can, and the voice does not repeat: there was no voice. In short, the scientific method trumps personal experience and belief. You can stand there and honestly tell me that you heard the voice of G-d telling you to be a better person, but if no one else can hear it, I'm sorry that you are suffering from schizophrenia.
What does this mean? My own observable experiences will shape my likely beliefs, but the ability to verify your experiences will shape my certain beliefs. If you can't record All-h telling you to burn someone alive, I'm going to call you crazy and a lunatic rather that 'god-touched'.
#3. Any intelligent creator would be an active creator.
If there was a G-d that set the universe in motion, he would be interested in it from more than an observational standpoint. If he isn't, then worshiping him is a waste of time. To flip the old 'clock maker' analogy, if you stumbled across a working pocket watch in the desert, why would you think the clock maker is around and cares what happens to the watch? It's in the freaking desert!
What does this mean? That the Un-caused Cause (to be covered next week!) dilemma doesn't really bother Atheists. Yes, I can't prove that your G-d didn't cause the Big Bang. But since we don't see evidence of it's active involvement today, why should I live my life by what you say it's rules are?
#4. Don't you hate pants?
Waking up early on any weekend to sit around for an hour being told what to think either makes you a Theist or an old Republican. Sleeping in naked is a much better use of our time.
What does this mean? Whenever you are worshiping, I am spending my time on things that I value. That doesn't make me better than you, it just means I have different priorities in mind.
----
So, I've stated that this blog is not meant to poke at active Theists, and I'm certain that someone reading this somewhere has steam coming out of their ears. Relax, buddy!
This is a very loose attempt to give you a view into how most Atheists set our worldview. It is not meant to criticize your own. I am deliberately exaggerating uncommon Theist viewpoints to try and set the parallel up.
If you are offended, I would encourage you to take each point and set up your counter argument. Finished? Congrats! You have laid out a few tenets of your own beliefs! This doesn't make me wrong or you right, instead it simply shows that we have different viewpoints.
Bourbon Count: 6
----
#1. There is no Reload, Restart or New Game Plus mode to life.
From a video game analogy. There is no reload, restart or NG+ available. This means that when you die, not only is the game over but that there is no chance to retry with what you have learned. In short, your existence is a speed-run on hardcore mode. When you die, the game's source code is wiped from your perspective.
What does this mean? Live your current life and don't waste any time thinking about the possibility of what might come after. An Atheist does not subscribe to the notion that 'there are no atheists in foxholes' - indeed, they are the people screaming obscenities as shells rain down. Because death is an ending, and an early ending means a low score.
#2. Truth is what we can observe and verify.
If I hear a voice, but no one else can, and the voice does not repeat: there was no voice. In short, the scientific method trumps personal experience and belief. You can stand there and honestly tell me that you heard the voice of G-d telling you to be a better person, but if no one else can hear it, I'm sorry that you are suffering from schizophrenia.
What does this mean? My own observable experiences will shape my likely beliefs, but the ability to verify your experiences will shape my certain beliefs. If you can't record All-h telling you to burn someone alive, I'm going to call you crazy and a lunatic rather that 'god-touched'.
#3. Any intelligent creator would be an active creator.
If there was a G-d that set the universe in motion, he would be interested in it from more than an observational standpoint. If he isn't, then worshiping him is a waste of time. To flip the old 'clock maker' analogy, if you stumbled across a working pocket watch in the desert, why would you think the clock maker is around and cares what happens to the watch? It's in the freaking desert!
What does this mean? That the Un-caused Cause (to be covered next week!) dilemma doesn't really bother Atheists. Yes, I can't prove that your G-d didn't cause the Big Bang. But since we don't see evidence of it's active involvement today, why should I live my life by what you say it's rules are?
#4. Don't you hate pants?
Waking up early on any weekend to sit around for an hour being told what to think either makes you a Theist or an old Republican. Sleeping in naked is a much better use of our time.
What does this mean? Whenever you are worshiping, I am spending my time on things that I value. That doesn't make me better than you, it just means I have different priorities in mind.
----
So, I've stated that this blog is not meant to poke at active Theists, and I'm certain that someone reading this somewhere has steam coming out of their ears. Relax, buddy!
This is a very loose attempt to give you a view into how most Atheists set our worldview. It is not meant to criticize your own. I am deliberately exaggerating uncommon Theist viewpoints to try and set the parallel up.
If you are offended, I would encourage you to take each point and set up your counter argument. Finished? Congrats! You have laid out a few tenets of your own beliefs! This doesn't make me wrong or you right, instead it simply shows that we have different viewpoints.
Bourbon Count: 6
22.6.16
The Lack of Dogma
One of the things that makes Atheism so hard to pin down and define is the lack of any sort of centralized dogma. On the one hand, this makes it very difficult to unite the growing percentage who identify as non-theistic around any cause. On the other hand, it remains Atheism's greatest recruitment tool.
In a society where literacy is damn near universal, and where we increasingly value the ability to think critically and independently, it should come as no surprise to see attendance and adherence to any form of Theism. For all the beauty and spirituality found in various places of worship, each and every one practices according to some 'universal' accepted views. As humanity continues to evolve socially, some of these views fall out of favor/practicality/accepted moral scope and are de-emphasized. A critical reading of spiritual texts will still find them, and I believe more and more are electing no religion as a result.
Take the following from Deuteronomy 22 (text from NIV, emphasis my own):
"13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."
This post isn't going to devolve into bashing any particular faith, I promise. But please, re-read that passage and think how it must look to someone born in the modern age. If the man lies, he owes the family money - and the WOMAN is forced to stay married to someone who made a false accusation that, if upheld, would have had her killed!
This is the downside to dogma. When things change, your dogma can attempt to adapt, but each adaptation detracts from your message of having a universal truth. It's why some Catholic hard-liners are infuriated at the mere mention of women being allowed the priesthood, despite the growing difficulty obtaining enough men of the cloth. If they accept this one change, they are fully aware that it could cause a genuine crisis of faith among members of their church.
This is where Atheism definitely comes out ahead. We have no sacred books. While we do have some famous speakers (Richard Dawkins is a household name) we do not treat their pronouncements as divine writ or infallible. The South Park episode "Go God Go!" skewers Atheism, and in my personal experiences every Atheist who has watched it with me has just about died laughing.
Here's the secret why - we are all atheists for our own damn reasons and follow its relatively few 'tenets' as we damn well please. The notion that any one of us could be absolutely right is just... well, it's weird. Unsettling.
Dogmatic.
Next week, a look at what I think the tenets are of Atheism. Hopefully you'll have forgotten this post by then!
Bourbon Count: 2
In a society where literacy is damn near universal, and where we increasingly value the ability to think critically and independently, it should come as no surprise to see attendance and adherence to any form of Theism. For all the beauty and spirituality found in various places of worship, each and every one practices according to some 'universal' accepted views. As humanity continues to evolve socially, some of these views fall out of favor/practicality/accepted moral scope and are de-emphasized. A critical reading of spiritual texts will still find them, and I believe more and more are electing no religion as a result.
Take the following from Deuteronomy 22 (text from NIV, emphasis my own):
"13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."
This post isn't going to devolve into bashing any particular faith, I promise. But please, re-read that passage and think how it must look to someone born in the modern age. If the man lies, he owes the family money - and the WOMAN is forced to stay married to someone who made a false accusation that, if upheld, would have had her killed!
This is the downside to dogma. When things change, your dogma can attempt to adapt, but each adaptation detracts from your message of having a universal truth. It's why some Catholic hard-liners are infuriated at the mere mention of women being allowed the priesthood, despite the growing difficulty obtaining enough men of the cloth. If they accept this one change, they are fully aware that it could cause a genuine crisis of faith among members of their church.
This is where Atheism definitely comes out ahead. We have no sacred books. While we do have some famous speakers (Richard Dawkins is a household name) we do not treat their pronouncements as divine writ or infallible. The South Park episode "Go God Go!" skewers Atheism, and in my personal experiences every Atheist who has watched it with me has just about died laughing.
Here's the secret why - we are all atheists for our own damn reasons and follow its relatively few 'tenets' as we damn well please. The notion that any one of us could be absolutely right is just... well, it's weird. Unsettling.
Dogmatic.
Next week, a look at what I think the tenets are of Atheism. Hopefully you'll have forgotten this post by then!
Bourbon Count: 2
15.6.16
Re-Up! You're Crazy!
Well, hello world! It's been over 5 years since I last posted here, and gosh have things changed.
In 2010 I was still a brand new lieutenant in the US Army. I was still pretty much angry about things that in hindsight didn't matter very much. I felt the need to convince others to feel the same way I do, and was surprised when I ran out of steam.
Nowadays, looking back, I realize that my problem was that I was trying to be an evangelical Atheist. That's not who I was, nor who I am. So we are doing a reboot!
Every Wednesday, I will be explaining what I believe and feel. Sometimes, this may be in regards to my lack of belief in a Theistic worldview. Other times, it may be politics or a science view. Basically, this is just my attempt to start putting down keystrokes to record my thoughts.
So let us see if this works! My previous record was 11 posts. If I make it to a Baker's Dozen, I'll count it time well spent.
Bourbon Count: 8
In 2010 I was still a brand new lieutenant in the US Army. I was still pretty much angry about things that in hindsight didn't matter very much. I felt the need to convince others to feel the same way I do, and was surprised when I ran out of steam.
Nowadays, looking back, I realize that my problem was that I was trying to be an evangelical Atheist. That's not who I was, nor who I am. So we are doing a reboot!
Every Wednesday, I will be explaining what I believe and feel. Sometimes, this may be in regards to my lack of belief in a Theistic worldview. Other times, it may be politics or a science view. Basically, this is just my attempt to start putting down keystrokes to record my thoughts.
So let us see if this works! My previous record was 11 posts. If I make it to a Baker's Dozen, I'll count it time well spent.
Bourbon Count: 8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
