PediaOpenness.org - Recently Updated Pages

Adds and Classifieds

Sansui350A — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:08:00 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Why GNU/Linux is Good For Your Health

Sansui350A — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:07:35 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

The PediaOpenness News

Sansui350A — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:05:28 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Why Use PediaOpenness.org Instead?

Sansui350A — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:04:51 CDT

About Us

Sansui350A — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:04:32 CDT

We believe in cocksuckery and faggotry, and have yet to be set "straight" in our ways.

PediaOpenness Home

Sansui350A — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:02:34 CDT

JULinux Just Use Linux

ultumix — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:34:19 CDT

TM
Copyright 2009 Justin Breithaupt

IN A NUTSHELL
Just Use Linux or JULinux is in a nutshell is a complete replacement for Windows and Apple / Macintosh operating systems and software. It is free of cost and free of restrictions as in freedom of choice. There are no strings attached and it's not snake oil. It's not too good to be true. IBM chooses to sell Linux on most of it's servers and claims that their systems don't stop working until they physically break down. All that is needed then is to replace physical parts and Linux still keeps on trucking.
So what does it look like? How does it work? Why use it? All good questions.
Your answers may either be found at www.justuselinux.com or by watching the video below.

Suicide

ultumix — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:15:15 CST

The cure to suicide / vaccine. Version 1.1

WARNING! Satin does not want anyone to read this. Satin will most likely try in a direct or indirect way to stop you from reeding this. Expect it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The holy trinity has recently revealed to me and anonymous person what the cure is for preventing Satin's attacks. Not just rebuking him over and over when he comes back to attack you but putting a stop to it once and for all.

Before we get started it is important that the person is a Christian and has repented to Jesus Christ for all his sins and that they pray that the Lord will show them any sins that they need to ask forgiveness for.

At first Pastor when you told us that we would have to keep praying in Jesus Name for Satin to be gone and that he would keep coming back for a long time I had to seriously think about that because in my life it's never really been that way. I've always had complete victory over Satin and kept him out of my life threw Christ Jesus, and satin can't just keep coming back and attacking me over and over in a small period of time and succeed. So my mind was troubled as to why with anonymous person every time he was attacked we had to go threw the same method of casting Satin out and why it was getting progressively worse. But to explain this thing in it's entirety we have to start by figuring out what the signs and symptoms are, why Satin attacks people who have never been attacked before and why is he doing it then, and then how we can keep it from coming back.

As we all know one of Satin's tactics he loves to play is the one where he keeps us where we are in order to maintain his Kingdom of Darkness. Satin has everyone from birth and from then on a battle for their soul begins. Satin has already won when we are born but Jesus Christ can break threw using the Holy Spirit to break that bondage and set us free. This is why Satin is content to leave us where we are and not provoke our reason into asking if there is a better way of life. He does not make life hell for us if we don't give him a reason to think that we will make it to Heaven.

Satin can not attack your heart or soul or dwell there without direct permission however he can and always will attack your mind. Your mind is filled with Man's earthly logic that can be used to counter the inspiration you get from the holy spirit or to take control of your life.

For this example we will give Satin a reason to attack someone. This person becomes a new Christian and Satin still hasn't lost really because this person is only a Christian by faith, repentance, turning from their old ways, and following and knowing Jesus Christ. So Satin still has plenty of time to divert the newly found Christian into a gray area where they feel comfortable. There is nothing normal about the Holy Spirit and it's generally considered as socially unacceptable by the world. Of course we are here to break that. Satin uses this trick to make people loose their communication with God. How can one discern right from wrong or know what God's will is for their life then?

Now here comes the attack. This newly found Christian listens to God and knows what his will is for his life and follows it. This is a direct threat to Satin on many levels. 1. This Christian will bring others to Christ and 2. This Christian won't go to hell. So now we have upset and provoked the now desperate Satin. Since the Christian already has judgment and reason and discernment Satin feels comfortable manifesting himself (I expected this but just now while I was writing this Satin tried to divert me and make me loose my train of thought by having a person being led by Satin to call me). Satin will manifest himself in many different ways but first he will do it indirectly and perhaps lead the Christian to think God is responsible for it. Things like money problems, food, things breaking, and just worldly possessions going downhill in general. Of course the most important thing for the Christian to do is keep praising God. Satin really hates this. So now Satin knows that this Christian is really close to becoming an immanent threat to him. So now he takes it up a notch and turns this Christian against anyone trying to help him in his life by feeding him lies that are excuses for him to be angry when there is no logical reason for him to be. If that does not work Satin may try other things but from my experience I've seen suicide as the next step.

Now for people like me it's very hard to understand why you would want to kill yourself and fell so strongly that you went threw with it. This is Satin's victory. He has stopped you from preventing others from going to hell and has brought you to hell as well. The attacks hit hard but not all at once. First you do something the Lord has not told you to do or something that's a direct sin and no matter how small that sin is Satin will use it to make you feel angry and guilty and then he will spread threw your mind like wild fire and take it over. Someone might be there praying for you and you try to reach out to them but Satin continues to pull you down. You rebuke Satin but he still keeps spreading and it's not until you give yourself completely over to the Lord that Satin leaves and there is victory but this is only temporary. For a complete deliverance you will need to do something more simple that we will get to later.

Here is what happens to someone being attacked: First they don't know it's happening. They just start feeling disconnected with the Holy Spirit and start saying things like whatever and pausing before responding to you and then they get angry and start cussing some times. Usually at this point they are still unaware of what is going on inside. At this point the person may demonstrate physical signs of death such as a cold dead body, undetectable pulse, the inability to tell you what happened that day or even their name, and other signs of going into shock or other disorders. This is when you as an outside partner need to confront this problem and let them know it's happening. Then they will feel like they are on drugs and like they are dieing and will have the urge to kill themselves. They may say things like Satin's laughing at me and knives are staring at me, and I want to kill myself or I want to play with knives. If they are freaked out and scared it's a good sign because this is the first stage of this problem. When it gets more severe is when they laugh about it and the most severe is complete demon possession. I haven't seen possession but I was led by the spirit to believe that was the next attack and that it needed to stop.

To really understand what's going on you need to watch this video that I own on DVD: (RED music video already over) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY0qHJ_dLag (copy and paste this into the browser and press enter or search for RED already over on youtube or godtube.com.

Lyrics:
----------------------
(Substitute you for satin)
You never go
Your always here (suffocating me)
Under my skin
I cannot run away
Fading slowly

(Substitute you for God)
I'd give it all to you
Letting go of me
Reaching as I fall
I know it's already over now
Nothing left to lose
Loving you again
I know it's already over, already over now

(Substitute you for satin)
My best defense, running from you
I can't resist, take all you want from me
Breaking slowly

(Substitute you for God)
I'd give it all to you
Letting go of me
Reaching as I fall
I know it's already over now
Nothing left to lose
Loving you again
I know it's already over, already over now!

You're all I'm reaching for
It's already over
All I'm reaching for!
It's already over now

I'd give it all to you
I offer up my soul
It's already over, already over now!

Give it all to you
Letting go of me
Reaching as I fall
I know it's already over now
Nothing left to lose
Loving you again!
I know it's already over now!
It's already over now!
I know it's already over, already over
-----------------------------------------------------------------

These attacks will come every time Satin feels threatened that the person is doing something God wants them to do. Even when you are taking the final measures to keep Satin out the victim will be under attack. So here is the final step.

First you ask and make certain that this person wants this to stop and that they have God know that.

ROMANS 12:1 - 2
"Therefore I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices," So in order to receive this deliverance you have to sacrifice your life.

"holy and pleasing to God - " You can't allow yourself to be anything but Holy and Pleasing to God you have to turn from your old ways. You want him to make you Holy and Pleasing to him.

"this is your spiritual act of worship." This is how you please God.

"Do not conform any more to the pattern of this world," Turn away from what you were doing and just follow God's Will.

"but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. " The Mind is Satin's gateway into your body. Have God transform it so that Satin can't enter it any more without you letting him in. When Satin tempts you to sin he can't confuse you so you don't know what your doing with logic and excuses.

"Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will." Now Satin can't mess with you any more and if he tells you otherwise you tell him to get lost in Jesus Name. He can no longer enter your mind. He can tempt you but you will know it.

After you have the victim pray for all of this he will be free. At each part I broke up above he needs to pray to God with his lips and ask for these things to come to pass in his or her life. That's the solution.

Now as you can see it's not that satin will stop attacking you but that you will know when he is and will be able to prevent it. By the renewing of your transformed mind in Christ you can recognize satin's death traps before it even starts. In the case of my friend he won't do anything unless he checks with God first because he knows what will happen if it's not God's will!

I am willing to come and speak about this in Dayton if you wish Pastor. Like I said I have that song Already Over by RED on a DVD album and anonymous person says it's the best way to get people to understand what's happening.

The reason I could not understand this before was because God has always guarded my heart and mind against Satin and so I could not understand this any other way.

----------------------------------THE UNSAVED----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I said before Satin has to be desperate to attack someone in the way described above so why would he attack the unsaved? What if in the near future someone was to be led to Christ that God would use in such a way that it was very threatening to satin, or what if there was no other way to prevent that person from going to heaven? These are just some of the potential reasons I can think of as to why Satin would use these advanced tactics on the unsaved.

So of course it's still important to do things as described above to break the cycle but if someone does not know Christ or have salvation in their lives can they be free? NO! Without the spirit of the Lord inside them it won't work. They can temporarily cast Satin out in Jesus Name and they can be free for that moment but in the long run they must turn their entire lives over to Christ. Lets turn back to ROMANS 12:1 - 2
"Therefore I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices," So in order to receive this deliverance you have to sacrifice your life.

"holy and pleasing to God - " You can't allow yourself to be anything but Holy and Pleasing to God you have to turn from your old ways. You want him to make you Holy and Pleasing to him. REPENT.

"this is your spiritual act of worship." This is how you please God. You don't need to do anything else but worship him and follow his will and turn from the worldly ways.

"Do not conform any more to the pattern of this world," Turn away from what you were doing and just follow God's Will. REPENT. Ask for forgiveness from Jesus Christ and be saved. See John 3:16 and 5:24 and 3:3 where it is said that we must be born again. This rebirth is exactly what we are talking about here.

"but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. " The Mind is satin's gateway into your body. Have God transform it so that satin can't enter it any more without you letting him in. When satin tempts you to sin he can't confuse you so you don't know what your doing with logic and excuses.

"Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will." Now satin can't mess with you any more and if he tells you otherwise you tell him to get lost in Jesus Name. He can no longer enter your mind. He can tempt you but you will know it. ROMANS 12:1 - 2
"Therefore I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices," So in order to receive this deliverance you have to sacrifice your life.

"holy and pleasing to God - " You can't allow yourself to be anything but Holy and Pleasing to God you have to turn from your old ways. You want him to make you Holy and Pleasing to him.

"this is your spiritual act of worship." This is how you please God.

"Do not conform any more to the pattern of this world," Turn away from what you were doing and just follow God's Will.

"but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. " The Mind is Satin's gateway into your body. Have God transform it so that Satin can't enter it any more without you letting him in. When Satin tempts you to sin he can't confuse you so you don't know what your doing with logic and excuses.

"Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will." Now Satin can't mess with you any more and if he tells you otherwise you tell him to get lost in Jesus Name. He can no longer enter your mind. He can tempt you but you will know it.

And now that you have sacrificed yourself to Christ and turned yourself over to him he will guard your mind and let you know when satin is attacking you.

And now of course it is important to explain the Holy Spirit and how it is he that makes us aware of Satin's presence and allows us to fight him.

-------------------------------------------------------------THE OTHER ATTACKS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some times all satin needs to do is delay us to stop an imminent threat. In these cases he just needs to buy time by making us distracted either by making us mad at each other, God, or distracting us with temptations such as different lusts for alcohol, drugs, drinks, tv, video games, work, business, or other worldly things.

Justin Breithaupt.

Direct Effect Live.com

ultumix — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:33:17 CST

BE WARE OF DirectEffectLive also known as BLAKE! He has been known to use aliases such as The Church Of Rock to steal money from people in exchange for temporary ftp servers that don't last longer than a couple weeks. These FTP servers are restricted and the person looses all of the money they pay Blake and never get it back! Anyone responsible for providing the user Ultumix with Blake's location, home phone, ect. to contact his parents and let them know what he is doing will be promoted to a moderator on this site. Blake is a minor doing Business ilegally. Thanks.

About Us:
Welcome to my page. I do Tech/Gaming news on my show with my Friends. I am also in a great podcast DirectTec. Email me at web@directeffectlive.com. Also read my blog I update it almost everyday. Please subscribe to my YouTube channel.

- DirectEffect

Websites:
www.directeffectlive.com
www.blog.directeffectlive.com

www.youtube.com/DirectTalk

Latest Video:

Atheism

i'mnothere — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:51:38 CST

What is Atheism? How is Atheism Defined?:
The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

The informatin below from Mark Thomas is a well laid out definition and answers many of the quesitons people as Atheist. The article is rather long. Unfortunately, WetPaint does not allow for "bookmarks". In the next few weeks I will go through and create subpages so that this one page is not so huge and you can jump to the area you want to read about.

Why Atheism? by Mark Thomas
I’m an atheist because there's no reliable evidence for any god, or even for Jesus. There is also extensive evidence that all gods are fictional characters — myths created mainly by primitive people who had little understanding of how our universe operates. We all like myths and other stories, but we don't have to believe them.

History and Development of Science and Scientific Naturalism
Let’s start with a quick experiment. You can grab three coins and actually do the experiment, or just do a thought experiment. Drop one coin and watch it fall. Do this again. Hold out the third coin. If you were to do this again, what do you think would happen? If you could get ten good Christians to pray that this next coin wouldn’t fall, would it still fall? How about one thousand faithful Muslims? How about one billion people of any faith? I think that it would still fall. Drop the third coin. Our understanding of the world around us, and our abilities to predict what will happen are based on naturalism — the basis of science. Naturalism is how all people live their lives most of the time. To be explicit, modern science relies on methodological naturalism. This means that science doesn’t incorporate any supernatural or religious assumptions and doesn’t seek any religious or supernatural explanations. Science depends, too, on mathematics, which also has no religious or supernatural component. OK, let’s do another experiment. If you were to take two coins and glue them together, then drop them at the same time as you drop a single coin, would they fall twice as fast as the single coin? Aristotle thought so 2300 years ago, and for over 1900 years, his ideas were what was taught about this and many other subjects. Some of the other ancient Greeks had many ideas that are now a basis for modern science, engineering, math, philosophy, and democracy. Unfortunately for humankind, these ideas were largely forgotten for almost two thousand years while religion took control and Aristotle was revered as the source of supposedly scientific knowledge.

Galileo and Empirical Science

Around 1600, Galileo had a new idea for his culture. He decided to do something that now seems like common sense — to actually test the idea of what we now call gravity. He reasoned that two weights held together would fall at the same rate as one weight. Then he did experiments to test the idea — and, not surprisingly to us, it was true. This was the start of modern empirical science, and our collective understanding of the universe hasn’t been the same since. “Empirical” is a word that I'll be using a lot. It refers to ideas that are capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. Empirical evidence is not simply one type of evidence, but rather it is the only evidence that we can rely on, because it is reproducible. Empirical evidence is the basis for physical science. Galileo also took the new invention of the telescope, refined it, and used it to look at the night sky. He was astounded. On the moon he could see mountains and valleys. It wasn’t just some strange heavenly object; it was probably made out of the same stuff as Earth. In 1609 Galileo looked at Jupiter and discovered that he could see four moons. If moons orbited Jupiter then not everything orbited Earth, as the Catholic Church taught. Astronomy made more sense if the theories of Copernicus were true, and Earth and the other planets orbited the sun. This was what Galileo taught, and in 1616 he was subject to the Inquisition. They banned him from teaching this idea, which was opposed to the true faith and contrary to Holy Scripture. However, Galileo later got permission from the pope (a friend of his) to write a book, as long as the Church's ideas and Galileo's were given equal weight. Galileo's book did not treat the two ideas equally, of course, so he was called to Rome in 1632 by the Catholic Church’s Inquisition, and told to recant his heretical ideas. This was no “simple request” by the Church. The Inquisition had already executed Galileo’s friend Giordano Bruno. Have you heard of him? In 1600, the Christian authorities in Rome took him out of the dungeon he had been in for eight years, drove a nail thru his tongue, tied him to a metal post, put wood and some of his books under his feet, and burned him to death. Bruno’s crime was writing ideas that the Catholic leaders didn’t like — Earth revolves around the sun, the sun is a star, there might be other worlds with other intelligent beings on them, Jesus didn’t possess god-like power, and souls can’t go to heaven. For these heretical ideas, the Catholic Church punished this brilliant man with an agonizingly slow death. Bruno was not the only man executed by the Christians for heretical ideas. Over the centuries, millions were killed for heresy (which often meant simply being the “wrong” type of Christian). Sometimes it was more explicit heresy which threatened the church's lock on truth. The Italian freethinker Lucilio Vanini suggested that humans evolved from apes. In 1618 he was tried in France and found guilty of atheism and witchcraft. He had his tongue cut out, he was hanged, and his body was burned — as was customary with all heretics. Six years later the French Parlement even decreed that criticism of Aristotle was punishable by death, and many more heretics were burned. Galileo no doubt knew what he was up against. For the crime of heresy the Inquisition could put him in a dungeon, torture or even execute him. So, after a long trial, this proud 70 year-old man obediently got on his knees and dutifully recanted. But even after recanting, he was still sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. The Catholic Church officially condemned heliocentrism 31 years later, when Pope Alexander VII banned all books that affirmed Earth’s motion. However, even as powerful as the Church was, they could not hold back the tidal wave of scientific discovery. The Church eventually lost its battle over our view of the universe, but it only took them over three hundred years to admit it. In 1992, after 12 years of deliberations, they grudgingly noted that Galileo had been right in supporting the Copernican theories. Even then, they ascribed his genius to God, “who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions.” But no such reprieve has been given for Bruno. His writings are still on the Vatican’s list of forbidden texts, and Pope John Paul II refused to even apologize for the Catholic Church's torture killing of Bruno. Galileo and others started something big — empirical science. Thru science, we have come to a good understanding of the workings of the world and universe around us. The weather, lightning, thunder, the planets and stars, disease, and life itself all function based on fairly well understood principles. A god doesn’t control them; the physical properties of matter and energy do. This principle is at the center of naturalism — the idea that only matter and energy exist, and they have properties that are repeatable, understandable, and quantifiable within the limits of quantum mechanics. We take this idea so for granted that we typically don’t realize that it is based on several articles of faith. This faith, however, is quite different from religious faith. This faith is based on past experience and results. It is the faith that:

There is an external world that exists independently of our minds.
There are quantifiable natural laws that describe how things happen in this world, and we can attempt to understand them.
These natural laws won’t change when we’re not looking; the universe isn’t totally chaotic.

So far, this faith has been well founded, as shown by the amazing accomplishments of modern science, engineering and medicine.

God of the Gaps, or Argument From Ignorance

Until just a couple of hundred years ago, most people thought that a god or gods controlled everything. Why did the wind blow? Why was there lightning and thunder? Why did the sun, moon, and stars apparently go around Earth? Why did someone get sick and die? Why did anything happen? Well, obviously, God did it. If a person doesn’t know how something works or why something happened, they can say, “God did it.” This is known as the “god of the gaps,” or the “argument from ignorance,” and it is at the heart of the conflict between science and religion. Science looks for natural causes, while religion looks for supernatural causes. Science is steadily winning, because as we understand more and more about the universe, the gap where a god might function grows smaller and smaller. Every time we learn more, gods have less room to operate. When we learned what caused the sun to apparently move across the sky, there was no need for the Greek god Helios and his chariot. When we understood what caused lightning, there was no need for the Greek god Zeus, the Roman god Jupiter, or the Norse god Thor. In fact, the understanding of lightning was one of the first areas of battle between science and Christianity. When Ben Franklin discovered that lightning was just a big electric spark, he invented the lightning rod. It was enormously successful at preventing buildings from being struck by lightning. However, this caused a bit of a conundrum for the church leaders; should they trust in their god to prevent lightning strikes on their churches, or should they use these new lightning rods? Up until then, lightning hit churches much more frequently than other, more “deserving” buildings — such as taverns or houses of ill repute. “Why was that?” they might have wondered. Could it be that churches had spires and were taller, or was it SATAN and his WITCHES? …… Actually, that is what they often believed, and many a supposed witch was executed for having caused the destruction of a church. When they started putting lightning rods on churches, witch killings stopped soon thereafter. However, the obvious fact is that they were putting their trust in science and lightning rods, not religion and prayer.

Why God(s)? Why Not?

The idea of an all-controlling, caring supernatural god is a very attractive one. It can make our mortal lives seem less frightening, more comforting. Somebody’s in control and won’t let bad things happen to us. Many gods also promise that we can go to heaven after we die, to live forever in some sort of bliss. The idea of a god is also an easy answer to questions about the world around us. It satisfies a need that many people have where they would rather be certain than right. Where did the universe come from? A god created it. Where did life come from? A god created it, too. Where did humans come from? A god created us, and in his own image, to boot. Religious philosophers have tried for thousands of years to prove that there is a god or many gods. They have come up with many arguments. We will look at these arguments. Because I live in a largely Judeo-Christian society, when I refer to God with a capital ‘G’ I will be referring to the Judeo-Christian god Yahweh (a.k.a. Jehovah) and probably the Muslim god Allah. This god is male and is typically defined as having free will, and being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-good), perfect, eternal, and unchanging. This god also created the universe and is separate from the physical world while still intervening in the physical world. After all, what good is a god that doesn’t do anything? Most of the arguments I use here will also apply to most of the other thousands gods created by humankind, and most of the thousands of religions. I certainly don’t know all of them, so I will deal with most of the major religions and their god(s). I will also closely link god(s) and religion. I do this advisedly because, for most people, one could not exist without the other. In addition, if there were a god I would think that this god would be able to appropriately guide the religions created for it. There is at least one religion, essential Buddhism as taught by Buddha, which does not have a god or any supernatural component. To keep things a bit simpler here, the arguments I make regarding religion will probably not apply to essential Buddhism or any other religion without a supernatural component. However, almost all religions have grown from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created just for our benefit. We need to define “atheism.” Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods. For many, atheism is also the conclusion that no gods exist, based on the complete lack of evidence for any god. I take the strong atheist position — depending on how we define “God” we can prove that it does not exist, and I will use the typical definition just given for the Christian god Yahweh. Why am I doing this? Is it just because I want to poke holes in people’s beliefs so that we can take away what makes them happy? No, I’m doing this because I want to know what is true, be intellectually honest, and be open to reality. And, I hope that you have similar reasons. This article is an argument in support of reason and rationality. In it I put forth many of the reasons why atheism is true, so they can be examined and evaluated. I also show why atheism is important to the future of humankind. The arguments for the existence of god(s) fall into several areas. I have arranged them into these categories:

Mysticism and Revelation
“Scientific” Claims
Love and Morality
Appeals to Authority
Prophesy and Miracles
Appeals to Faith, Logic, and Emotion

What Tools Can We Use?

How can we examine these claims? What tools can we use to determine truth of external reality? We have (1) empirical, verifiable evidence; and we have (2) logic. Evidence and logic are the best tools we have to determine how the universe really works. These tools have been extraordinarily successful in science, engineering and medicine, and in our daily lives. This is the standard that most of us expect in dealing with the real world; we expect doctors to use the latest medicine, and engineers to use empirical data when building bridges. Why should we use anything else for examining external reality? When people believe things without evidence, they are left with no way to accurately judge whether or not what they believe reflects how things really are. Their beliefs must then be based on feelings and emotion or the unquestioned authority of something or somebody else, not evidence. Each of us can choose between a magical view of the universe (one or more invisible, immaterial gods did it), or the “what you see is what you get” scientific version. I think that science, using empirical evidence, has done a far better job in explaining how the universe works. At the center of science is intellectual honesty. In order for ideas to be accepted in science, they must be supported by sufficient evidence and arguments. Anybody can change what is accepted in science, if they can put forth evidence and arguments sufficient to show that their new idea is better. In fact, the larger the change created by an individual, the more that individual is honored. This is why Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein are honored — because their ideas radically changed our views of the universe. With this process of change, science can grow and improve our understanding of the universe. Conversely, most religions are stuck with unchanging “holy” words from a book or founder.

Mysticism, Revelation and Experience

Some people claim that there are other ways of knowing, such as mysticism, revelation or direct experience. People claim that they can experience a god, with Christians sometimes thinking that what they call the Holy Spirit has come into them. Many claim that near death experiences have shown them that a god exists. How can we verify these claims? The “Holy Spirit” experience seems to be very similar to the well-documented experience of catharsis. Near death experiences are likely the result of brain cells misfiring when they are oxygen-deprived, and are obviously subjective. People claiming knowledge thru mysticism or revelation often don’t even agree with each other. The only way that I know to verify any mystic’s abilities is for the supposed mystic to be able to accurately, repeatedly, and verifiably know things that are supposedly impossible to know — such as events of the future. I know of no one who can, or could. Of course, we have to be very careful in any testing of such claims, because a good magician can easily fool us. Even if there were somebody who could predict the future, that does not mean that there’s a god. It would only mean that this person has peculiar skills. I submit that mysticism and revelation result from internal, altered states of consciousness — with no basis in external reality. Mysticism, revelation, and any other religious experience can only count at most for those who experience them; for all other people, they are merely hearsay. We also know that such experiences can be induced with drugs, magnetic fields, and brain injuries. In addition, religious experience seems to be highly subjective and varies dramatically between cultures. Thus, we can’t depend on mysticism or religious revelation to give us reliable answers to any issues.

“Scientific” Arguments for God(s) The biggest weakness in using a god to explain anything scientifically is that the explanation is not falsifiable, and thus not even testable. There is no way to create an experiment to show that it’s wrong. For every possible set of a test and a result, we could simply say, “A god did it.” How did Earth and the universe begin, and why do they appear to be so old? A god did it. How did life start, and why does nature seem so balanced? A god did it. Once again, why does anything happen? If we say that a god did it, there is no reason or opportunity to learn how the world really works. If we had stayed with a god as the cause of all events, our modern culture would have been impossible. We would have no real science, engineering, or medicine. We would still be living in the Dark Ages. The “God did it” response is known as the “god of the gaps” argument, and it has probably been around since humans first started creating gods. It's the basic premise behind all the “scientific” arguments for the existence of a god. Here's what the logic looks like when applied to two common weather phenomena: Lightning and thunder are terrifying! They must be caused by something else (that we don’t really understand either). This something else must be a god because we can’t come up with a better explanation. The obvious main fault of “god of the gaps” is its supposition that current lack of knowledge on a subject means that it can’t be known — that “unknown” means “unknowable.” If this applies to an individual, it’s the argument from personal incredulity — because a person doesn't understand something then he thinks that the subject must be unknown, unknowable, or false. When faced with an unknown, let's first note that it's perfectly OK to say, “I don't know,” or, “We don't know,” — just as it would have been when people in the past asked, “What causes lightning or tornadoes?” or, “Why do things fall to the ground?” or countless other questions for which we now have straightforward scientific explanations. Obviously, just because we don't know how something happened does not mean that a god did it. Relegating an explanation of something to a god is easy; a person doesn't have to think much. Finding an explanation with science often involves hard work and analysis. For the fringe areas of knowledge that we don’t understand, we are using the tools of science to learn the secrets of nature. As we have all seen, science has made excellent advances in our understanding of the universe, and will, no doubt, continue to do so. There may also be things that are too difficult or impossible for us to understand, but that doesn't mean that some god is behind them. There are three common “god of the gaps” types of arguments for the existence of a god. We have (1) First Cause, (2) Argument From Design (including Intelligent Design), and (3) origin of consciousness.

First Cause, or Cosmological Argument

The First Cause, or Cosmological Argument, says that everything has a cause, and, since we supposedly can’t have an infinite series of causes stretching into the past, a god must be the first cause — an uncaused cause. This argument was described by Aristotle, and has at least four problems. The main problem of the First Cause Argument is the idea that every event has a cause. As we discovered in the 20th century, the universe is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for events to have no cause. An obvious example of quantum mechanics in action is the radioactive decay of a uranium atom. There is no previous cause for each such event, and we can only predict it with probability. The averaging of quantum effects gives us the Newtonian experience that we have. However, Newtonian physics does not control the universe; quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity do. We now know that the universe has an intrinsic, bottom level of uncertainty that cannot be bypassed. Quantum mechanics also shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what are known as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift. The beginning of the observable universe — of all the matter and energy in it and even of time itself — is called the Big Bang. The science of quantum mechanics is only a century old, and already we've been able to get extremely close to understanding the beginning of the observable universe — with no god needed. How close can we get? Approximately a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is supported by extensive data. Six prominent facts are:

The red shift of almost all galaxies — getting greater as their distance increases.
- This shows that the galaxies are flying away from each other — at greater speeds at greater distances.
The cosmic microwave background radiation.
- This is a remnant of the radiation from the Big Bang, and has cooled over time to the exact temperature predicted.
The variations in the cosmic microwave background radiation.
- These variations fit theoretical predictions, and were caused by quantum differences near the start of Big Bang.
The proportions of the lightest elements and isotopes.
- This helps show that the calculations for nuclear interactions immediately following the Big Bang are correct.
The changes in galaxies as we look further away (and thus back in time), with distant galaxies more primitive.
- This shows some of the changes in the universe since the Big Bang, and confirms the deep time of the universe.
The change in the apparent speed of type 1a supernova as we look back in time, with distant supernova exploding more slowly.
- This shows that the light has been stretched out by the expansion of space over billions of years.

The physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth of MIT has put forth the scientific theory, called Inflation, that the Big Bang was just the result of a random quantum event called a vacuum fluctuation — with no cause, created out of the space vacuum, and with a total energy of zero. Even tho this doesn’t make sense in the Newtonian physics of our experience of the world, it does make sense in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity. In relativity, gravity is negative energy and matter is positive energy. Because the two seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled. There is also excellent experimental and theoretical evidence to support Inflation Theory. We may eventually determine that Inflation Theory is wrong or incomplete, and we may never be able to completely understand the actual beginning; it could be that we're not smart enough or that the physical science necessary is not possible for us to do. But, that doesn’t mean that a god caused the Big Bang — any more than our past lack of understanding meant that a god caused lightning. The next problem of the First Cause Argument is the assumption that an infinite chain of events is impossible. This argument is made moot by the Big Bang, which negates the need for considering an infinite chain of events in our universe. Because time started with the Big Bang, any question of what happened before is nonsensical — much like asking what is north of the North Pole. Also, many cosmologists have proposed that our universe could be part of a much larger, super and perhaps eternal meta-universe; we certainly don’t know for sure, and may never know. However, this meta-universe would allow infinite chains of events. Another problem comes from the common definition of God as perfect and unchanging. If these qualities were true, then why would God need a universe and how could God change from not needing a universe to needing one? The last problem with the First Cause Argument lies in its assumption that this eternal god exists, something that it is trying to prove. This is known as begging the question. Even a child can ask, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” If the answer is that God is uncaused, then the same answer could certainly be applied to the existence of the universe — that it is uncaused. Besides, which god are we talking about? People using the First Cause Argument always make the assumption that their god did the creating. Muslims think that Allah created the universe. Hindus think that Brahma did it. Christians and Jews think that Yahweh did it. Most religions have a story of how their god created the universe. The idea of a god as creator of the universe makes for a good tale, but it obviously tells us little about the characteristics of that god. What they are doing is explaining one mystery with a bigger mystery, and that is fallacious logic.

Argument From Design (Teleological Argument)

The Argument From Design states that the universe is so complex that it requires a designer, like a watch requires a watchmaker. It's just another argument from ignorance. Many people think that the world looks like it was designed (and by their god, to boot). Of course, the sun also looks like it goes around the Earth. It is only thru science that we know that both of these perceptions are wrong. To explain the complexity of the universe and life, all we need are the properties of self-organization and emergence that arise out of complex adaptive systems. Stars, galaxies and planets have come into being as the universe has slowly increased in complexity over time — from the simplicity of the Big Bang. Biology and paleontology have shown that life has also slowly grown in complexity over time — dependent only on the the rules of physics and chemistry. No god was necessary.

Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Irreducible Complexity

One form of the Argument From Design is called Intelligent Design (ID), which has evolved from biblical creationism. It states that life on Earth is so complex that it must have had an intelligent designer, and it is gaining strength by masquerading as a science. It’s a belief structure and not science because there is no body of research to support its claims, and it makes no testable predictions. To get around legal restrictions on teaching religious dogma, proponents of ID often say that they don’t know what this designer was; it could have been an alien or a god. This is disingenuous. If it was an alien, then the obvious question is: where and how did the alien originate? If they really mean God, which is what some of them have admitted, then ID is basically creationism with a few new ideas. So, I will treat ID and creationism as basically the same. Proponents of the Argument From Design and Intelligent Design make many claims:

The complexity of life and the universe require a cause that is not part of this natural universe.
Irreducible complexity shows that the odds against natural causes for certain processes are too great, so a designer is necessary.
The physical laws require a lawgiver.
The laws of physics were fine-tuned for life.
Science can’t explain all the features of life.
Our system of life on Earth was designed.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible.
What they really claim is God did it!

Let's start with the apparent design of the universe, and use a story of Sir Isaac Newton as an example. A deeply religious man, Newton was struck by the order that he observed in the orbits of the planets, with all of them in the same plane. He could think of no reason for this, so he attributed it to God. Of course now, thru science, we understand the gravitational dynamics in the formation of solar systems fairly well, and no longer need to invoke a god. Science is similarly showing how the rest of the universe works and eliminating the need for theistic explanations. Now let’s look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This states that any closed system will tend toward disorder. However, it does not apply to the Earth, because we live in an open system with energy constantly streaming in from our sun. This is the energy that powers almost all life on our planet. Thus the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution or any living being. Next, let’s consider the laws of physics. They are really just our current best quantified explanations or descriptions of how matter and energy behave — not anything like man-made laws. These descriptions have changed in the past (e.g. E=MC2) and will likely change in the future. We currently don’t know why the parameters of matter and energy have certain values, but that doesn’t mean that some god set them that way. The simple solution to the question of the source of the laws of physics is to accept them as brute fact, with no source. It could also be that there are are almost countless universes, each with with different self-consistent laws and constants. String theory, for example, allows for 10500 possible universes. If they exist and even one of those allowed life, then that would be our universe. This is known as the Anthropic Principle. In other words, if our universe had different laws we would not exist to see it, and thus we naturally live in one that allows us to exist. Note also that gods are (pretty much by definition) exempt from any laws of physics. So, positing a god as the source of the universe can ignore any laws of physics. If it were true that a god set up the universe specifically for us, he certainly waited a long time for the result. The universe has been around for about 14 billion years. It took about nine billion years before Earth was formed from the remnants of supernova stars. Single celled bacteria were forming ecosystems about a billion years after that, as shown by the evidence for Earth’s history in its rocks and fossils. For about two and a half billion years life consisted of only single celled organisms. Life evolved and became more complex with multi-celled organisms. It then took another billion years for fish, reptiles and mammals to appear. Then humans, God’s supposed reason for the whole creation, finally came along within the last 150,000 years or so — on one planet orbiting one of the trillions of stars. This seems like a lengthy, complex, massive, and apparently natural process for an omnipotent being that could have simply snapped everything (or just one magic planet) into existence. Using a god as the source of the laws of physics just doesn’t make sense. Once again, religionists are trying to explain one mystery with a bigger mystery. Ultimately, an “intelligent designer” of the universe or life explains nothing. It simply moves the lack of knowledge up one level, because this “intelligent designer” is left without an explanation — unless you posit either that it always existed or a “more intelligent designer” of the “intelligent designer” ... ad infinitum and ad nauseum. If it always existed, then what caused it to go an infinite amount of time and abruptly decide to create the universe? Thus, the “intelligent designer” answer is plagued with two insurmountable infinity problems. It's also important to note that life is exceedingly sparse in the universe — even if it exists on every planet and moon. All we do know is that life exists on one oasis — Earth. Most of the universe is nearly empty, and almost all of the matter is in stars or nebulae. Any sort of life that we can imagine only has a chance on planets or moons. The universe was not designed for life; in practically the entire universe conditions are extremely hostile to life. Saying that the universe is made just for us is like a frog looking at his pond and thinking that the whole world was made just for him. The core argument in Intelligent Design is the fact that evolutionary biologists can’t yet fully explain all the features of life; therefore ID claims that life must have been designed by some intelligent being. This is the old “god of the gaps” argument, and it is scientifically, logically, and historically flawed. ID is scientifically flawed because it violates the ground rules of science by allowing supernatural (meaning outside of nature) causation. ID is logically flawed in two ways. The first logical flaw in ID is that it's based on a lack of knowledge — explaining gaps in knowledge by invoking the magic of an unknown (perhaps supernatural) being. Like all “god of the gaps” arguments, ID is not falsifiable, can’t even be tested, and says nothing about the moral qualities of this unknown being, god, or gods. The second logical flaw is in the assumption it makes that, because something is supposedly very highly unlikely, something else must have designed it. What ID proponents blatantly ignore, because they take the existence of their god as a given, is the fact that this unknown designer must be even more complex, and thus less probable, than what ID was invoked to explain. The basic question is thus, “Who designed the designer?” This argument dates back to David Hume in the 1700's. Richard Dawkins calls it the “ultimate Boeing 747 gambit” because it shows the fatal weakness of Fred Hoyle's ID argument that the “probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.” ID is historically flawed because science has shown excellent progress in explaining the world around us, and there is nothing to show that evolutionary biology should be abandoned simply because it has not yet explained the origins of every single process of life. Because biochemical processes don’t leave behind fossils, it’s not as easy to explain their origins as it is for bone structures that do fossilize. However, evolutionary biologists are making excellent progress in understanding the origins and processes of the biochemistry of life. Proponents of ID have also created the idea of irreducible complexity, which is central to ID. It states that many processes of life are too complex and irreducible to have evolved; therefore a designer must have created them. This complexity comes from many interrelated parts or processes, which supposedly are useless without all the other parts or processes. This is just another “god of the gaps” and it also falls apart under close examination. “What good is half an eye?” they ask. The answer is simple. Any amount of vision is better than none, and any change that improves vision probably improves survivability. Starting with a basic light-sensing cell, eyes have evolved thru natural selection — one small step at a time. Richard Dawkins has an excellent explanation of this (and much more) in his book Climbing Mount Improbable. An icon of the irreducible complexity concept is the bacterial flagellum, with its many similarities to an electric motor — and about 30 protein components required to produce a working biological function. Unfortunately for the ID movement, research has demolished the flagellum's status as an example of irreducible complexity. Some bacteria use what is known as type III secretory system (TTSS) to allow them to inject proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell. TTSS has a strong likeness in structure to the flagellum, and uses about 15 to 20 of the same proteins. This shows that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, because a functioning structure (albeit with a different function) can be made with 10 to 15 fewer proteins. A detailed analysis can be found in The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of “Irreducible Complexity”. Intelligent Design is simply not science; it's religion dressed up to look like science to the uninformed. It is mystical pseudoscience. I'd like to address a common statement made by creationists — that scientists have supposedly never actually witnessed evolution, so evolution either: a) isn't real science, or b) hasn't happened. First, this is a gross mischaracterization of science. There are many processes that scientists can understand without directly witnessing them, such as much of geology or fusion at the cores of stars. Second, this statement ignores the fact that evolution usually takes thousands or millions of years. It's like looking a tree and saying that it's not growing because you can't see any growth in a day. Third, for many, many species we have excellent evidence in the fossil record and genetic data of the changes of the species. Forth, scientists have actually witnessed the rapid evolution of new species — the apple moth from the hawthorn moth, a new species of polychaetes fish, and many more.

The Theory of Evolution

Life is a process — not a design. It requires an explanation — not an intelligent designer. This explanation is the fact and theory of evolution. “Evolution” simply means change over time. It’s a fact that enormous changes to life on Earth have occurred. The 3.5 billion year fossil record is clear and unambiguous on this. The Theory of Evolution explains the processes that caused these changes. There are at least nine areas of study and empirical data supporting the Theory of Evolution. They are:

Paleontology (fossils)
Distribution of Animals and Plants
Comparative Anatomy
Embryology
Vestigial Organs
Natural Selection
Sexual Selection
Genetics
Molecular Biology

I will only deal here with brief overviews of paleontology, vestigial organs, natural selection, and genetics. The history of life on Earth is in its fossils, and 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. (Note that this would not be a good record for any sort of intelligent designer.) We have extensive fossils showing how species have come and gone over the last several hundred million years. Here are just a few examples: Trilobites appeared over 500 million years ago and existed for 300 million years (with over 15,000 described species). About 375 million years ago, land animals were evolving from fish. [See Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals.] Dinosaurs (with an estimated 200,000 species) lived 251 to 65.5 million years ago. Horses are descended from the cat-sized Eohippus of 50 to 60 million years ago. Whales are descended from land animals of 52 million years ago. We can even see the living evidence of this, because some whales still have vestigial legs and pelvic bones. Humans are descended from a long line of hominids, over at least 4.4 million years. The dating methods for determining the ages of fossils and rocks are well established. They usually depend on the radioactive decay of different isotopes of elements, and can be used on objects that are hundreds to billions of years old. For an in-depth explanation, see Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods. The evidence for evolution of life is overwhelming and conclusive. This evidence is not just in the fossils, but also in the body parts and genes of almost every living thing. If you have any doubts, take a little time to learn the concepts of evolution, then spend a few hours in any natural history museum or public library. If your mind is at all open, you will see the evidence. Remember, ignorance of how evolution works is no argument against it. The basic Theory of Evolution is completely solid, and will continue to be updated as we learn more about the complex history of life. You don’t even need to go to a natural history museum or library to see evidence for evolution; our own bodies have many signs of our evolutionary heritage. When we get goose bumps, our bodies are trying to keep warm by raising hairs that are no longer dense enough to help. The muscles that allow us to wiggle our ears are of no use for us, but they did help some distant ancestors. Humans also have many other useless, vestigial organs such as nipples and mammary glands on males and the tailbone, which is just a holdover from when our primate ancestors actually had tails millions of years ago. Intelligent Design completely fails to explain vestigial organs, which are obviously suboptimal. The Theory of Evolution explains them perfectly. If some god designed us and all life, he/she/it certainly didn't do a perfect job. Stephen J. Gould stated it well; “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution — paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.” Every cell in our bodies contains the evidence of our evolutionary origins. The basic process of life on Earth is so common that we share about 50% of our genes with carrots, and more than 98% of our genes with chimpanzees. In fact, humans are genetically closer to chimps than mice are to rats. Here are some useful biological facts:

We get an exact copy of the mitochondria in each cell from our mother, almost every time.
Every male gets an exact copy of his Y chromosome from his father, almost every time.
Both mitochondria and Y chromosomes slowly mutate over time at known rates.

With this knowledge, geneticists can estimate how recently any two of us shared a common female ancestor, or any two males shared a common male ancestor. Using this information and other data, the evidence strongly points to the claim that most or all of us are descended from a group of Africans that started migrating about 100,000 years ago. We may share 98% of our genes with chimps, but we have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimps and other great apes have 24. A close examination of the chromosomes shows that one pair of our chromosomes is made of two from the other primates. Our combined chromosome even shows the evidence of where the two chromosomes joined, with the ends of the old chromosomes in the middle of the joined chromosome. For more, see Evidence of Common Descent between Man and Chimp. Let me address a common example that proponents of Intelligent Design use. [See general eye diagram.] “Look at the wonderful design of the human eye,” they say. “Surely this design could not have happened by chance. It must be that God did it.” Actually, it did happen by chance — countless little chance events of changes in the gene pool over generations, all controlled by the harsh realities of natural selection and survival of the fittest. While the initial changes in the gene pool (mutations) were chance events, survival of the fittest is obviously not random. This is the heart of the basic Theory of Evolution; individuals can pass their genes and characteristics on to their offspring. If a gene makes an individual more likely to have offspring that survive, its offspring (carrying that gene) will be more likely to have offspring that survive. In effect, species are designed to fit their environment. The designer is the blind process of evolution, however, not some god or gods. Evolution creates an illusion of human or supernatural design. This illusion is so powerful that it took until 1859 for us to discover it, when Charles Darwin put forth one of the greatest ideas in science — evolution by natural selection. The faults in the design of the human eye, especially, show its evolutionary origins. [See eye diagram of retina.] When we study the retina at the back of the eye, we can see that the cell layers are backwards. Light has to travel thru seven layers of cells before reaching the light sensing cells. Then the signals go back thru these layers to the nerves on the inside surface. In addition, the blood vessels are on the inside surface and further block the light. A truly intelligent designer could have done better than the human eye. Actually, evolution did a better job with the eyes of birds (which have no blood vessels in the retina) and the octopus and squid (which have the light sensing cells on the surface). In fact, vision is so useful for survival that eyes have evolved independently at least twenty separate times, with at least a dozen different designs. You’ve probably heard people say that evolution is “only a theory.” It’s important to remember that the term “theory” in science is not the same as it is in general usage. A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. The Theory of Evolution is the basic unifying concept of biology. The CEO of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Alan Leshner, wrote, “Although scientists may debate details of the mechanisms of evolution, there is no argument among scientists as to whether evolution is taking place.” The National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have,” and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. The Theory of Evolution has as much validity as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease. It's interesting to note that the idea that the Earth goes around the sun is also a scientific theory — albeit one with extensive evidence. Every day our eyes are deceived, when we see the sun rising and setting as it apparently goes around the Earth. Evolution is thus both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that species have evolved. The Theory of Evolution explains our best understanding of the processes that cause evolution. It's a lot like gravity. Gravity is obviously a fact. The theory of gravity attempts to explain how gravity works. Actually, we know less about how gravity works than how evolution works. There is an underlying problem with the design argument, and most proponents of Intelligent Design probably aren’t aware of it. By assuming that living things have some sort of metaphysical purpose, they are intrinsically assuming what they want to prove. Purpose is an abstract human concept that exists only in our minds, much like beauty — with no physical reality. In the universe, I maintain, things have no intrinsic purpose; they just exist. Does an atom have any purpose? Does a pebble? Does a star? Does an amoeba, plant or any living thing have a real external purpose? We could say that living things have the purpose of procreating to continue their species. However, we must realize that this is just our viewpoint, our interpretation. Rocks, trees, people, and the universe have no intrinsic purpose. We can create purpose for ourselves, and that is good because it's a useful concept; but it’s important to understand that purpose is a human construct. Remember, when proponents of ID begin their arguments by noting the design and purpose of nature, they are assuming what they want to prove. Don’t be fooled by this logic sleight of hand. No intelligent designer is needed for purpose to exist, because purpose exists only in our minds. Even more basic than evolution is the field of science called abiogenesis, which deals with the origins of life from non-life. Simple experiments have shown that amino acids, the molecular units that make up proteins, can be made in lab conditions simulating Earth’s early atmosphere, and they are even found in outer space. Amino acids are not living, but abiogenesis scientists are learning many ways that life could have originated from amino acids. Remember that Earth had billions of years to create life, while scientists have only been trying for at most 100 years. Even if we're not smart enough to understand the origin of life, that doesn't mean that a god did it. A basis for the creationism idea is the concept that humans are at the center of the universe. The idea of a god used to make some sense, when people thought that the Earth was the unmoving center of creation, and humans were the reason that there was an Earth and everything else. The biblical universe was much simpler then. The flat Earth was at the base, and above was the vast solid dome called the firmament. It contained the stars and held back the celestial waters. Above that were heaven and God. We now know that the universe is almost unimaginably immense, complex, and ancient. It is the height of conceit for humans to believe that this whole universe was made just for us. Our perspective has changed. We are no longer at the center of the universe — not our planet, not our star, and not our galaxy. As people grow and mature, one of the big realizations is that they aren’t at the center. It is the same for our species; it is time for us to realize that we are not at the center either. It is also necessary to note that in order for Intelligent Design to be true, these areas of science would be largely false: evolutionary biology, paleobiology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, paleontology, archeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history. These fields of science make predictions and get results. ID makes no verifiable predictions and gets no useful results, and thus cannot in any way be called a science. A simple example of this is the field of oil exploration, where you won’t find any geologists using creationism or ID — because they don’t get results. And, with large amounts of money at stake, the companies want results. The most common reason people give for why they believe in God is the apparent design of the world. I think that this is part of why proponents of ID are putting so much energy into promoting their view and attempting to refute evolution. They realize that if the design argument were to fall, people might rethink their belief in God. Many people say things like, “Isn't that baby cute?” or, “Isn't that sunset beautiful? There MUST be a god.” I think that, if they are going to give their god credit for the apparent good and beauty in the world, they should also give their god credit for the evil and ugliness — such as natural disasters, babies with birth defects, and all the diseases. The morality of nature shows its evolutionary heritage. What loving, intelligent designer would have invented the diseases of the world, including a parasite that blinds millions of people and a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? This is part of the Problem of Evil, which I will cover later.

Origin of Consciousness

Some people claim that consciousness is too mysterious or complex to be explained scientifically, therefore a god is necessary. Consciousness certainly is complex, and we probably can't completely understand it — in part because it is so subjective; but that doesn't mean that some god is its source any more that we need a god to explain the weather. Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex living brain. Anyone who has had a mammal as a pet knows that animals can think and emote. They may not think as well as we do, because their brains aren’t as complex as ours, but they definitely think and even dream. Biology also shows us that many mammals have brains that are very similar to ours — differing only in sizes of the functional sections. Even simple animals such as worms show a very limited consciousness by responding to their environment. The more complex the brain, the more complex the consciousness. We also know that, when a person’s brain is damaged, the person can lose part of his consciousness. The sad cases where the brain is extremely damaged can result in a “persistent vegetative state” with no consciousness. A god isn’t necessary to explain consciousness; functioning complex brains are.

Argument from Love

Where does love come from? Many religionists say that evolution can't explain love, that we need a god as the source for love. Evolution actually explains love very simply. In primitive hunter/gatherer human societies (and even for many other mammals) it is strongly advantageous for a couple stay together to raise their offspring. It's beneficial even in modern societies, altho not as critically. Without love a couple is less likely to stay together. Without love they would be far less likely to keep raising their children when things are difficult. With love, children are more likely to be loving themselves — to others and eventually to their own children. Love also helps bind extended families and friends, who can help in raising the children. Any humans who didn't love were less likely to have descendents. Any humans who did love were more likely to have descendents. Evolution has programmed us for love.

Argument from Morality

How about morality? Some people say that we need an absolute morality, and that we all have a sense of morality. They say that the only possible source for this morality is their god. Many people have claimed that humans could not have created morality, that there is nothing in evolution or history that mandates it. This is wrong. In order for any social species to function, implicit or explicit rules of interaction are necessary. This is the basic function of morality — implicit rules of interaction that allow us to function cooperatively. Explaining morality and altruistic behavior is not a problem, when we understand that humans are social animals. In order to survive, we mainly need to work together in groups. Groups of our distant ancestors that had individuals who worked together were more likely to succeed. Individuals that didn't cooperate in a group might have been kicked out of the group, and had their survival severely threatened. Groups that kept non-cooperative individuals were less likely to succeed. Laws are the explicit rules of interaction. Morality and laws are human constructs that come from basic human empathy, kindness and compassion, a desire to treat others as we wish to be treated, and our need to work together — not from some ancient static scriptures. Morality and laws have evolved as humans have evolved our culture. We are social animals evolved by natural selection, so the great majority of us will naturally desire the health of our families and the peace of our communities. Evolution has programmed us socially and biologically for morality and cooperation. For god-fearing religions, the only reason to be moral is the child's concept of morality — be good or you will be punished. For healthy non-believers, we can see that altruistic behavior and morality grow out of the knowledge that making others happy makes us happy. Even other primates such as chimpanzees, monkeys, and apes exhibit empathy and morality. For more about this, see “Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior.” Of course, the natural world is not loving or moral, along with many humans. We thus have the continual dilemma of how to survive with this conflict, using our natural self-interest. It has been claimed that humans could not have had the concept of morality. I don’t see why not. We’re fairly intelligent. Human minds have created many ideas that are far more complex than morality. Why should morality be different? If people claim that their god is the source of morality, they are faced with defining morality and whether it is dependent on their god. Plato said it best, "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" If it's the former, God is not needed. If it's the latter, morality depends on God's whim. Let’s look at what happens when people claim to get absolute morality from a god. I say that such religious absolutists don’t have morality; what they have is a code of obedience, which is not the same. This god sets what is supposedly moral, and they obey. If this god were to say that murder and theft were moral, theists would have to kill and steal to act morally. Actually, this is exactly what is happening with the suicide bombers in the Middle East. This is also what was behind the Crusades, the Inquisitions and 9/11. The fact that we find this so abhorrent shows that morality does not come from a god. Gods fail as a source of morality. Many religious people like to claim that non-believers have relative morality, while they have absolute morality. However, since no Christians or Jews are stoning those who work on the Sabbath, and no Muslims are slaying transgressors wherever they catch them, they are choosing which “holy” laws to follow and which to ignore. We all have relative morality. A large philosophical problem that religious moralists face is where to get the word of their god or gods. They can get it from “divine” revelation or from supposedly “holy” books. Each of these sources faces a problem; how do we know that this is the true word of the god? I’ve already discussed revelation, so let’s look at the idea of a holy book. I am most familiar with the Christian Bible, so that’s what I’ll address. The Bible is touted by many as a source of ultimate knowledge and morality. It is said to be God’s perfect words to humankind. Have you ever read it? It contradicts itself in many places, is often difficult or impossible to interpret, and is largely simply boring. Some of it looks to me like it was written under the influence of hallucinogens. It contains two very different sets of Ten Commandments and three sets of paternal ancestors for Jesus (with one lineage just being the Holy Ghost). The better-known set of Ten Commandments (given in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21) even says that children can be punished for the sins of their great-grandfathers! The lesser-known set (in Exodus 34:12-27) tells us to not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk. Are these the words of a perfect moral being? The Christian Bible has the purported histories of many rapes, slaughters, and other mass killings, most of them apparently condoned by the god Yahweh. They even note how pregnant women were sliced open — so much for Yahweh being against abortion. In one well-known story, Yahweh drowned almost everyone and everything on the planet merely because he didn’t like the activities of some of the people in his creation. In another story, 42 children were killed in the name of Yahweh, just for calling a man bald (2 Kings 2:23-24). In addition, the Bible has at least 50 listings of death penalties — many for supposed “sins” that most of us don’t even consider to be wrong, such as working on the Sabbath. Do these tales and penalties show the actions of a loving god? The god of the Old Testament seems to be more of a capricious, petty, pathological, vindictive, schizophrenic, mass-murdering tyrant than a paragon of moral virtue, and Satan often comes off as the good guy. After all, how many people did Satan kill? The god of the New Testament is a little nicer, as described by the character Jesus. But this god also introduced eternal punishment — not a very kind or loving thing to do. This New Testament god also kept the idea of a blood sacrifice, even demanding it of his own son. If you still think that morality should come from the Christian Bible, I ask, what do you think about slavery and child abuse? Not once in the entire Bible is slavery or child abuse (other than child sacrifice) condemned, not even in the writings about Jesus. In fact both are condoned in many places; there are over 20 verses on slavery and over 30 verses advocating child abuse. Even the Jesus character had recommendations about beating and killing slaves. It's obvious that any kind person could do a better job of defining morals than what is in the Bible. The Christian Bible, its god, and its savior all fail the morality test. Jesus died for our sins. This is one of the primary moral points of Christianity, and it is glorified human sacrifice, or formally known as atonement or substitutive sacrifice. Many religions have practiced it when they killed sacrificial animals or humans on altars. What kind of morality is this, where an animal or person has to die because of what others have done? When we look at cultures that sacrificed humans, we call them barbaric and primitive. It makes no difference if the person being sacrificed agrees; it is still blatantly, repugnantly immoral and abominable. The Christian ceremony of communion is based on this blood sacrifice, and is just ritualized cannibalism and vampirism. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of transubstantiation holds that during communion the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. Using religion as a source for morality completely collapses when we look at religious positions now and in history. There are religious people with different positions on such moral issues as the death penalty, abortion, birth control, and gay and women’s rights. How can this be, if they all get the same divine words from the same god? Restrictions on birth control have added to the misery in the world by causing more disease and more births on a planet that already has too many people. Racism, misogyny, and slavery were once considered perfectly moral by large portions of humankind, and were seen as having a religious basis. Also, the killings done in the names of different gods, by most religions, are legendary. Our culture has changed, along with our laws, and these evils are no longer acceptable in modern society. Religion cannot give us reliable answers to moral issues. Morality is a social and legal construct, not a religious one. Religion and gods fail as sources of morality.

Argument from Authority

I think that most people begin their belief in a god because a book or someone said that a particular god exists. This is called the “argument from authority.” The next section will discuss using people as authorities. The three best known books used as sources for religions are the Q’uran for the Muslims, the Bible for Christians, and the Torah for the Jews. I've collected a few quotes from the Q’uran, to show some of its weaknesses. The Christian Bible happens to include the Torah as its “Old Testament.” Is it a reasonable source? We've already examined some of its moral faults. Let's look at its historical veracity. People say that archeological evidence shows that some places and people mentioned in the Bible really existed; therefore the Bible is true. This is like saying that Gone With the Wind is true because the Civil War actually occurred. Let’s first look at four biblical personages — Moses, Abraham, King Herod the Great and Jesus — and the biblical town of Nazareth. There is no reliable, extra-biblical reference to Moses or Abraham, and they are likely apocryphal. King Herod ruled from 39 - 4 BCE. His supposed slaughter of the innocents is not mentioned by any historian of the time, and is thus likely a complete fabrication which fulfilled a common story line for saviors. There's reliable evidence that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus (for more, see The Myth of Nazareth). The author of Matthew got it confused with Nazirite (one who lives apart and has made a vow of abstinence), and Nazarene (a faction of the Essenes). For more, see Theft and “fulfilled” Prophesy. Thus, Jesus of Nazareth could not have existed and was just a fictional creation. As for the historicity of Jesus, there is absolutely no reliable contemporary evidence that he ever even existed; he made no impression on any historian of the first century. If Jesus existed and if the spectacular events in the gospels really happened, they would have been noted by many writers — including Philo of Alexandria, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Justus of Tiberius, and over thirty others. None of these men referred to Jesus or the fantastical biblical events. The earliest extra-biblical supposed references to Jesus or Christ are in the writings (about 95 CE) attributed to the Jewish historian Josephus (who also wrote about Hercules), and the Roman historian Tacitus (about 117 CE). However, the veracity of the text for these references is highly questionable; many scholars are convinced Christian transcribers added them much later. For Josephus' text, it was probably “church historian” Eusebius in about 324 CE — for the Council of Nicea. No scholar before then refers to them. It is particularly easy to determine that Josephus' purported reference to Jesus was added later, because it is completely out of context with the paragraphs around it. Even if the references by Josephus and Tacitus were original, at best they amount to second-hand testimony written more than 60 - 80 years after the purported events. The earliest biblical references to Jesus are in the epistles, which were written after 50 CE. Paul and the other epistle writers don't seem to have known any biographical details of Jesus' life. They don't mention Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha. Paul doesn't even mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, or his ethical teachings. To the epistle writers, Jesus appears to have been a sky god with little or no Earthly existence (Hebrews 8:4). Paul even admitted that he lied (Romans 3:7) and that all his ideas came from revelation (Galatians 1:11,12). In other words, he made it up or got his inspiration from other religions. Five prime candidates are Mithraism, which had a center in Tarsus (Paul's hometown), Zoroastrianism, and the worship of the gods Horus, Dionysus and Osiris. All had many similarities to Christianity. Studying other religions of the time is complicated by the fact that many references to them were destroyed by faithful Christians. This problem also applies to possible early critiques of Christianity. Studying the epistles is complicated by the fact that half of the writings attributed to Paul are forgeries, and even his genuine letters have interpolations in them. Another problem with Paul is that his famous vision of Jesus, while Paul was on the road to Damascus, has all the earmarks of a brain seizure — which we now know can cause religious delusions. The main biblical references to Jesus are in the gospels, which were written by unknown authors after 70 CE (and quite possibly decades later). The very first mention of what we call the gospels was by Justin Martyr, after 150 CE. In a semi-literate and superstitious society, that's a long time after Jesus' supposed life — a long time where myths could grow. The earliest gospel, Mark, betrays its author's lack of knowledge of the geography and social situation of Palestine (Mark 10:12) - showing that the author could not have been a local. If the gospels were truly written by eyewitnesses, why didn't they describe Jesus? Why do the gospels of Matthew and Luke plagiarize up to 90% of of Mark? The gospel of John hardly refers to Jesus as a real person with a real life. Like Paul, the author viewed Jesus as more of a sky god. Also, why should we trust the unknown authors of the gospels? How do we know that the (perhaps very few) authors weren't wacky or knowingly writing fiction? All this obviously disqualifies the gospels as any sort of reliable eyewitness accounts. As David Fitzgerald, author of The Ten Thousand Christs and the Evaporating Jesus, noted, “In the earliest Christian writings, such as the seven genuine epistles of Paul, Christ is a spiritual being revealed in Jewish scripture, rather than a recent historical figure. Decades later the anonymous author of what we call ‘The gospel according to Mark’ wrote an allegorical story of this mythological Christ set in pre-war Judea, borrowing from many ancient religious and literary motifs. The idea of a Christ come to earth was irresistible; later Christians loved the story and couldn't help but make their own corrections and additions to ‘Mark's’ text, turning a purely literary creation into the basis of their own imagined biographies. Dozens of these gospels were written, and centuries later four of them were eventually selected to form the beginning of our familiar New Testament.” Christianity is largely an amalgam of several previous religions from Greece, Persia, Egypt and still other places, and is by no means unique. There were at least eight other deities (Osiris, Mithra, Hercules, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus, Hermes and Prometheus) who were resurrected after violent deaths. Many of these gods were born on December 25 (the winter solstice), had their births announced by stars, had a virgin mother and divine father (or other miraculous birth), or had tyrants try to kill them as infants. The two main Christian holidays were incorporated from earlier pagan rituals and festivals; Easter (with its fertility symbols of rabbits and eggs) comes near the spring equinox, and Christmas was formerly Saturnalia. The current celebrations of Christmas also ignore the biblical prohibition of decorating indoor trees. The Christian Bible shows its moral and rational confusion. Because many people's minds are infected with god-belief, they don't like to question their god's existence. God-belief causes people to accept irrational ideas with little or no evidence. If I were to say that banana Popsicles can make people invisible, most people would likely ask for a little proof. But, a very old book says that 2000 years ago some guy was born with a ghost as his father and a virgin as his mother; this guy did miracles, was killed and came back to life — and billions of people accept the story seemingly without question. One large difference between science and religion is this: In science, if the facts don’t fit the theory, the theory is modified or tossed out. In religion, if the facts don’t fit the theory, the facts are often tossed out. All too often, people reject evidence and the findings of science because they conflict with their religious assumptions. With their minds thus unhinged from the real world, they can have problems distinguishing fantasy from reality. What does it mean, when we believe something based on an authority? It means that we are taking something or someone else’s words as truth, without a real knowledge ourselves. We all do this for many subjects. Our first authorities are the people who raise us. This is because we are born with no innate knowledge of the world, and have to learn it from scratch. To help us learn quickly, our brains are wired in childhood to largely believe without question what we are taught. We quickly absorb whatever our parents teach us — including their religion. For most people, their parents' religion thus becomes the “one true religion” — as most of us know from experience and as shown by many studies. We soon start learning from other sources, such as friends, teachers, books and other written material. As we learn and experience our world, we develop a map in our minds of what the world is like. This map becomes a truth filter. When we look at a new idea, we typically compare it to the mental map that we have. If the idea fits well in the map, we can add it. If the idea doesn’t fit, we have a problem. We must either discard the idea, or make a change to the map. Change is difficult and often painful, so many people tend to discard ideas that don’t fit their mental maps. When we use someone or something as an authority, we often bypass the comparison process and plug the new ideas directly into our maps. This can save us a lot of research time and mental work. However, it also opens us to believing in things and ideas that aren’t true. Since we can’t be experts on everything, we thus have a problem — what and whom can we implicitly believe? For me, since I want my mental map to be as accurate as possible, I have chosen the methods of science and reason as my ultimate authority. Science and reason have been shown to be the best predictors of how the world functions. Science and reason aren’t perfect, but they are self-correcting — using the scientific method. Other sources of authority are too prone to misinformation.

Argument from Prophesy and Miracles

Now, let’s discuss prophesy and miracles. I am continually astounded at just how little evidence people are willing to accept for proof of these. Prophesies that did come true are often easy to explain, once you understand that it’s easy to predict something if it has already occurred, or that actions were done merely to fulfill prophesy, or that events or prophesies were fabricated. There are also many prophesies that haven’t come true. As for religious miracles, the evidence is so slim that they should be relegated to hearsay. One ‘miracle’ that many people use is their own survival from a dangerous episode, or recovery from a disease or injury. They rarely seem to note that many others have not been so lucky. It's as if their god loves only them (and perhaps their family), and doesn't care about the others. Of course, we never hear from people who almost survived a car wreck, airplane crash, or disease; we only hear from those who survive. I call this the “survivor's fallacy.” Even if truly inexplicable ‘prophesies’ or ‘miracles’ have occurred, that does not mean that there’s a god. It could just mean that a person has peculiar skills or technological help that we don’t understand. We all can imagine how easy it would be to go to a primitive tribe of humans and impress them with ‘god-like’ skills that are the result of our technology, medicine, or knowledge. It is reasonable to consider that we could be fooled by technology that is far in advance of our own. As famous science fiction author Sir Arthur C. Clarke wrote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Let’s consider one well-known ‘miracle,’ the resurrection of Jesus Christ. First, as I noted, there is no verifiable evidence that Jesus ever even lived. Second, even if he did exist, there is obviously no evidence that he actually died on the cross. If Jesus didn't die, his supposed ‘resurrection’ was much more possible in a purely natural sense. Some people think that the martyrdom of his followers proves the resurrection of Jesus. At best, it simply proves their bull-headed beliefs, not actual fact. At worst, they were fictional characters or deluded people. Recent examples of deluded followers are the Jonestown and Heaven's Gate mass suicides. As I've noted, the story of Jesus’ lineage is also confusing. If Joseph didn’t father Jesus, then why does the Bible show Joseph’s ancestors — with two different lists? The historical reason for the conflicting stories of Jesus' lineage lies in the fact that the idea of the virgin birth (with the “Holy Ghost” as the father) was added later. The original story had Jesus descended from David (thru Joseph), to fulfill prophesy. Another prophesy that was supposedly fulfilled by the character Jesus was the idea that he came from Nazareth. I noted above how this resulted from an unknown gospel writer's confusion between Nazirite, Nazarene and Nazareth. I've found three excellent quotes that sum up the problem of prophesy and miracles well:

“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless that testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.”
— David Hume, Of Miracles (1748) “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
— Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794) “It is a fact of history and of current events that human beings exaggerate, misinterpret, or wrongly remember events. They have also fabricated pious fraud. Most believers in a religion understand this when examining the claims of other religions.”
— Dan Barker, of ffrf.org

With these insights in mind, which is more likely — that true prophesies and miracles have actually occurred, or that they are just tall tales?

Argument from Religious Faith

Next, let’s look at religious faith. What is faith? It is the firm belief in something for which no proof exists — simply because you want it to be true. As Mark Twain once said, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Religious faith proves nothing, except the bullheadedness of the believer. If you have faith, you don’t need proof. If you have proof, you don’t need faith. Therefore, any attempt to use faith as a basis for proof is intrinsically doomed to failure. Also, what good is faith if it has you believing in something that is not true? A recent example of absolute faith and its possible consequences can illustrate the objective failures of religious faith. I ask, on September 11, 2001, whose faith was the most effective? I say that it was the faith of the suicidal pilots of those three planes that crashed into the buildings. If you believe in the primacy of religious faith, there is no way to objectively differentiate between yours and theirs, for it is all purely subjective. Religious faith fails as a proof for a god. Dan Barker, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, wrote, “If faith is a valid tool of knowledge, then anything can be true 'by faith,' and therefore nothing is true. If the only reason you can accept a claim is by faith, then you are admitting that the claim does not stand on its own merits.” Faith is the antithesis of rational thought. This is why so many religious leaders actively preach against rational thought and even advanced education. They realize that rational thought and education can destroy religious faith and result in fewer followers and less money for them.

Logical Arguments for God(s) How about logical arguments for the existence of God? Let’s look at a set of proofs for God that relies on reason alone. It is called the Ontological Argument, and it comes in at least three forms. The first basically says that God exists because we can conceive of God. One of the characteristics of God is existence; therefore, God exists. The second form begins with the definition that God is perfect. Existence is more perfect than non-existance (whatever that means), therefore God must exist. The third form defines God as the creator of the universe. Since the universe exists, God must exist. These arguments are so obtuse and unfalsifiable that they are ridiculous. They just involve confusion between the existence of ideas and the existence of real things. Simply saying that something like a god exists does not make it exist. All that exist are the ideas (in our minds) of Satan, Jesus, God, or an invisible pink unicorn. There are some people who claim that God is the source of logic, therefore we can’t even use logic without presupposing the existence of God. They say that logic can’t be created from unformed matter; therefore God formed the matter and created logic. This argument is known as Presuppositionalist, or the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. The names are fancy, and my response is simple. Logic is a pattern of thinking, and patterns can emerge from simple rules. There are many examples of complex patterns coming out of simple rules, such as snowflakes and waves forming. There is nothing in our everyday experience that indicates that some higher power is necessary for these patterns, and there is nothing that proves that a god is necessary for the patterns we call logic. Additionally, the Presuppositionalist Argument gives little indication as to the qualities of the god it presupposes — much like the First Cause and Ontological arguments. The Presuppositionalist Argument is just another way of answering a supposedly difficult question with the simple response, “God did it.” If anything is not logical, it is most religions. I am most familiar with Christianity, so let’s look at its basic claims:

A supernatural god exists that created everything and intervenes in the natural world.
This god had a son whose mother was a virgin who had been impregnated by the god in the form of a ghost.
This son did many miracles, including making a dead person alive again.
This son was killed, and came back to life one and a half (not three) days later.

There is not any empirical, verifiable evidence for any of this. There is also much experience from everyday life that virgins can’t get pregnant from ghosts, and that people who have been dead for a while can’t come back to life. Thus, belief in the above claims is illogical. There is an argument for belief in God that is called Pascal’s Wager, named for Blaise Pascal who conceived it. The argument goes like this: Either there is a god or there isn’t. If you believe in God, and God exists, then you win big time and go to heaven. If you don’t believe in God, and God exists, you lose big time and go to hell. If there is no god, then you haven’t lost much by believing. So the obvious choice is to believe in God, because it’s simply the best bet. Pascal’s Wager has several faults. The biggest problem is that it’s not a proof of any god’s existence; it’s just an argument for believing, a method of extorting the gullible thru fear. Like many other such arguments we have discussed, it also fails to denote exactly which god it refers to. Pascal’s Wager could be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the extreme, following the wager would necessitate betting on the god with the worst hell, so it could be avoided. Pascal’s Wager also assumes that God's mind is knowable. Perhaps God actually prefers independent thinkers such as atheists, not obsequious followers. Another problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it implicitly assumes that the odds of the two possibilities are similar. Since the odds of the Christian god existing are zero, the wager creates a false dilemma. Note also that the existence of the wager and the fact that so many people think that it's relevant illuminate the lack of actual evidence for God. The last problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores intellectual integrity and honesty. As an example, let’s talk about belief in Santa Claus. Don’t we have more respect for a child who figures out that Santa doesn’t exist, and says so, rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents? It’s a sign of growing integrity and maturity for children to stop believing in Santa. Similarly, adults can give up belief in a god when they realize that there’s no real evidence for their god.

Comfort, Meaning, and Emotion

I think that many people continue to believe in a god because it gives them comfort; it’s an emotional response. It allows them to pray to their god and think that they’re actually accomplishing something. It gives them feelings of structure and meaning in their lives, and makes them feel connected. It helps remove the fear of death and nonexistence that most of us experience. Belief in the Christian god helps remove people’s fear of Christian hell that has been pounded into their minds. Belief in a god also makes the world more black and white, less confusing, and easier to deal with. But, is this any actual proof for the existence of a god? Is comfort a good indicator of the truth of external reality? I don’t think that it is. The universe does not owe us comfort and meaning; we create them ourselves. George Bernard Shaw said it best. “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”

Belief in God, and How it Affects Our World This question about the existence of a god is not merely a philosophical exercise; it has pertinent applications to the world in which we live. I will talk about five areas — history, education, politics, medicine, and everyday life.

God and History

Millions of people have been killed in the name of some god, and most wars have had religion as a central cause. Religion was explicitly behind the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and the mass killings of “witches” and heretics. Many of these heretics were only guilty of expressing ideas that the churches didn't like, but are commonly accepted now in science and social reform. With the threat of heresy, the churches effectively set back humankind's advancement by hundreds of years. More recently, the leaders on both sides in WWII (like in many other wars) exhorted their people that God was on their side, and used religion to unite them. Religion is also at the root of most of today's international problems. Just imagine how much more peaceful the world would be without beliefs in gods causing so much strife.

God and Education

In education, at the same time that we have a rise of fundamentalist religions in the U.S., the youth of America are scoring lower on scholastic tests. Now, cause and effect are obviously difficult to establish for this; but it must be harder for many of them learn to think rationally when they are taught, by their parents or religious schools, such irrational concepts as creationism and invisible, immaterial beings. Also, as I already noted, many religious leaders actively preach against rational thought and even advanced education. Here are some disturbing statistics, partly from a 2004 CBS News Poll, a 2004 Gallup poll, and a Gallup poll of U.S. teenagers.

81% of U.S. teenagers think that God controlled or influenced the origin of humans. (Gallup)
65% of Americans think that we should teach both creationism and evolution in schools. (CBS)
55% believe that “God created humans in present form.” (CBS)
45% believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. (Gallup)
37% think that we should teach just creationism in schools, including 60% of evangelical Christians. (CBS)
36% believe in telepathy.
35% say that evolution is well supported by the evidence. (Gallup)
35% say that evolution is not well supported by the evidence. (Gallup)
25% believe in astrology.
25% think the sun goes around the Earth.
13% think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.
Only 13% of Americans accept the standard scientific account of evolution, without a god’s involvement. (CBS)

Belief in an omnipotent deity allows people to use sloppy logic and not have to think very hard. If they are faced with a difficult question about why an event occurred, all they have to say is, “God did it.” Then the reason behind the event is a mystery. This is the old “god of the gaps” answer, and it's an intellectual cop-out. It answers nothing; it predicts nothing; and it teaches nothing. To counter this we must ensure that scientific naturalism and critical thinking skills are taught in our schools. As students understand better how the world works, their personal gods of the gaps will diminish. If we want to have a strong democracy, our students and future voters must understand the basic facts of the world around us, in order to make informed decisions. If we want to continue leading the world in science, medicine, and engineering, we must make sure that our students learn real science — not religious pseudoscientific nonsense.

God, Politics, and Government

Ever since a tribal leader or medicine man discovered the power of mixing religion and group leadership, religion and government have been intertwined. If followers can be made to believe that they have an immortal soul that can go to heaven, then the leader just needs to convince them that their heavenly destination is assured if they obey his laws or fight his battles. Fearless warriors are hard to vanquish. Plus, other tribes can be conquered — spreading the religion like a virus. God bless America. We’ve all heard it countless times, especially from politicians. It is a very dangerous concept, for it can give leaders the arrogance and invulnerability of supposedly divine backing where they can do no wrong. It can also give them the idea that they have the responsibility to impose their religious and political beliefs on U.S. citizens and on other countries — whether wanted or not. The Roman leaders used to require that every Roman citizen pray to the Roman gods, to ensure victory for their armies. There’s an old saying that goes like this:

To the Romans, all religions were equally true.
To the philosophers, all religions were equally false.
To the politicians, all religions were equally useful.

Does this sound familiar? Our politicians keep pulling their god and religion into politics. President George W. Bush’s mangling of the wall separating state and church is well documented. In 1954, when President Eisenhower signed the bill adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, his words explicitly showed that the idea was to link religiosity and patriotism. In 1988 President Reagan established the National Day of Prayer. On March 27, 2003, House Resolution 153 passed by an overwhelming vote. It urges the President to issue a proclamation “designating a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States.” We are “to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings,” and “to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our nation.” The Senate unanimously passed a similar bill. These government actions violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. I say that we are becoming a de facto theocracy. Do you agree? Religion has entered policies of the U.S. federal government. Faith-based groups are receiving billions of federal dollars, with little or no oversight. Federally sponsored sex education courses often follow Christian ideas, and don't teach facts that would help our youth deal with their sexuality. The FDA has based rulings concerning contraception on religious grounds, despite contradicting findings from their science boards and even the will of a vast majority of the U.S. population. President George W. Bush used his first veto to block funding of stem cell research, because of his religious views. Religion has even entered into laws of most of our states. Nine states discriminate against atheists in their constitutions, with seven states prohibiting atheists from holding office. One state even prohibits atheists from testifying in court. Fortunately, these laws aren't followed. Many states prohibit same-sex marriage, based on religious ideas. Thirty-nine states allow religious exemptions from child abuse or neglect charges, while thirty-one states allow a religious defense to a criminal charge. Parents can beat their children or allow them to die without needed medical help, and then basically claim, “God said I could.” A basic source of incompatibility between religion and democracy lies in how each deals with points of view that disagree. Religion is usually based on divisive absolutes like right and wrong, good and evil, God and Satan, us and them. Democracy needs to be based on compromise. This is why democracy functions best when religion and its divisiveness are kept out of government. True freedom must give us the ability to do and say what many others may disagree with, or freedom means little. It’s always easy to allow people to do what you agree with. The real test of freedom comes when people say or do what you disagree with. This is another reason why religion must be kept out of a democratic government. Few religions grant other than mild disagreement — often branding critical or disliked ideas and people as heretical. Democracy, however, thrives best when people are willing to openly disagree. Many religious and political leaders say that our freedoms and liberties come from God. I say that freedoms in a society do not exist without the ability to enforce them. In the U.S. this power originates in our Constitution and is implemented by our officials enforcing it. In many ways, we can say that our government created our freedoms. If God is the source of freedom, why was there so little of it before our nation was formed? And, why does it take a government to enforce that freedom? Before the U.S. was founded, most governments and religions worked together to stay in power — limiting whatever rights and freedoms the common people might try to obtain. The concept of a religion actually promoting the rights of the individual is a relatively recent development. It’s important to remember that the U.S. was founded as the first country that derived its power from a purely secular, nonreligious basis. All nations before then had kings and queens who often used their supposed “God-given divine right” to rule. Instead of this top-down power structure, our founders wisely created a government that derived its powers from the consent of the governed. This is why our Constitution begins with “We the People...” The United States was also founded in direct contradiction to the Christian concept of submission to the current government, as put forth in Romans 13:1-7. These verses are a biblical source of the “God-given divine right” of rulers, and state that God established the authorities — so rebelling against them is rebelling against God. Fortunately, our founding fathers were more interested in human rights than the rights of the Christian god and his minions. Our nation’s founders also realized the inherent divisiveness of religion and the many bloody wars that had been fought over religion, and kept it specifically out of our Constitution and government. God is not even mentioned in our Constitution. Religion is only mentioned twice — both times to keep religion and government separate. The Treaty of Tripoli, written during the administration of President George Washington, signed by President John Adams, and unanimously approved by the Senate, stated, “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” How could we as a nation have forgotten such an important fact? Many Christians are still trying to make the United States a Christian nation. They will point out that many of our founding fathers were religious, and that “God” and “Creator” are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. What they don’t mention is the fact that the religion of some of the founding fathers was deism — not Christianity, the fact that the Declaration of Independence refers to “Nature’s God” — a deistic god (not the Christian god), and the fact that the Declaration of Independence is not a basis of our government — the Constitution is. What these Christians also won't mention is that, altho the founders were largely religious, they saw the wisdom in separating government and religion. It’s often said that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. The phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, when he wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” This was in a letter to a Baptist church, to reassure them that the U.S. would keep religion and government separate. The Baptists were painfully aware of that danger, because of their own recent experiences of not being the favored religion in some states and other countries. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun said it best. “A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.” Many people claim that the atheism of Nazi and Communist countries shows the supposed evils of atheism. For Nazism we must note that Germany was largely Christian, their army and badges had Christian themes, and even Hitler said he was Catholic. Also, in the 1930's and 40's Germany was paying the Vatican about $100 million per year. It's easy to conclude that this money helped persuade the pope from doing anything substantial about the Holocaust. It's also astounding that no German leader was excommunicated from the Catholic Church because of the Holocaust. The best response about Communism comes from David Fitzgerald. “Atheism is nothing more than a conclusion. There are plenty of people in this world who are atheists, but this doesn't mean we share values. Communism is a perfect example. Communism is for all practical purposes, a political religion: It is totalitarian, it venerates its sainted founders, it has sacred dogma that cannot be challenged; it persecutes its heretics, it does not brook disobedience, it feels no compunction against twisting science for its own means. Even its touted 'atheism' is simply a defensive reaction against its rival religions. It has nothing in common with the free thought of Paine or Jefferson, or the humanism of Dawkins or Einstein.” When religion, communism, racial purity, or other dogmatic ideas are combined with government, just about anything can be justified "for a higher cause." This is why democracy must be kept free of religion and similar ideas.

God, Medicine, and Science

Let’s look at religion and medicine. Religious leaders have consistently come out against medical advances. Hundreds of years ago, they were against autopsies and medical use of cadavers for research. In the 1800’s Christians fought the use of anesthetics on the ground that suffering is God’s will and therefore must be endured. This was particularly true for a woman’s pain during childbirth, because they could quote the Bible to support their position. Currently, some religious groups prohibit life-saving blood transfusions. Children die every year because their parents withhold medical treatment, trusting in their god instead. Many religious leaders are attempting to prevent access to birth control, disease prevention, and information about sexuality. They act as though they would prefer to see people dying of disease or starvation, rather than allow the population to have “forbidden” products and information. Recently some have come out against very promising areas of medicine, such as fetal cell research, stem cell research, and therapeutic cloning. They have also convinced the U.S. government that these areas of research should be prohibited or severely limited. This has real implications for reducing the possible medical treatments available for each of us and our descendants, and for tens of millions of people in the world who have spinal cord injuries and diseases such as Parkinson's. Not all religions want this research limited; but many do, and they fail the medical test. One of the real evils that I see in both Islam and Christianity is that they take pre-hormonal kids and teach them that sex and even thinking about sex are wrong. Then the hormones hit, and the kids will think that they are sinful and evil. Unfortunately for them, their religion has the solution — prostration before their god and dedication to the religion. It's an effective and sick process. Most religions base their beliefs on a “holy” book or interpretations of the holy book by their religious leaders. Because the holy book is fixed, it cannot change to account for advances in our understanding of the world. Religions thus have an intrinsic goal of resisting change or even returning to a supposedly better past. Science, however, has as its pre-eminent goal the improved knowledge of the world and universe. This conflict has been played out almost countless times. Galileo's problems with the Catholic Church are a classic example. More recently, all the resistance to the Theory of Evolution is religiously based. How far could humankind have advanced by now if not for the hindrance of religion?

God and Everyday Life

Let’s look at God and everyday life. If there really were a personal god, the existence of this god would be an obvious fact in the universe. This god would be reaching into events in the world, and bypassing the laws of physics to influence the outcomes. People who lost limbs might have them re-appear. Babies killed in fires might come back to life. Other true miracles would happen. I’ve seen none of this, and I know of no one else who has either. In fact, there is no reliable evidence of any divine intervention, ever! God fails the reality test of everyday life. We’ve looked at religion and history, education, politics, medicine, and everyday life. “What’s the harm in religion?” some people say. I think that I’ve shown some of the harm. Religion is divisive and poisonous to rational thought. Madalyn Murray O’Hair summarized it well when she said, “Religion has ever been anti-human, anti-woman, anti-life, anti-peace, anti-reason and anti-science. The god idea has been detrimental not only to humankind but to the earth. It is time now for reason, education and science to take over.”

God is Just an Idea What could an invisible, immaterial god be like? This immaterial god would have an immaterial mind, and the only minds that we have any examples of result from physical brains. The only invisible, immaterial things that I know of are ideas, like mathematic, scientific and social concepts. Although ideas can be powerful in moving people to action, they are abstract human creations and have no separate reality. If humankind were to disappear tomorrow, so would ideas — including the idea of a god. The English language even has a term for this: “reify” — which means “to regard something abstract as real or concrete.” The god idea is about as abstract as possible, with no real evidence for existence. However, people have been regarding some god or gods as real for thousands of years. Where did this “god” idea come from? Humans are pattern-seeking animals. We see patterns everywhere, such as similarities between different types of plants, animals and people. To a great degree, this capability has served us well by helping us understand and adapt to our environment. It also causes us to see patterns where they don’t really exist — the man in the moon, clouds, Rorschach tests, and “intelligent” design in the universe. This is where the god idea comes from. Michael Shermer said it best. “The concept of God is generated by a brain designed by evolution to find design in nature (a very recursive idea).” Because we are sentient, social beings, our brains are wired to interact with other such brains. This capability is easily subverted, and we often anthropomorphize animals and even objects — giving them “human” qualities. The god concept can be seen as simply the result of people anthropomorphizing the universe. Also, because each god is just a projection of people's minds, he usually agrees with them.

Proofs and Qualities of God(s)

Ultimately though, it’s not necessary to prove that a god doesn’t exist. It is up to the god-believers to prove that their god or gods exist, for they are making the assertion of the existence of something that is not immediately visible. For example, if I were to claim that there's an invisible ten-foot tall pink unicorn standing next to you, and demand that you feed her, you could justifiably expect some sort of hard proof. The same concept of proof lies with those who claim that an invisible, immaterial god exists. Thus, even if all proofs of the nonexistence of gods were to fail, it would still be necessary for theists to prove the actual existence of their god, if they expect us to take them seriously. Some people say that we can’t prove that a god doesn’t exist; to do so we would have to have absolute knowledge. This is wrong. Depending on how we define a god, it's possible to prove that it is self-contradictory and can’t exist, just like it's possible to prove that square circles can’t exist. Let's first discuss the Christian god Yahweh, which, as I've noted, is typically defined as having free will, and being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-good), eternal, and unchanging. Many Christian philosophers also add other attributes to Yahweh (a.k.a. God), such as unknowable, ineffable, incomprehensible, transcendent, and of course supernatural — because they don’t want to limit a supposedly infinite being. How can we conceive or even logically discuss these characteristics? Any in-depth analysis ends in confusion, contradictions, and irrational nonsense. First, it’s important to note that humans concocted all of these qualities of Yahweh, and have they no examples in the real world — much like the capabilities of Superman. To get a better understanding of what Christians really mean, we can also substitute “magical” whenever we see “supernatural.” Yahweh’s typical qualities sound pretty good. Unfortunately these attributes are mutually exclusive and can’t all exist in one being, no matter how supernatural it is. Yahweh can’t have free will and be omniscient and omnipotent. If Yahweh knows the future, Yahweh would be unable to change it, and thus could not be omnipotent. As a simple example, let’s say that Yahweh declares what tomorrow’s winning lottery numbers will be, and writes them down. However, now Yahweh can’t change those numbers. Yahweh can’t both know the future and change it. In fact, an omniscient god can’t actually decide to do anything! The idea of omniscience also brings into serious question the concepts of human free will and morality. If Yahweh knows what we are going to do then we have no free will and are just characters in a play written by Yahweh. Without free will, morality for humans makes no sense. Without free will and morality, any sort of punishment or reward system loses any justification. Heaven and hell would be places where Yahweh could watch the souls he created, predestined just for eternal happiness or agony. The Muslim god Allah also suffers from conflicting characteristics. The Qur'an describes Allah as the Compassionate, the Merciful, the Loving, and the Just. In order for Allah to be just, he has to punish those who transgress Allah's laws. In order for Allah to be compassionate, merciful, and loving, he can't punish without these terms losing their meaning. Thus Allah can't exist with these four qualities. Some people say that their god really does love us, but occasionally punishes us to teach us something. Because this “punishment” often involves people dying (as in natural disasters) this supposed “godly” love has little correlation to human love and is obviously concocted.

The Problem of Evil, or Theodicy

Yahweh can’t be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, because terrible events really do occur, and this all-loving god hasn’t prevented them. This is known as the Problem of Evil (also known as theodicy), and I think that it is one of the biggest problems for those attempting to prove the existence of a loving, all-powerful god. How can anybody explain the existence of such a god, while also knowing the bad things that happen to all of us and the terrible things that happen to far too many? The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus summed it up well when he wrote these ideas:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can and does not want to.
If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.
If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

And yet the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good god with free will won’t go away. So, here we are discussing this subject again. It’s good to remember that thousands of gods have been created by humankind. Monotheists don’t believe in all but one of them. Atheists don’t believe in just one more. In fact, the existence of honest and kind atheists is another proof that the Christian god, who demands belief, doesn’t exist. If this all-good god existed, it would want everybody to be saved — even atheists. If this all-knowing god existed, it would know that atheists just want real proof of its existence. If this god were all-powerful it would be able to give unambiguous proof of its existence. It hasn’t. Therefore this god doesn’t exist. As I have shown, the concept of God is also logically contradictory; God not only does not exist but cannot exist. In short, God is impossible.

Atheism, Agnosticism and Humanism The atheist position is that the universe is understandable and explainable in the naturalistic terms of science and mathematics. There is no need for a god in order to explain the universe, or reliable evidence to show that any god exists. Atheism is more than just a belief paradigm; it is a conclusion based on the lack of any empirical evidence for any gods. Reality rules. Richard Dawkins expressed it well. “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” He also wrote why atheism is useful for improving our world. “Let's get up off our knees, stop cringing before bogeymen and virtual fathers, face reality, and help science to do something constructive about human suffering.” Some people claim that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a believer. This is false. All it takes to be an educated atheist is understanding rational logic and what scientific evidence is, not unquestioning faith or beliefs. For instance, atheists (like most people) don’t simply believe or have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow; we conclude that it will — based on evidence and logic. We also know that no gods were causing lightning before it was understood. Atheists know that the same process of evidence and logic can also be applied to larger subjects such as evolution and the Big Bang. This may remove some of the ‘magic’ of the universe, but for many it can create deep feelings of amazement and wonder of the world around us. Most people seem to assume that atheism and agnosticism are incompatible. This is false. Agnosticism deals with knowledge (or lack thereof). Theism and atheism deal with beliefs. Theism is based on the belief that a god or gods exist. Basic atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. For many atheists, it is also the conclusion that no gods exist. Why atheism and not agnosticism? Many people say that there still could be a god, that we can’t totally disprove the existence of all types of gods. That is true, but most people's agnosticism ends up splitting hairs and being intellectually lazy. I’ve shown that there is no reliable evidence that any god exists, especially a personal god of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim type. This typical personal god would show up in its interactions with the real, physical world. As I noted, there is no empirical evidence of this. Thus, in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This leaves only marginal gods that have little or no interaction with humans and the world. Do we think that the ancient Greek gods still exist? How about the Roman, Norse or Mayan gods? How about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? Of course not. There is no verifiable evidence for any supernatural guy in a red suit, magic rabbit, or gods. Just like it’s hypothetically possible for an undetectable teapot to be orbiting the sun (as noted by Bertrand Russell), some gods are also hypothetically possible, but ridiculously improbable. So, let’s be honest with ourselves and look at the world with open eyes, as it actually is. Essentially, all the hypothetical arguments become rather pointless. Atheism is the simple conclusion that there are no gods, based on the reliable evidence. Until some god makes its presence indisputably, unquestionably known, I will go with the conclusion that no god exists. This is why I'm an atheist. Christians and Jews don't believe in Allah or Brahma. Hindus don't believe in Yahweh or Allah. Muslims don't believe in Brahma or Yahweh. Atheists agree with all of them. The truth is that we are, each of us, all alone in our minds. Many people have imaginary friends called gods to make them feel less alone, and often more loved. Our desire for love is a powerful trait, and it's one of the reasons for the popularity of Christianity with its sayings “God loves you” and “Jesus loves you.” Some people learn to give up their imaginary friends. It’s sometimes not easy not believing, and it is intellectually honest. Atheists can derive strength from that. There's no reliable evidence for any gods, saviors, demons, heavens or hells. They are all just creations of people attempting to flee the idea of their own mortality, and promulgated by honest people who are similarly deluded or by tricksters who fleece the sheep. People have been struggling with mortality for thousands of years. Here are four quotes that I like:

“Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?”
- Epicurus
“For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
- Carl Sagan
“We are all going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. ... The only reason we die is that we were born. Would you rather have never been born at all?”
- Richard Dawkins
“I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.”
- Mark Twain

All living things die. All planets and stars will eventually die. Current evidence shows that even our universe will fade out over trillions of years. I find this amazingly liberating, and realize that life is to be lived joyfully and fully in the present, which is all we really have — while remembering the past and projecting into the future to give us guidance as to how to live now. Many religious people ask how atheists can be happy without a god. For me and for many atheists I know, the realization of our atheism has been extremely freeing and has opened us to our innate happiness.

Atheism helps us to see reality as it actually is, without the mental filters of superstition preventing us from directly experiencing it.
Atheism opens us to experience our selves, without the debasing idea that we are innately sinful.
Atheism allows us to experience true interpersonal love, without any imaginary supernatural intervention.
Atheism gives us the freedom to think for ourselves, to construct our own meanings. We each can choose what we think has value.
Atheism shows us that we can gain meaning by seeking to make our world a better place, for ourselves and our posterity.
Atheism teaches us to take responsibility for our behaviors in the here and now, not for a reward in an imaginary afterlife.
Atheism lets us see that we have to make choices about our future. No big daddy god is going to protect us from bad decisions.
Atheism teaches us to treasure this moment, this life, and this world — because we realize that it’s all we have.

Here are three more quotes that show the advantages of atheist life and thought:

“When I became convinced that the Universe is natural — that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, of the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust.”
— Robert Ingersoll, 1896 “We experience happiness and suffering ourselves; we encounter others in the world and recognize that they experience happiness and suffering as well; we soon discover that 'love' is largely a matter of wishing that others experience happiness rather than suffering; and most of us come to feel that love is more conducive to happiness, both our own and that of others, than hate. There is a circle here that links us to one another: we each want to be happy; the social feeling of love is one of our greatest sources of happiness; and love entails that we be concerned for the happiness of others. We discover that we can be selfish together.”
— Sam Harris, The End of Faith “There is no evidence for a god, no coherent definition of a god, no good argument for a god, good positive arguments against a god, no agreement among believers about the nature or moral principles of a god, and no need for a god. We can live happy, moral, productive lives without such belief, and we can do it better.”
— Dan Barker, of Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheism also works well for free societies. Free nations with high levels of atheism — such as Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland and Japan — are among the healthiest, wealthiest, most educated, and most free societies on Earth. Denmark, estimated to be between 43% and 80% atheists and agnostics, is listed as the happiest nation in the results of a 2008 poll by The World Values Surveys. It's also interesting that Denmark legalized gay marriages in 1989. Many theists complain that atheism provides no values, no code of ethics, no standard by which to measure any human conduct. This is true, but it's like saying that quantum mechanics provides no such values. Like quantum mechanics, atheism is simply a conclusion about how the universe is — based on the reliable evidence. This is why most atheists are also secular humanists. The philosophy of secular humanism takes the atheist position and adds another layer. It declares that humans are most important, not any imaginary gods. We have the power, thru love, reason, science, courage, and vision, to solve our problems. We shape our destiny. We are each capable of personal development and satisfaction. Humanism holds as its highest goal the happiness, fulfillment, and freedom of all humankind. This has been a long and involved article, so I would like to conclude with letting you know the bad news ... and the good news. The bad news is that there is no god to watch over and care for us. The good news is that there is no hell, and we can all love and care for each other — if we so choose. Copyright © 2007, 2008 Mark W. Thomas. All rights reserved.
* A note about the spelling in my article: I'm an iconoclast about more than religion, and think that words like “through” and “although” should have cleaner spelling, i.e. “thru” and “altho.” Perhaps, thru common usage, we can improve these words. Noah Webster transformed “colour” into “color;” why can't we continue the trend?"

Free Media

ultumix — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:09:16 CST

http://www.naturalnews.com

Is one form of free expression. Other forms are digg.com. These grass roots forms of media are very controversial and raise a lot of questions but most important they make people think! So often we get lazy and decide to let the Government decide everything for us and I like the idea of making people think weather or not I support all of their ideas.

wine-review.blogspot.com

ultumix — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:58:29 CST

First of all what is Wine?
Wine is a program and not an emulator that allows Windows / Microsoft programs to run on GNU/Linux and Mac without installing Windows for free legally!

http://wine-review.blogspot.com is an excellent resource for information about Wine.
Some examples are as follows:
Installing iTunes on Wine in GNU/Linux.
Installing Microsoft Office 2007 in Wine on GNU/Linux.
Installing Direct X 9 redistributable on Wine

Awesome Rock

ultumix — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 03:59:46 CST

Awesome Rock 1

Awesome Rock 2

Ultumix GNU/Linux

ultumix — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 02:19:21 CST

TM

Click Here http://sourceforge.net/awards/cca/?group_id=200997

GNU/Linux by Previous Windows Users for Current Windows Users [1]
Home Page: www.ultumix.com [2]
Project Leader: Justin Breithaupt
Phone Number: (865) 329-7705 or skype usacomputertec
Project Forum: [3]
IRC: ultumix at irc.freenode.net
SF.net Project: [4]
Download Link: [5]
Screenshots: [6]

Mirrors: Currently None. If you want to Mirror Ultumix GNU/Linux please add your link here and contact us. Thanks. Current Version: 0.0.1.5
The Purpose of Ultumix GNU/Linux

Our purpose is simple. Mainly we accept feedback from current Microsoft Windows users or GNU/Linux noobs and try to solve their problems or meet their expectations. If we don't know how then we ask others to help us. An example of this would be when my Mother complained that she could not find templates or clip art in OpenOffice.org in Ultumix. I added all the open source clip art and templates I could find. Recently we just discovered that there is a fully GNU/Linux compatible Yahoo Instant Messenger. We plan on adding it to our arsenal of programs that are pre-installed. One thing we have learned is that we can minimize install time and frustration if we have the most commonly used programs pre-installed to increase functionality. By doing simple things like configuring OpenOffice.org to save in .doc, .xls, and .ppt formats we can make the user feel more comfortable. Support for Microsoft applications is important as well and eventually we want to give cash rewards for help in that area. Mainly overall our goal is just to get people to use GNU/Linux without becoming frustrated and moving back to Microsoft Windows or Mac. Currently we can get 9 out of 10 users to switch from Windows XP or Vista to Ultumix but only if we install it for them or give them a live demonstration. Otherwise our approval rate for the general public that downloads our software is around 50% and it is always changing. There is a FLEKTOR counter that you can use on our main page.

NEWS!

People Who Help Us

Ken Starks, Edwin Hallgrimson, Clem (with Linux Mint), Thomas with www.thenixedreport.com, Richard Stallman helps us with PR and others help us as well.

We founded www.pediaopeness.org

On 05/04/2008 pediaopeness was formed in the same way the United States declared itself independent. The administrative staff at the Wikipedia informed us that they did not offer the freedom of speech and that shocked us greatly so we felt it necessary to liberate people from the Wikipedia. More Info Click Here. Now the open exchange of information on the internet is free and open the way it should be, only restricted by US laws and good morals.

We Put Tux In The 2008 Olympus Rally (X-Games Tryouts) [7]

Similar to the Tux 500 that put an Indy car in the Indianapolis 500 I decided to put TUX on 4 4x4 foot signs and place them at 4 race tracks in Garfield County. You can watch the race and look at pictures by going here: [8] . You can also find other fun videos that we made to promote GNU/Linux at

GNUConsumer.com

After having trouble with newegg.com and PayPal we decided to start GNUConsumer.com [9] where anyone is encouraged to write a review on any product or service and let the world know what they should use and stay away from.

A Little History

Back in 2001 - 2002 a man who worked for Microsoft developing DOS - Windows 98+ retired and came back to my small town. He told me about SUSE Linux and demonstrated it to me. I was very frustrated because it was so different. I fiddled with it while using Windows XP for years. Finally when I was still in college I decided I liked GNU/Linux so much (after having been force fed it by my college) that I wanted to figure out how to make it simple for others including myself so that we would not need to use the Konsole or Terminal as much as possible. I started with PCLinuxOS 2007 and it seemed good for a while and then I decided to remaster it. The PCLinuxOS community didn't like this so they banned me from their site. Then I decided to go with Linux Mint and it worked very well until ENVY stopped installing NVIDIA and ATI drivers automatically and the Screen saver and resolution settings didn't work either. I'm currently working on a lite Slackware version, 32 bit and 64 bit Kubuntu based version for Windows users, and a Ubuntu (32 and 64 bit version) based version for Macintosh users. This time it's so demanding I'm going to have someone else make the Slackware version for me. Yes there is other history but I think I can save that for the Critics section.

Critics

As far as we can tell 90% of our critics don't like what we are doing because I support my local Lutheran Church (Christian) [10] . I feel that this is freedom of speech and that it should have no reflection on how people respond to Ultumix. We found that almost all of the people involved in the Anti-Christian movement were forum moderators from another distribution which we won't mention. The rest of the critics were Jehovah's witness. We received countless anonymous forum posts and personal e-mails from these extremest Anti-Christian groups. This was when I contacted Richard Stallman for help. He gave me wise words of wisdom which resulted in some final responses and this [11] FAQ page we came up with to silence them. Also according to the moderators at Yahoo Answers it's against their policy to allow us to answer people with the solution of using Ultumix GNU/Linux. I asked several Yahoo Answers users if they could explain why Yahoo Answers excluded us from their site. We made no mention of previous critics or why we thought that we were excluded. The response was that they thought it was because of our Christian involvement. Despite these attacks we will not give in to terrorism that would remove the freedom of speech from us. We enjoy good criticism related to our Ultumix GNU/Linux project as far as software and our UI but we don't want to hear about why you think Christianity should not be supported.
How Ultumix GNU/Linux Can Save You Over $10,000.00! The current Price of Windows Vista Ultimate: $209.99 – $319.99 Microsoft Office 2007 Professional: $500.00 Norton 360 V2.0: $79.99 Quickbooks: $700.00 PC Game Average Price $46.99 x 128 = $6,014.42 Nero CD DVD burning software $59.99 SONY Vegas Movie Studio $89.99 Adobe PhotoShop $624.99 Microsoft Money Plus $59.99 The Bible $10.00 Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 $689.99 Adobe DramWeaver $398.99 Synaptic Backup Utility $382.99 Windows Server Enterprise 2008 $2,799.99 Loosing All Of Your Data! $Priceless.00 Total: $12,731.32 These programs would be needed to replace the functionality you get with Ultumix GNU/Linux. Also you could still get Viruses with Microsoft.

Many people agree that Linux will dominate: http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_microsoft_fears_linux#comment-117987

Youth Center / Video Game Arcade

ultumix — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:04:01 CDT

Youth Center at
901 Main Street
Pomeroy WA 99347
509-843-2414

Pomeroy WA is the home to many lost children and adults that have forgotten what morality means and seem confused about how to discipline their children and a lot of these people are agnostics. In light of this spreading evil in our small town we have decided to open a youth center in town as a "Safe Haven" to provide youth and adults with a place to seek refuge from the rest of the world. We have a strict policy (click here) that protects the children from foul language, perversion, drugs, alkahol, smoking, etc.

We have found that so far these children do not cause trouble at our establishment and do not get angry with each other often. We usually have no need to inforce our policy (click here) so far.

Our organization is a business that sells game time at a very low price (subject to change) that allows most youth to afford to spend 2+ hours after school here and to come down on Saturdays. We are not open for business on Sundays but we are usually busy down here uploading our Pastor's sermons on the internet and so we allow the children to come in and play games and talk and even pray when they desire or seek Christian councel.

We do sell Ultumix and Microsoft Windows computers and repair computers but what keeps this place going is donations from the people that work here that have other jobs. Currently we are having financhial difficulties and all that we request is prayer however if the Lord prompts you to donate to us then please do. All checks must be made payable to "Computer Rescue".

We also teach children and adults in the ways of GNU/Linux and if desired about Microsoft's Windows as well.

Possible Future Game Console: http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4852301494.html?kc=rss

GNU/Linux Creed

ultumix — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:29:53 CDT

(A Spoof of The Nicene Creed) By Justin Breithaupt Copywrite 2008

We believe in one Source, of Richard Stallman, the maker of GNU and GPL, of things free and cool.
And in one Kernel, the Linux, the begotten of Linus the Torvalds, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Stallman. Writer of Code, Compiler of the Kernel, true Torvalds of true Torvalds, compiled and not made;
of the very same nature of the Stallman, by Whom all free-software came into being, in corporations and at home, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our freedom came down from Helsinki, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the Tux Penguin by the Pure Source.
By whom He took Chip, Hard Disk, and Board, and everything that is in PC, truly and not in semblance. He suffered, was mocked, was ridiculed, compiled again on the third day, ascended into The United States with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Stallman. He is to come with the same PC and with the glory of the Stallman, to judge the Free-software users and the non-free software users; of His Kernel there is no end. We believe in the GPL, in the Open Source and the FSF; Who spoke through the GPL, Programmers, and GNUs; Who came down upon the United States, preached through the Internet, and lived in the Linux Community.
We believe also in only One, Universal Community; in one Re-Format in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness for the use of Microsoft;
and in the resurrection of the hardware, in the everlasting freedom of wirting code and sharing, and the Internet and in the everlasting ideals of the FSF.

(A Spoof of The Apostles' Creed.) By Justin Breithaupt Copywrite 2008

I believe in Richard Stallman, the Father of GNU,
the Creator of the GPL and Free-Software,
and in Linus Torvalds, His only Son, creator of the Kernel: Who was conceived of the source code,
born in Helsinki,
suffered under Microsoft and bloated code,
was crufty, slowed down his machine, and was paperweight.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again compiling the source for the Kernel.
He ascended into the FSF community
and sits at the right hand of Richard Stallman the Founder of FSF,
whence He shall come to judge the free-software users and the proprietary software users. I believe in the Source Code, the Free Software Foundation,
the communion of the community,
the forgiveness of using Microsoft Products,
the resurrection of the Linux Kernel,
and the Linux Kernel everlasting.

Get A Life

Sansui350A — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:54:00 CDT

New Video Game by MindBlowingIdea.com “(C) 2008, Justin C Breithaupt, All Rights Reserved Justin C Breithaupt”
Corruption.
A massively multi player online game in 2D
and 3D like second life but also available in 2D. Both versions can be linked to each other.
Also there may be a single player mode.
The basic idea of the game is to teach people of every age about how easy it is to become corrupted and have real life rewards and penalties in the game.
Corruption is just like real life. You will start out as a Kid in school who can either become a goody goody, a bully, a hero, or whatever a real life person could become. In the beginning of the game you can choose what sex you will be and what country you will grow up in. You can't choose your race, how strong you will be, or what family you will be born into. Thats life. However you can invest in plastic surgery and physical enhancements but be careful because you might turn into Frankenstein and the Government conspiracies of implanting bugs and tracking devices into your body might be true, depending on what the Government decides to do.
In this game you can choose to be evil or good. There is a down side to both. If your evil your trying to earn negative points that are only good for those who choose to become corrupted or for exchange for items at a virtual store. No one can tell if your bad or good just by looking at your profile. Just like in real life there is deception. Positive points are only good for positive people but if a positive person hugs someone or complements them it hurts the negative person's score and makes them start to grow a continence. In real life evil people try to ignore their continence.
You can not die. You have to be accountable for your actions so you can't die. You can get attacked in the game and nearly killed and put in a hospital but you won't die. You can slit your wrists or whatever but you won't die. You will just end up in a suit in the mental institution. There is no reset or do over. After 10 days in the game your account is locked and you can't change your name or anything. It will warn you about this before the time runs out.
If your a goody and you refuse to become tainted by evil then you can be robed or attacked by an evil character who might need money or want to pressure you into joining his crew. Evil people can offer good people money to do evil things for them or things against their morals.
Good people can report evil people to the authorities in the game (police) and if the police have not been bought by the evil people then they will investigate the matter and make an arrest and the police are players that chose that job. Of course there will be a test on the rules and regulations and you will have to learn physical combat and pass that training as well just like in real life.
There will be political players who are elected by the other players as representatives and the president. They can't change the rules of the game but they can be bribed to look the other way or give money to whoever they see fit. They can do all the other things politicians do.
For an evil person to become good again they have to go to church or start doing good deeds to try to gain positive points.
If a player gets caught by authorities and is found guilty (weather innocent or not) they will serve time in Juvenile Prison if they are a kid or Jail if they are an adult. While in prison they can earn credits by defending themselves and others and trying to be on good behavior and get out with possible early parole or they can further their damage by selling or dealing drugs while in jail or what have you.
Now Evil people can choose to sell themselves (not for sex but just to have them as a partner so to speak) to others for a fee per week or month or year. Evil people will earn negative points every month for each person they own. Also Evil people who own others won't make many points because of what they have to give to the person who owns them. If a person sells themselves to multiple people in the game and the two people find each other a fight can break out.
Oh ya you can't die in this game. You can just go negative or positive.
Now good people who get married will earn more positive points and once married will share the same points. If one user is off line the other can spend their shared credits. They can earn twice as much and loose twice as much together as they can apart meaning that now that they are a couple everything they do is doubled. If they decide to get a divorce the remaining money is split half and half and they each keep what they bought. Yep thats right! Sounds rough right?
If the good people decide to take up a religion and attend a church of some kind they get more positive points. If they go around helping others that are less fortunate they get points. Everyone can have a job.
Now If a person gets into a high place as a good guy he will constantly get offers to do other illegal business at the same time. If he decides to do both then all of his income will be negative. Remember negative credit is worth as much as good credit but you can't exchange it between positive people and negative people unless they switch sides.
Now I predict that many people if not all will become corrupted. Thats where we step in. We are the undercover admits. Secret police that make sure that everyone is accountable. Say that the police all become corrupt. We put them all in jail and recruit new police. We have to maintain balance.
If you want you can try to take over the world by controlling all the companies, threatening them, becoming president, threatening to assassinate anyone who votes against you. You can do whatever you want but remember Big Brother (WE) are watching. And no one knows about us. We are secret police. Wha ha ha ha. :)
Big Brother Idea. NEW The secret police or admins will need to be able to have fun to pass the time between when they are looking for the very corrupt people. Admins won't be able to go after people that have only been corrupt for less than 2 game years and have not been evil enough to score over -$150,000.00 but once one has done both they are fair game to the secret police. There will be a reward for the evil ones that score over -$150,000.00 in the game and they will get -$10,000.00 bonus points. The admins need special powers, weapons, and AI body guards. This would be fun right? Also they need to be invincible. If an admin wanted to take down say a police station and arrest them all it may prove tiresome to do it single handedly and some could escape. If we had some AI guys at their disposal like a posy like maybe a ninja, army dude, a hot wife (for undercover work), and some bums or something that could be cool. The other thing that could be done is a strange weapon that could destroy everyone in a 50 ft radius or something could be fashioned to drain their health so they could be arrested. You could also have a handcuff shooter lol. With a magnetic tractor beam. :) admins need moves like Bruce Lee who could punch a guy and he would fly 50 ft across a room. This would just be fun and or funny to freak some gamers out. Oh ya admins can also see who is evil and who is good and for how long and their maximum credit they earned at a single time.
If you grow up to be a programmer in the game (and you will need “real” technical skills) you will be offered jobs from MegaSoft with Bob Doors as the CEO, Ultumix, or The game itself. If you choose MegaSoft you won't get points deducted. You will be assigned the task of working on the game for Windows. (I don't care if it gets done) You will get the equivalent of $140,000.00 + points a year and then you will be presented with a choice. You will find out that MegaSoft is secretly planning to embed a Restricting Program known as DRM and Trusted Computing into all their software and this is evil as will be stated in the game. Will you continue to support MegaSoft and now get a -$140,000.00 a year to spend or will you switch to another company in the game and work your way up from $75,000.00 a year to $200,000.00 a year? If you choose another company you can develop code for Ultumix or the game itself. You will get real credit based on your work. :) If you don't do so well then other jobs at that company will be offered like art, design, or other venues for the same rate of pay. The same for MegaSoft. However at MegaSoft your pay will drop to -$40,000.00 after you are demoted. At mindblowignidea you will still get $75,000.00. :)
Your conscience. Bad guys are going to have to fight their conscience when they first start going after people. If they attack someone and put them in the hospital the player in the hospital will get to have an out of the body experience or have an AI that will have an out of the body experience (their choice) and it will haunt the player that attacked them. :) As long as the newly evil player has a conscience he will continue to have to wrestle with these spirits. Also the feeling of guilt will add + points to the evil player and weigh him down. The evil player can try getting drunk, doing drugs, or whatever to escape his conscience. However this will cost him money to get drunk or high and he will get more evil points for doing the bad deeds but it won't compensate the cost of the drugs or the drinking unless he steals them. After his conscience level has reached zero he can go on killing sprees and be the evil bad guy he dreams of becoming. He will stop seeing the almost dead.
Bad guys can join a cult if they wish or start doing business with cult members. After a little while after they start doing this they will become possessed by evil spirits and their eyes will turn red (like the robots in iRobot) and they will loose control over themselves. They can talk to others and ask for help but they can't control what they do. They will do mean things to others. Then they will go back to normal and it will repeat until they find a church and get an excersist to cast the daemons out. lol. If they go on like this without getting help they will walk into the satanic church and the cult will drain their blood and preform strange rituals on them. :) The cult may even obtain strange powers that only work on non Christians. (anyone in the game that does not attend church is fair game)
Money vs credit. Items can be bought from stores in the game but not credits. 1,000 credits = $1.00. No item in the game can cost over $25.00 or 25,000 points.
Advertising should be done on Pop machines, vending machines, bill boards, blimps, cars that just drive threw the game or taxies, newspapers, magazines, in game TV, AI people that run threw the game getting up in your face with adds, etc.
One item in the game that users should be able to access via remote control or VNC is a virtual computer or a real Linux computer that's running somewhere and they can log in with their game user name (all lower case) so that they have the same computer anywhere. Imagine even on a PS2 with a Ethernet modem they can run a fully functional Linux computer. They can even buy an HP printer and hook it to their computer, ps2 / ps3, or Wii and install it in the virtual computer so they can print documents. They could even burn CD/DVDs using their own drive. (USB drive on a PS2). We could charge rent on these virtual PCs in the game with a one time $25.00 set up fee and $25.00 a month after that and a $40.00 rebate off of the first purchase lol. Because the USB drives are ported to the Linux computer they can open their jump drives on the PC. Only the user that is accessing the virtual PC should be able to access his or her USB device. You can't make it available to all users of the same computer. These computers and our regular servers would need to be backed up on a regular basis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next step would be to write out all of the different jobs(good and bad), body types, crimes, rules, items, ect.
We would need something to present to companies. Not so much a game as a trailer for the game. It might even be acted out with real people. I think the best idea would be to describe the game in the video and show some 3D characters and interaction between them like you would see in the game. It does not have to be what will actually be in the game and at the end we can say that this is a just a representation of what will be in the game and not actual footage of in game play.
Then we could get sponsors to give us money to do this and in return we would put their products in the game and advertise them. Yes on the TVs in the game adds would appear and also in the news paper. Oh add that job too. We need reporters. Anyway for the 2D game the adds could be in a ticker across the bottom with the graphics as well. Clicking on them would redirect you to a web site if playing on a computer.
The next step would be to offer cash bounties for building the game and the subscription system. (each new player gets 30 days free and a free download). You get an additional free month for every person you sign up. Money can't translate into credit in the game and the game credit can't translate into real cash like in Second Life unless your buying items at a store in the game and you can opt to spend money on those items instead of saving up.
Once the game is made and has been tested (free beta subscription for 1 – 3 months or however long it takes to get the game running right). Then we will put out the game for the Linux x86 / 64 bit and a Linux Live x86 disk as well as Windows, and game systems like the PS2 and Wii. Not XBOX 360. Anyone can download this game and burn it to a disk or request a disk for their platform.
Once the game has been out for 6 months sponsors will need to renew their sponsorships with us.
We will want to put our own sponsors in there from time to time for Linux.

Things to work on. Topics are in blue. Stem off of them.
Character types, randomization, flaws, weaknesses, strengths, body habits, movements, basic clothes, AI and real parents (adopt a new player as his or her new parents).
-Good and Evil, Negative and Positive, What is good and what is bad and what can bad people do to good people and what can good people do to bad people? If no one is trying to corrupt a player in the game then an AI needs to present offers to that person once in a while.
-You can't give up, quit, or die. You are stuck with your body, credibility, choices, and life. How can you be stopped then if you can't die? Jail, health and hospitals, demons, police, cults, mobs, the underground rebels that take the law into their own hands.
-Becoming evil and redeeming yourself. What does one have to do to be considered evil and how does one redeem themselves? (there will be a cuss filter in the game that will replace nasty 4 letter words with something like “abusive language will not be tolerated you have 2 grace period points remaining and then you will have 100 points deducted for every time you use abusive language”. There will be a list of abusive words posted on a page for parents to go over with their kids at home that only people above 18 can access.
-Police and politics. The police can arrest people for doing good or evil and can receive pay for it in return. The police can monitor meters on the sidewalks for cars, set up speed traps, participate in drug deals, go undercover, take a second job, assassinate people, or do whatever they want but if one of them is discovered they will be punished depending on if their superiors have not been corrupted. Each city will have a City Hall with public officials that set the rules and regulate each town within the boundaries that are in the states and providences that they are in in the game. Extra roads can be constructed with the tax payers money to connect more cities to each other. The politicians in power (President, Congress, ect.) are elected players as well that can decide to make restrictions on the laws that are passed in certain states and jurisdictions or they can allow each state and city to make up their own laws within reason.
-Secret Police Game Admins. Because the name of the game is corruption there will need to be admins with awesome ninja skills and strange tools like shields, the ability to lock all the doors in a building at once so no one can leave, ect. We can elaborate on this under this topic. However the main thing is that an admin can remove all of a person's assets, put them in Jail, access all their personal data and records of what they have done over the entire time they have been in the game, ect. The admins can go around interacting with people but won't be effective if they blow their cover. Each admin should have a selection of pre made advitars that they created using a special admin advitar creation wizard. This way they can have any item from any store and look any way they want at any time to disguise themselves or just to mess with people's minds like if they have a superman costume and they go into a phone booth and change and then come out and fly away. That would mess with people's minds.

The admins are like the FBI or CIA and we might even call them that in the game. With the ability to go threw all of the user's info at any time just like the Government and track their every move you can see why they won't need to act often. Only if an entire police force gets corrupt or a game player does not get caught for a long period of time does an admin need to step in. Also if an admin wants he should be granted the ability to extend invincibility to a game player for a limited amount of time if he would like to allow them to join in his efforts. Sort of like deputizing someone. If an admin is not paid and he is just roaming threw the game for fun he or she should be able to play around with anything and should have everlasting credits. However each admin should have evil radar that alerts him or her of an activity going on around them. This way they can play the arcade machines in the game and wait for something bad to happen. Of course having our programmers work on new and improved items and things for our admins to keep them entertained should be good. Admins should be able to have an AI posy that travels around with them and can have any of the advitars that the Admin has made. Also he can just push random. Better hope that an alien does not appear. lol. The admin should be able to click on an AI and then click on an action and click on an item or player that they will act on. He could even tempt a player with his AI or directly. The admins could mascaraed around as Darth Vader, President Bush, Luke Skywalker, Mr. Shapner from StarTreck complete with a federation uniform and phasers, the sky is the limit.

-Cults, Gangs, and Mobs. There really isn't much of a difference. Cults are corrupt religions bent on global domination, business takeovers, or other evil deeds and can be suggested by users. In Cults bad things can happen to you such as evil spirits or daemons controlling you but at the same time you gain super natural powers that you can use against other evil players. Your Cult leader may even be able to control you like a puppet with strings. Gangs are groups of people owned by a Gang boss and they have to pay their boss a percentage of what they make. Gangs can overthrow anything in the game and try to make money off of it. Mobs are like Gangs because of their business activities but instead of owning people they offer loans, deeds, and quick fixes in exchange for services and money. If you don't pay up they can steal your stuff and beat you up. Now good people who get married will earn more positive points and once married will share the same points. If one user is off line the other can spend their shared credits. They can earn twice as much and loose twice as much together as they can apart meaning that now that they are a couple everything they do is doubled. If they decide to get a divorce the remaining money is split half and half and they each keep what they bought. Yep thats right! Sounds rough right?
-Churches and Religions. First of all the Government (in the game) can and probably will exclude all religion from certain places in the game. This will go against the constitution and if kept up for long enough will be a violation of what they can do and the admins will step in. Churches in the game can be of any denomination that is in real life and new doctrines can form. Once a doctrine has been evaluated as a Cult or a Church it can then be put into the game. This will require a personal stance on current religions as well. It may be easier to just go with generic religions such as Christianity, Muslim, Agnostic, etc. instead of Methodist, Lutheran, LDS, and such. Only good churches can redeem people.

If you have read the book or seen the Left Behind series then that is a good idea for later in the game. When MegaSoft, Scientology, and the Government join forces to institute the Mark of the beast (after the world has one leader and the Governments join) maybe 4 years into the game or so. Then people in the game can continue to receive points but can't spend them at stores unless they take a mark. They can however band together and start a mark free city of rebels that exchanges resources amongst each other and goes out to the other cities to save the people. Once the people receive the Mark if they want to be redeemed they will have to have them cut out. Also an admin can remove the mark from people and can also be an undercover guardian angel helping to save people that are being attacked to give them better odds. They will fight with cannons, tanks, missiles, and other things that they can pull out of their pocket lol. The futuristic rebels might even build space planes that hover and shoot lasers. Who knows.

-Your conscience. Bad guys are going to have to fight their conscience when they first start going after people. If they attack someone and put them in the hospital the player in the hospital will get to have an out of the body experience or have an AI that will have an out of the body experience (their choice) and it will haunt the player that attacked them. :) As long as the newly evil player has a conscience he will continue to have to wrestle with these spirits. Also the feeling of guilt will add + points to the evil player and weigh him down. The evil player can try getting drunk, doing drugs, or whatever to escape his conscience. However this will cost him money to get drunk or high and he will get more evil points for doing the bad deeds but it won't compensate the cost of the drugs or the drinking unless he steals them. After his conscience level has reached zero he can go on killing sprees and be the evil bad guy he dreams of becoming. He will stop seeing the almost dead. Money vs credit. Items can be bought from stores in the game but not credits. 1,000 credits = $1.00. No item in the game can cost over $25.00 or 25,000 points.

Money can be stolen, earned, bribed, and exchanged. However negative money can't be exchanged for positive money. You can't accept drug money without becoming evil.

Jobs. Jobs can range from writing readme's for the game, to writing books that we publish in real life, to programing, to police work, to etc.

It's hard doing an honest day's work but to stay positive in the game and not be corrupted it's the only way to go. Please add ideas for jobs here. If you need ideas search the want adds of your local papers or papers from big cities.

The Gray Zone

ultumix — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 06:20:13 CDT

This is a book called "The Gray Zone" by Justin Briethaupt. Copyright 2008

Preface:

The Gray Zone is a book about the area between Satin's Darkness and the Light Jesus Christ. There are many Churches and religions that are between complete darkness and Jesus Christ. There is a left side (Liberal) and a right side (conservative) and the extreme of each lie on the border of complete darkness. The separations between the two sides cause each side to be divided from the other and therefore are not part of one body.

Chapter 1: Introduction.

We will start by defining what Jesus Christ the light is and what he is not (what darkness is). We will also define the Gray Zone between complete unity with Christ and certain death. Is sin black and white? How can we know if we are in the Gray Zone or the Black Zone? Is being Liberal or Conservative bad?

Jesus Christ The Light

Jesus Christ is God, Lord, King of Kings and is man in a sense of taking on human flesh and sharing our experiences. Jesus is the spoken word of God or Bible and he follows the will of the Father and uses the Holy Spirit to communicate with us. Jesus Christ is full of grace and understanding for those who believe in his name, that he died and suffered on the cross for our sins, and that our sins are forgiven regardless of if we act perfect or what we do. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of the 10 commandments and what is Holy for he followed them as a Man. Jesus Christ is not an Ark Angel and the only way to get to Heaven, receive forgiveness, or talk to the father is threw him and him alone. The Father listens to the Son and the Son hears us threw the Holy Spirit.

Anything else that man comes up with or says is contradictory to this and is not of God but of Man. Anything that is not of Jesus is of the devil or Satan. Any achievements or things we come up with on our own really come from the evil one. Love of one's self is not of God. Having Honor for one's self is not of God. Everything including honor is given to us from what the Lord has done or had us do so we can not claim any good thing as ours.

The Gray Zone

This entire book will speak about the Gray Zone however I want to specify exactly what it is in as few words as possible before expanding on it further and causing controversy. The Gray Zone is an area that we all live in who follow Christ Jesus. Some of us live in darker areas than others. If you believe in Jesus Christ and have received salvation you are in the Gray Zone and not in the Black Zone of death and destruction. The Gray Zone is not an area of death but rather confusion like a fog. Only Jesus Christ, The Father, and Holy Spirit and the Heavenly angels live in the white zone currently because they have absolute clarity (as I understand) of what is right and what is wrong and what Christ is and what he wants us to do. The rest of us (including me) are trying to interpret and discern what the Lord Jesus Christ's Word says and what we ought to do. As a brief example of this some Christians think that Abortion is always ok and others think it's always wrong. Both are Christians as long as they believe that what they believe is in accordance with the 10 commandments regarding though shall not kill. The topic of Abortion is confusing but just to get it out of the way I will put my current belief about abortion in here to demonstrate how we are all in the Gray Zone. I believe that Abortion is not justifiable if the mother's life is not in danger by giving birth to the child. Otherwise I believe it should be left up to the Mother. Many Christians will debate this with me and I don't care. The point is that my belief is probably not what Christ would define as correct but yours probably isn't either.

The Black Zone

The Black Zone may still appear to be Gray in that you are following certain parts of the Bible but the only difference between the Gray Zone and the Black Zone is that you do not have a personal relationship with Christ and that you do not believe in what we discussed in the part "Jesus Christ The Light" and you may not believe that the entire word of God is true which is the same as saying that Jesus Christ is not Holy and complete because Jesus Christ is the Word. It's very obvious to most Christian people about who is in the Light and who is in the Darkness. If you need a reality check just ask God to show you. Even if you don't believe in a God you can pray for him to show you that you are in the wrong and he will.

Is Sin Black and White?

Yes Sin is Black and White and there is no room for gray. Either your doing something right or wrong when you do something. As my pastor once told me a story about brownies he cooked for some children and told them that he put a tiny piece of dung / crap in the brownie mix and that it should still be just fine and asked them if they would eat it anyway. Of course the children hesitated and said no. Even a little wrong is wrong. Of course my pastor didn't put any crap in the brownies.

Is being Liberal or Conservative Bad?

No it's not bad it just means that you have different view points than your neighbor and than God does and lets face it everyone is a little bit one way or the other in at least one area of their thinking. All that being liberal or conservative means is that we are in the Gray Zone and not completely with God in our thinking. The more Liberal or Conservative you are though the farther away we are from Christ. There are non-Christian aspects that both Liberals and Conservatives bring to the table. We will go into greater detail into these so that we can look at ourselves and our friends and see the things that keep us from being in tune with Christ and further from the pure white light.

Liberal side:

Liberal's have several positive aspects such as helping each other and not big businesses, spending money correctly, being open to different things and accepting strangers into their body of Christ. Where this causes problems is that Liberals are much more open to rebellion or misinterpretation such as sexual impurity, perversion, drugs, new age or gnostic religions, getting into or following false prophets with new visions that are not backed up by scripture such as being beyond Church or Christ or being above God or christian worship or plant worship. Liberals also tend to justify a lot of new things. One positive thing is that Liberals often practice what they preach. Liberals are quick to take actions against things that go against their convictions weather their actions are right or wrong.

Conservative Side:

Conservative Christians know what their morals are and have a very good understanding of the Word of God and use it as their basis for everything. Conservatives are usually morally straight and are less likely to be involved with rebellion, perversion, or following false prophets with new visions. However because conservatives have such high morals they often try to get around them by making justifications and can become hypocritical. Conservatives are more likely to fall into corruption in big companies or positions of authority and are not always tolerant of other races, or people who are known to sin in ways that involve perversion, drugs or alcohol. Instead they usually resist these people and send them back from where they came or persecute them. People often feel compelled to be perfect when living among conservatives. Conservatives also don't want to deal with issues in the world and would rather keep to themselves.

---------

While each side has it's own advantages and disadvantages neither can come together in the body of Christ and agree. Different religions take different sides and different churches within each religion take different sides on Liberal or Conservative thinking. The best way to avoid this is to not try to follow any religious belief but study and read the Bible for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Pray and ask God about what you don't understand. Don't focus on religions, your faults, or difficulties but rather follow the light that is Jesus Christ on the straight path and Jesus will help you with the rest.

Religions that can or do fall outside of Christianity (The Gray Zone)

While any church group can fall away from Christ there are some specific religious beliefs that are originally founded in the Bible and stem away from Christ. The first I will discuss is the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church believes in achieving forgiveness by asking a man on earth for forgiveness. This is not discussed by Christ and Christ says the only way to the father is threw him. The Father is God and not a Man. If a Catholic does pray to Jesus Christ and ask for forgiveness and believe that Christ will forgive them and that they will go to heaven then they can go to Heaven despite whatever else they believe about praying to Mary or Saints. I would classify the Catholic Church as extremely conservative. One scripture in Genesis tells us that it's not right for men to live alone (unmarried). I believe this has led to the problem in the Catholic church with Priests molesting children. I myself am not married but I'm waiting on the Lord for him to bring me a woman.

Mormons in the pure original sense are not Christians but a cult. The part of their religion that separates them from eternity is that they believe Jesus Christ is not God but an Ark Angel and that his sacrifice is only enough to get you to heaven if you personally achieve perfection and that Jesus Christ will help you to do that. As the rest of us know it's impossible to achieve perfection or buy our way into Heaven. Statements in the Book of Mormon contradict both reality and facts in the Bible such as the birth place of Jesus Christ and made up cities and wars that have no archeological evidence. The entire Book of Mormon is founded on lies. However Mormons (in my experience) are experts at deception. First they try to lure you in by telling you that their belief is the same as yours and will agree with what you say and then slowly they will try to skew that information and tell you that the Book of Mormon is additional information from God and that the Bible is not enough. The scripture in Revelations clearly states that nothing is to be added or subtracted from the Bible. Also a group of Mormons disproved their own faith in this video the Bible vs The Book of Mormon.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is not the true Messiah while it seems others are mixed on the issue. It is clear that most Jehovah's Witnesses are very far off from Christianity and it's best to stay away from that kind of thinking.

The Jewish Religion are similar in that they reject Jesus Christ as the messiah.

Command & Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars

ultumix — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:07:21 CDT

Spring

ultumix — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:03:17 CDT

Spring really isn't a game by itself but more of a Game Engine. You have to download Mods and Maps in order to actually play the game. This game is similar to Command and Conqueror, Starcraft, Total Annihilation, and others.

Official Site: http://spring.clan-sy.com
Games: http://spring.clan-sy.com/wiki/Games

(These are just some of the hundreds of games for the SPRING engine please add more)

General Spring Game Play:

Total Annihilation Mod:

P.U.R.E. MOD:

Gundam RTS MOD:

STAR WARS MOD: No Video Yet.

Evolution RTS MOD:

SPRING 1944 MOD:

Ground Forces

Air Forces

Kernel Panic MOD: Very similar to TRON the movie.

Expand and Exterminate MOD:

Complete Annihilation MOD:

XTA MOD:

Balanced Annihilation MOD:

Maximum Annihilation MOD:

Video 2#

NOTA MOD: