A few days ago, seven Republican candidates debated in New Hampshire (You know, the state where the first shots of the Revolution were fired and Paul Revere had his famous ride to warn the British). While I was only able to catch the middle of the debate, I saw a few clips and read a bunch of articles to catch me up on any interesting parts that I missed. But the most interesting aspect of the debate I actually saw live and was surprised that no one else really talked about it.
A few times during the debate the subject of religion came up. While I was really hoping it would come up more just for shits and giggles, I was actually quite surprised one of the candidates actually defended the Separation of Church and State. Sorry all you Libertarians, but it wasn’t Ron Paul (who actually said that the concept wasn’t in the Constitution, but that the Constitution does “literally” warn against Theocracy). Believe it or not the defender of Separation of Church and State that I am talking about was Rick Santorum!
As soon as I heard it, I tweeted about it because it shocked me so much. Mr. Super Religious Right, gay sex is the same as man on dog sex, Rick Santorum actually defend the Separation of Church and State. Romney also defended religious multiculturalism. Here is what Santorum said on the subject:
“I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country – Madison called it the perfect remedy – which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you’re not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith conviction¬s, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite – we get along because we know that we – all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That’s what makes America work.”
Now to be fair to the “frothy mix of lube and fecal matter,” I think old Ricky was trying to argue in favor of allowing fundamental Christianity into the government. But as the idiot that he is, he couldn’t even do that right. The problem is that most fundamentalists (Santorum included) want to only allow Judeo-Christian opinions into the public square and that comes off as a government endorsement of the belief system. In fact, that is their whole point.
You know the Republican candidates are all crazy when Santorum is the sensible one in the debate on the subject of religion.
While being an atheist is still a minority in America, it is surprisingly a larger group of people then Jews and Mormons. There is of course a big difference however. Jews and Mormons have a belief system in common and a common culture. So they have little to no problem voting for and donating money to candidates based on those commonalities.
Atheists also outnumber gays in America (although there is certainly a great deal of crossover between the two groups). The only thing gays have in common with each other is their attraction for people of the same gender and yet the gay community has formed a pretty strong voting block. Sure there are some Log Cabin Republicans, but let’s face facts, most people in the gay community share some common values.
Most atheists actually do have something in common aside from our lack of belief in deities. Within the greater community of reason, it is pretty apparent that most of us share a set of values despite the fact that by strict definition the only thing we technically share is a lack of belief in deities. Most atheists tend to associate with humanistic ideals, a love of science, education, and critical thinking. We tend to support the Separation of Church and State and while there are some atheists who identify themselves as Republicans or Libertarians, like the gay community most atheist tend to be pretty liberal and even quite progressive.
So when I encourage those within the greater community of reason to vote for and support atheist candidates, why is it that I get people who feel the need to tell me that they wouldn’t vote for a candidate because of their atheism, but want to be given a detailed list of issues to examine, study, and debate but are too lazy to look into the candidate themselves?
Obviously if Ayn Rand was running for office, I would not recommend voting or supporting her based on her atheism. But in today’s political climate, an atheist candidate would likely not be a Republican for reasons which I think are quite obvious.
Given a choice of two candidates, an atheist vs. a fundamentalist Christian, it is probable that the atheist candidate would be better 999 times out of 1000 (and that is being generous). So when I say that there is an atheist candidate running for office and that we should form a voting and support block for that candidate, I would expect that any reasonable atheist within the greater community of reason should be excited to lend their support to that candidate. If they feel so worried about that the atheist candidate might be closer to Stalin than Stark they can do a quick google search and see some of the candidate’s main issues themselves.
The fact is that we can form a strong voting and support block just like the gay community has. We can start to change the public perception of atheism by actually getting atheist candidates elected to public office. We can turn the tide so that politicians will start to think twice about talking about their faith out of fear of losing votes. But in order to do this, we have to form that strong voting and support block.
If an atheist (qualified goes without saying here), runs for school board in some bumble fuck town in Alabama, our community should be able to raise massive amounts of money for him or her. If an atheist is running for Congress in North Carolina (and one is) we should be able to raise massive amounts of money for him so that he can defeat his religious right opponent in the Democratic Primary and then go on to win the seat in the general election.
In the words of Babylon 5’s Captain John Sheridan, “We can fight and we can win, but we have to do it together!”
Right now Cecil Bothwell needs your support. Please donate to his campaign even if it is just a little bit. He stands a good chance of winning that seat if we all work together.
Over the weekend, I was having a conversation with a Christian over twitter. Nothing beats twitter for intellectual conversations in which you have to simplify your points down to 140 characters. The Christian in question told me that he considers himself to be a reasonably intelligent person. Toward the end of the conversation he asked me why so many people believe in God. My answer was simple, indoctrination and brainwashing.
First, let me say that indoctrination isn’t always a bad thing and that not all the things we are indoctrinated into believing are necessarily wrong. But we should try to think about the things we believe and why we believe them. If we realize that we might have been indoctrinated into believing something, we should try to think about it and see if there are actual reasons to believe that thing.
How do we know if we have been indoctrinated into believing in something? Well, we can start by asking ourselves what convinced us that something was the case. Did we always believe that that something was the case? If so, we might have been indoctrinated to believe that. So we should re-examine it in the light of actual evidence.
Brainwashing is a little more difficult and most people object to the term right from the start. For the purpose of this blog, I am just going to talk about one particular way in which many people are brainwashed into god-belief. There are of course many different methods both subtle and extreme. In my opinion, while Scientology uses more extreme methods, generic god-belief (Abrahamic religions) tend to use more subtle methods.
The main method that I want to talk about today is what I call complete immersion. We can’t hide from the idea of god-belief. Almost as soon as we are born whether our parents are believers or not, there is no where to hide from the idea that god is real. Nearly every street corner in America has a church on it. God is plastered on our money, in our pledge, and symbolically worn around the necks of many in society.
So let’s say that someone wasn’t indoctrinated into religion at near birth. They still live in a society totally immersed in religion. Religious recruiters are always lurking and looking for the right moment when someone is in an emotional state to take advantage of the situation and push the god-belief.
Sometimes, they don’t even wait for you to be in an emotional state. Repetition alone sometimes does the trick. In advertising, they say that people are more likely to buy if a message is repeated at least three times. How many times do religious people try to sell you God within your lifetime? Even if you are already religious, I bet religious people try to proselytize to you more than three times.
A good experiment would be to see how long it takes before god-belief is pushed on you more than three times. How many church signs to you pass a day promoting god-belief? How many people do you pass wearing crucifixes? How many bumper stickers do you see with a religious message a day? I bet you’ll get past three god-belief promotions in an hour. That’s brainwashing!
I was listening to a video yesterday in which a Christian preacher was talking about forgiveness. It always fascinates me when religious believers talk on this subject. This video was no exception. So I thought today I would compare religious forgiveness with my view of secular forgiveness.
The context of the video was Reverend Creflo Dollar defending Reverend Eddie Long who has been accused and has admitted to sexual relations with a number of teenaged boys. In the video Reverend Dollar talks about how his fellow Reverend has been forgiven and will be going to Heaven.
The way I see it, it is easy to be forgiven within Christianity. All you have to do is admit that what you did was wrong, confess your sins to Jesus, and promise to God that you won’t do it again. You can still do it again though. If you do, then you have to admit that what you did was wrong, confess your sins to Jesus, and promise to God that you won’t do it again, etc. Some Christians stress that your promise must be sincere, but that isn’t to say that it must be kept, because it doesn’t. You can repeat offend again and again as long as you are sincere when you promise not to do it again.
The Christian view is that we are all evil sinners and we all make mistakes. Since all sins are equal, we all deserve to be tortured for all eternity in Hell. We are forgiven for our sins (whether it is breathing of mass murder) by grace alone. In order to receive that grace, we must admit that what we did was wrong, confess our sins to Jesus, and sincerely promise to God that we won’t do it again.
I am a big believer in secular forgiveness in which all crimes are not equal and the no one deserves eternal torture. For me, there is no such thing as eternal punishment. When someone does something wrong then need to try to make amends for their crime. Some crimes like murder there really are no amends. This causes a problem. We can’t bring back the dead. So how do we deal with that?
In ancient myths, often time the hero of the story was once a villain. He or she might have done unspeakable crimes and murdered many people. But at some point they decide that they want to turn their life around. It is at this point that they rededicate their lives to helping others all the while torturing themselves with what they have done.
When they first try to help people, they are met with hate and distrust based on their previous reputation for wrong doing. But after awhile as they have continue their hero’s journey, people begin to cheer as the hero comes to help. Despite the new reputation as a hero, the hero remains tortured by their past misdeeds.
At one point on the hero’s journey after being re-branded as the hero, the hero meets up with a relative or loved one of someone they had killed. This is a challenge for the hero to earn that person’s forgiveness. It may not ever happen, but the hero continues to try. That is what secular forgiveness is about, the journey to be forgiven by those you have wronged. No deity can give this to you by deed or grace, it must be earned by people and deeds. That is the only real path to it.
So there is a new Pew Research Poll that once again shows that people don’t want to elect atheists to public office. This is nothing new. We already know that we are the most distrusted minority. However, I am still going to call BULLSHIT!
Look, there is no doubt that there is discrimination against atheists. When 80 to 90 percent of the nation believe in god, it is pretty obvious that we have a disadvantage. Still, different districts are… well, different. A large number of religious believers care more about political parties than they do about religious belief or lack of beliefs. So yeah, in some districts an atheist will have a harder time in than they would in other districts. But this might also have more to do with whether the atheist is a Democrat or Republican.
I bet that if Ayn Rand were alive today, she would have no problem getting elected even in the most fundamentally religious districts. While that is speculation, it based on the fact that Ron Paul named his son after her and he got elected anyway and that Congressman Paul Ryan practically worships her and he has a great deal of support from the religious despite this fact.
Still, there are districts in this country that are pretty liberal and there are districts in this country in which most people care more about political affiliation than they do about religious belief or lack of belief.
When atheists have decided that we can’t get elected, we not only don’t try to get elected we also don’t help out those who are trying. There are more atheists then there are Jews in this country. There may even be more atheists then there are gays. If we all supported an openly atheist candidate, we could get an atheist elected. But if we keep telling ourselves that it can’t happen, then we don’t support openly atheist candidates and they won’t win.
So I am calling Bullshit! I want to end this myth that atheists can’t win and I want to encourage everyone to donate money to atheist candidates (progressive ones anyway), even if it is only a few dollars. You can start with Cecil Bothwell.
If you don’t think he can win in North Carolina, check out my Examiner article on it.
Anthony Weiner admitted that he lied about being hacked and that he did indeed tweet a photo of his erect penis bulge in his underwear to a women. He has also stated that he never met her in person and that he has never had an affair with her or anyone else. He also as admitted that other photos have been tweeted to other women (six in all). Should he resign?
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can, no. No the congressman should absolutely not resign over this scandal. He did not break the law. No campaign money was involved. He hasn’t been hypocritical in his actions. Why the fuck should he resign?
Republicans have far more elicited scandals and continue to remain in office. Republicans usually run on their moral purity. They generally push their strong belief in the Bible and against homosexuality. Yet, when Republicans have scandals they generally involve adultery (usually with another guy). They are hypocrites and yet they refuse to resign unless they are about to be indicted.
The media is making this a distraction. Well, the media is its own animal. They care about one thing, money. They get money through advertising. They get advertisers through ratings. They get ratings by having people look at them. They get people to look at them by talking about sex because sex sells. However, the media also has a short attention span.
So Anthony Weiner can wait this out until the media finds the next scandal or he can give them something else to talk about. Weiner has never had a problem getting media attention before. He has often gotten up on the floor of the House with charts and/or props and made a political point very dramatic ways which have gotten then interest of people forcing the media’s attention.
So rather than resign, I think Weiner should do what he does best. I think he should go onto the floor of the House and give the media something to talk about. Make a point and do his job. The Republicans will be so outrages that it will create a new controversy. The media will try to focus on both controversies as much as they can until the next scandal breaks their concentration.
Many religious leaders have educated themselves a good deal in the history of their religion. I find that the more people learn about religion the less literal they take their holy books. However, there is a divide between the intellectual religious leaders and the common practitioners.
What I mean here is that many religious leaders know that commonly held aspects of their belief system are simply false and yet they allow those false beliefs to continue unchecked in their practitioners.
Back in the day, it was common for religious leaders to hide knowledge and even their holy book from their “flock.” Today, we think that since everyone has access to holy books, that there is more transparency. This is true of course, but that doesn’t mean that religious leaders don’t keep some knowledge on the “down low” from their faithful flock.
The view has always been that common people are too stupid to understand the nuance and only the religious leaders are smart enough to be trusted with the truth. There is also of course the fear that if the truth got out, some people would leave the flock.
I think religious leaders have a responsibility to be honest to their flock and to those who respect their opinions. Here are a few examples of what I mean. Within Christianity, it is widely known by Christian scholars that the Gospels were not contemporary accounts and were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. But you will rarely hear a Christian leader comment on this to the common believers.
Similarly, it is widely known by Jewish scholars that the Exodus never happened. But again, you will rarely hear a Rabbi talk about this to the flock or those who respect his or her opinion.
In order to get these religious leaders to talk about these things, one usually has to call them out on it. In some cases, a religious leader might have written an academic paper or an article on the point, but in their every day communications they fail to call attention to it and they fail to correct the record when a believer believes the falsehood. To me this amounts to a lie of omission.
Over the weekend, we ordered some Chinese food from our favorite Chinese restaurant. But when I went to pick it up, the woman working there was telling me that they were under new management and are in the process of making all kinds of improvements. She was very excited about it. One of the new improvements was different fried rice. It was horrible. My wife and I spent dinner talking about how change sucks.
Whenever facebook or some other popular website makes a change, everyone almost always complains and yet every politicians (including incumbents) love to run on the message of change. No one likes change and yet it is the most popular political message to run on.
It seems that people like the concept of change, but complain when they get actual change. This is probably why politicians run on the message of change and then get into office and don’t bother to change a thing. When they do change something it is almost always for the worst.
It seems that when change happens, it is the good things that change and not the bad things. It doesn’t matter if it is politics or Chinese fried rice that is how change generally happens. It seems like we should be fixing the things that don’t work and making them better, but that rarely happens.
My bet is that Obama will run again on the message of change during his re-election campaign despite being the incumbent and when he wins, he will again change things for the worse.
I get into a lot of conversations with Christians and often times when the Christian gets backed into an intellectual corner and their ideas have been shown to be unreasonable, illogical, and flat out ridiculous, they throw up a brick wall. One of the most common brick wall tactics is to insist that I open my heart and sincerely pray to God to reveal him self to me.
I remember the first time I heard this was my freshman year of college. While I had already been an atheist for awhile, I wasn’t really all that vocal about it until that year. It was that year that I really started to learn about Christianity in a more serious way. My mentor in my education at this time was a Messianic Jew (Jew for Jesus) who was a few years older than I and had a great deal of knowledge that most fundamentalists I knew did not know. He was also a great friend and a very compassionate person.
In any case, I remember one night we were discussing religion and I was questioning him on some aspects of his belief. He turned to me and told me that if I really wanted evidence, I have to ask God for it. He told me that I have to humble myself with an open heart and sincerely ask God for a sign. I remember he even quoted some Bible verse about this.
So that night as I was out for my usual 2am walk, I did just that. I got down on my knees and sincerely asked God for a sign. The most amazing thing happened after that… nothing.
The next day, I reported back to my friend and he told me that God will reveal himself to me on his time. He has a plan for me. But what about the Bible verse? What about the sincere prayer? What about the evidence? He told me to try it again in a few days.
Well, I guess if you ask for a sign enough times sooner or later sometime might happen that a human mind might interpret as a sign. Maybe it will start to rain or maybe it will stop raining. Maybe you’ll bump into someone you have a crush on or something. At this point, it becomes a game of statistics. If you pray to God enough at least one time some mild event might happen to coincide with your prayer. That’s the sign.
Believe it or not, I have tried the “sincere prayer” gag a few times after that too at the prompting of religious friends but still no booming voice from the sky. Maybe I have my expectations too high. But then again, how can I be expecting too much from God?
When I have informed other Christians about my experience with the sincere prayer, I have sometimes been met with the accusation that I wasn’t sincere enough. This is a great excuse, but at the time I really don’t think I could have been any more sincere.
Now of course, I can’t play this game anymore. At this point in my life, I have learned too much to believe in some ancient Canaanite deity worshiped by a small band of desert wanders that wrote down a bunch of stories after a long game of “whisper down the lane,” and then edited those stories multiple times. No, at this point in my life, I can’t sincerely pray to God any more than I could sincerely pray to Valdimort.
If you like this blog and others on DangerousTalk.net, please help support it. Donate a few dollars and help the spread of reason!
For some bizarre reason, people love the 10 Commandments. Most people don’t even know what they are, few people today actually obey them, and almost anyone could create much better commandments without a whole lot of mental effort. Quite frankly, the 10 Commandments are ridiculous!
Before we go into them, it is important to remember that these are the top ten laws that are so important and necessary that according to the Bible God actually put them in STONE. In fact, the penalty for breaking any of these commandments is DEATH… and then eternal torture.
For starters, the first 4 Commandments are simply God’s vanity:
1. You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
3. Do not take the name of the Lord in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
But let’s look at 3 and 4 for a moment. Most people don’t even understand Commandment 3 which has nothing to do with cursing. It actually has to do with praying for trivial stuff like winning a sports game or the lottery. These are vain things to be prayed for. The other interesting thing about this Commandment is that no one today can actually break it. This goes back to the old idea of spirit law. If you know the True Name of a spirit (or god) you can command it. Top Rabbis were said to know the True Name of God and so they were being commanded not to use God’s name in vain. But no one today knows what that “True Name” was so the commandment is moot.
Then there is Commandment 4 in which we are commanded not to work on Saturday. Well, some people need to work overtime so I think that is a horrible law. Now, don’t get me wrong, I think it is a good suggestion to take a day off work once a week, but I hardly think it ought to be a law.
I grew up in Bergen County, New Jersey. Despite the fact that it is a very secular area, they actually have a county wide law making it illegal for certain businesses to be open on Sundays (including malls). So Sundays really sucked for me and Saturdays weren’t that great either since mall traffic was twice as congested because the malls weren’t open by law on Sundays.
Moving on to Commandment 5, “Honor your father and mother.” That seems like sagely advice… depending of course on your father and mother. But should it be a law punishable by death? I don’t think so. What does “Honoring” someone entail anyway? What if your father and mother want to beat you for working on Saturday? Should you honor them and allow them too or should you disobey them and run to a neighbor to call social services? God should have been a little more specific with that one. Some parents are just not worthy of the honor.
Thou shall not Murder. This again seems like some pretty sagely advice, but it too is a little vague. First, there is actually some debate about whether it is Murder or Kill. But let’s for the sake of argument say it is Murder. Does self-defense count as murder? Still, on the whole, this is actually a pretty good Commandment. So out of the 6 Commandments so far, only one is even remotely decent. I should add though that the idea that we shouldn’t murder each other was hardly new even at this early stage in our social development nor is it a rule in which we couldn’t possibly have figured out without the help of God’s all-knowing wisdom.
The 7th Commandment is, “Thou shall not commit adultery.” That’s a pretty good rule. It is actually so good that we have it as a law today… oh wait, no we don’t. There is currently no state in the country that has made adultery illegal. If there was, we could arrest most of Congress and almost all the Republicans. Again, this is good advice but a horrible law.
“Thou shall not steal” is a pretty good commandment. I’ll put this one up with the Thou shall not murder as a decent law. However, again it was hardly original at that time and no one needed God’s divine wisdom to figure it out. The other problem with it is that the Bible makes no mention of exceptions. I think there needs to be some exceptions for this commandment. What if you are stealing something dangerous from people who will use it to harm others? Like stealing a gun from a would be killer. What about the always popular stealing bread to feed a starving family? The Ten Commandments have no exceptions and no court system, judge, or jury to address mitigating circumstances. No, the Ten Commandments are black and white and in stone.
Commandment 9, “thou shall not bear false witness.” Well, we have perjury laws in America today, but I think this commandment goes further. How do you answer the dreaded, “Do I look fat in this dress” question? And what do you say when the Nazis are at your door asking if you are hiding any Jews? Again it’s a great idea, but a bad law. Sorry God, try again.
Finally, we have the last Commandment, Thou shall not covet. Let’s face facts here, if President Obama suggested this law we would have every religious right Republican screaming about thought crime legislation. This is not only a terrible law, but it is anti-capitalism and anti-American.
So out of the whole 10 Commandments, only 2 of them are any good at all, and they are pretty obvious rules even for that time period. What is more interesting are the commandments that are absent from God’s top ten list in stone.
Thou shall not enslave other people.
Thou shall not rape.
Thou shall treat women equally to men.
Thou shall give a hoot and not pollute.
Those are examples of great commandments that are much better than at least 8 of the ones God was alleged to have put into stone. Not only did God not include those commandments in the Ten Commandments, but they are in fact no where in the Bible. Sadly, the Bible actually teaches the exact opposite of my four Commandments above.
In any case here is George Carlin’s famous analysis of the 10 Commandments:
Even among the greater community of reason there are still people who call themselves Libertarians and Republicans. The thing that they argue about the most is “big government.” While that is of course a legitimate issue to some degree, it has morphed into an anti-government dogma. This is unreasonable to me and I am calling bullshit!
Sure, no one wants a 1984-style government where everything we do is regulated by bureaucrats. But we are far from that in reality. The fact is that government does serve an important purpose. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
Now, aside from that whole “Creator” part, there is an important point here. The point is that we create the government to do a job. That job is to secure the rights of the people and to protect the people. When some multination corporation jumps toxic waste into the water supply, government is needed to stop them. We do that through regulation. Unfortunately, many of our regulators have been bought by those very same multination corporations and those who make the regulations have also been bought. But that is an issue of government corruption, not government doing its job.
Anti-government people tend to think that all regulations are evil and that it is just more “big government” interference. However, some regulation is important and necessary. Should the government regulate how much television you should watch and what shows you should watch? Of course not, but should the government regulate what corporations can dump into the environment? Fuck yes!
Moving to the more philosophical issue, government is really just about cooperation. When we were cave people we quickly realized that if we went out to hunt alone we probably wouldn’t come back but if we hunted together in a group, we would all share in the spoils. Government’s job is to help us to work together as a society.
Anti-government people have this fantasy of being an island unto themselves and that is quite frankly stupid and impossible in today’s world.
While atheism is a label used to define what I don’t believe, I sometimes talk about my beliefs in Humanism and Star Wars. In fact, I take my Star Wars very seriously (you can ask my wife). With that in mind, an old college friend recently asked me the following question: How are those that believe in the teachings of Christ different from those who believe in the teachings of the Jedi?
I think this is fair question and it also illustrates an important point. For starters, even though I consider myself a Jedi, I am aware that Star Wars is fiction. While on the other hand, pretty much all the Christians in the world seem completely unaware that their source material is fiction despite the fact that it is much more fanciful than Star Wars and full of plot holes.
Although Star Wars is fictional, the films (all six of them) are filled with lessons in morality, politics, and life. They also act as a metaphorical guide to life and teach us about deep connection to other people and the universe around us. The lessons from Star Wars are in a very real sense religious despite the fact that it is completely fictional (like all religions).
The Bible on the other hand may contain some very important lessons for life, but for every positive moral lesson one can find there are about a dozen examples of extremely negative lessons given to us by the central character, God/Jesus. In fact, the idea of faith is itself one of the most destructive concepts in the history of humankind. No one should ever be compelled to believe anything on insufficient reason.
Star Wars is better on every level. It is more compact, teaches better morality, better life lessons, more complex characters, more entertaining, less plot holes, and is honest about being a fictional story. Those who believe in the Bible actually believe that the narrative is real when it is obvious fiction… poorly written fiction at that. Plus, Star Wars teaches that slavery is wrong and women can be strong leaders and kick some ass just like men. The Bible on the other hand teaches that slavery is at best okay and at worst that slavery is really good. The Bible also teaches that women are the property of men and they should never be in a position of leadership over a man. I’ll take my half naked Princess Leia in the gold bikini over that any day. 😉
Every once in a while, when I criticize the ridiculous beliefs of religious believers, some atheist comes along to complain that I am not respecting these ridiculous beliefs and I am being intolerant. They blame me for the reason Christians hate atheists. Occasionally, I even get someone who self-righteously proclaims that everyone is entitled to their opinion (a fact which I have never disputed).
It seems to me that these particular atheists are intolerant of other atheists like me. Not every atheist is going to agree with the strategy of “don’t criticize ridiculous ideas.” The whole point of freethinking is that we are all free to think differently and to express our thoughts openly. I am a big supporter of the idea that atheists should take different tactics. I don’t mind at all when atheists are out there trying to play nice with those who deeply believe that they ought to be tortured for all eternity in Hell.
What I do mind however is when those particular atheists think that such a strategy gives them free license to insult me in the name of tolerance. I’m open to honest criticism (unlike most religious believers) but instead of honest criticism I sometimes get intolerant, disrespectful, and insulting rants in the name of tolerance and respect.
It seems to me that these particular non-believers just want to play holier than thou. Well, mission accomplished! It isn’t hard to be holy than thou when competing with godless heathens.
My criticism to those atheists is to stop being intolerant toward more vocal atheists who are not afraid to be honest in our criticism of ridiculous beliefs. I respect people, not ridiculous beliefs. But I respect that other atheists may not be as vocal or as honest as I am. Many may not want to rock the boat for whatever reason. Some atheists may still be in the closet and other atheists are simply afraid of harassment. Still others just seem squeamish about offending the religious (which seems to only take acknowledging our existence).
Like all movements for social acceptance, it takes firebrands, diplomats, and comedians. While I have taken all three roles (sometimes even in the same conversation) it is true that I much prefer the firebrand approach. Those atheists who prefer the diplomat approach are welcome to it, but don’t be intolerant of those who take on a different role. Don’t be a hater; we are all in this together.
With all the talk about the Rapture lately, one Christian sent me a message saying that he believes Harold Camping was wrong, but that the lesson we should learn is that we ought to live everyday as if it were our last. He says that this is the message Jesus was trying to send with Matthew 24:36. Personally, I think that is a terrible philosophy!
For starters, I dare anyone to try to really live as if everyday were our last. Let me just point out what that would entail. First, unless today is Friday (and at the time of this post, it is Thursday) you won’t get paid from your job until tomorrow. So if today is your last day, you better quit your job right now because it would be like working for free.
Along those same lines, max out those credit cards because you won’t live long enough for the collector to get you. If you are in school, quit! Knowledge is to be used for tomorrow. Learning stuff the day before your last day won’t really be all that useful unless you can pass that knowledge on pretty quick.
Don’t even think about kids. Pregnancies take about nine months more than you are willing to live your life by and then you have to spend years you don’t have raising a kid to live everyday as if it were his or her last. That kid isn’t going to get very far in life with that kind of philosophy. Living everyday as if it were our last is a pretty stupid idea.
Now, I understand the idea behind the philosophy. It is sort of like a poor man’s Heidegger. It’s the idea of living an “authentic” life. But wouldn’t the also very cliché “Carpe Diem” (Seize the Day) me more accurate?
Maybe it is just me, but I think when people say that we ought to live everyday as if it were our last, they are really just saying that they haven’t really thought about what they are saying and that they just like to say things that make them sound deep and cool without really thinking about what those things actually mean. It’s the mark of laziness, ignorance, and maybe even a touch of stupidity. Just say’n, I could be wrong.
The theme I have been hitting lately that many Christians don’t seem to get is that their belief is ridiculous superstitions is no different than Harold Camping’s belief in ridiculous superstition. Christians can’t distance themselves fast enough from Camping with good reason. He makes them look bad.
I know that Christianity is a pretty broad term and that there are all sorts of Christians, but if you are a Christian at all, you are a believer in a ridiculous belief system not based on evidence or reason. Harold Camping is the same as you are. The difference is that his beliefs are slightly kookier and that he takes them a bit more seriously.
But when we say Camping’s beliefs are slightly kookier, that is only because most of society has accepted the generic Christian kookiness. Society has accepted this not on the evidence or on reasoned discourse, but simply because the majority believe it. But on the merits, Camping’s beliefs are equally kooky.
Christians have to stop thinking that their beliefs are more rational than that of Harold Camping because the fact is that they are not. Harold Camping has no evidence to support his belief and neither do other Christian believers. So there you go.
Sure, a Christian can make justifications for their beliefs, but so can Harold Camping. When it comes to actual evidence however, Christians and Camping are in the same boat… and it is full of holes.
For me, Harold Camping is a gift that keeps on giving. I really don’t think Christians understand this. I read a few articles over the weekend in which Christians talked about how Harold Camping was an extremist and how his belief that the Rapture would occur on May 21st 2011 was ridiculous. I even got a few messages of this kind. But when asked, why his belief was ridiculous, the answer became laughable… and that’s the gift that just keeps on giving… that and the fact that Camping now says that the Rapture will happen on October 21st 2011.
For example, most of the comments I read and received from Christians claim that Camping’s beliefs are ridiculous not because he believes that the people (alive and dead) would be magically raptured up to heaven and that over 6.5 billion people would be left behind to suffer on Earth fighting against massive natural disasters, but rather because Harold Camping picked a date and time and that there is a Bible verse that warns against that sort of thing.
Let me be clear here, all these Christians who wrote these articles and sent me messages still believe that the Rapture will happen and that Jesus will return. They still believe that God will create massive natural disasters for those who are left behind. They don’t seem to think this is ridiculous or extreme at all. The only part that they find ridiculous and extreme is that Harold Camping picked a date and time. To me, that’s the funniest part of this whole thing.
I can’t tell you how many Christians have quoted Matthew 24:36 to me as if that proves that Camping was the crazy one. I continue to point out that Camping addresses this point on his website. I’m not the one who said the Rapture was coming on May 21st 2011 and yet I have gotten all these messages from Christians telling me about Matthew 24:36. Camping has been studying the Bible for over half a century and has been predicting the Rapture for almost a decade now. Do these Christians think Camping never read that verse? Do they think no one has told him about this? Don’t be absurd… of wait, never mind.
I a strange role reversal, I have become a defender of the faith and Christians have become the atheists. I’m not defending Camping here, but he obviously thought that verse was taken out of context (the typical religious response to a Bible verse they don’t like). So on his website, Camping of course talks about why this verse is out of context and makes his own biblical case for why he can know the date and the time and what that date and time is.
But the point Christians miss is that it doesn’t matter. The Rapture itself is the ridiculous belief. In fact, the idea that a God exists at all is pretty ridiculous. Christians have to realize that Camping isn’t the only one who is being ridiculous. The fact is that all of Christianity is ridiculous and Camping has just exposed this in a very public way.
From now on, whenever a Christian tries to talk to you about their bullshit, we can tell them with some confidence that they are not a real Christian. All we have to do is remind them that May 21st 2011 was the Rapture and they are still here so that must mean that they were not good enough for God to have been Raptured. Case closed!
The question of who is the real Christian has now been answered definitively and any Christian who is still here is NOT a real Christian because the Rapture happened already. That’s it, done. Harold Camping said that the Bible guaranteed it. The best part is that there is proof that some people did in fact get Raptured. How can Christians explain this:
These were real Christians who were Raptured to Heaven on May 21st 2011. So if you are still here, then you were not a real Christian. Jesus hates you! He came to you with the sword or something. Sorry Christians, you were not saved after all. Ha ha, you are going and should be going to Hell to be tortured for all eternity! How do you like them apples!
A lot of people are laughing at Harold Camping and his followers lately. In less than 48 hours Camping’s prediction will be proven wrong, but what I find interesting is Camping’s most fervent detractors are not atheists, but Christians. As an atheist, I have no problem laughing at Camping and his ridiculous beliefs, but Christians really have nothing to laugh about. For them it really is the crack pot calling the crack pot cracked.
Whenever the news covers Camping and his Rapture date, they always make sure to point out the Bible verse Matthew 24:43 in which Jesus tells a parable about how the end will come like a thief in the night, as if that settles the matter conclusively. The news isn’t the only people who believe that this one verse ends the debate. Few Christians have taken the time to actually find out what Camping says about this. But I have. 🙂
Like all Christians, whenever there is a verse that disagrees with their beliefs, Camping goes right to the “Context Argument.” On his website WeCanKnow.com, Camping explains that a careful analysis of this verse shows that it actually says that some people will know. He then quotes other verses to show that toward the end, God will inform some people of the date and time.
Of course, we can all see that Camping is just picking through the Bible to justify his ridiculous position, but isn’t that what all Christians do all the time with just about anything? Does Jesus believe in Peace? It depends on what verse you quote. For anyone who believes that Jesus was all about peace and love, all I should have to do is quote Mathew 10:34 and that should settle the argument. Jesus did not come to bring peace. He came with a sword! Case closed right? Not according to all the Christians who will insist that I took that verse out of context, misinterpreted what Jesus said, etc… just like they are doing with Camping.
What I love about the super wacky Christians is that the slightly less wacky Christians become slightly more rational for a short period of time and in a way it exposes their own wackiness. Harold Camping is wrong about his Rapture prediction not because one Bible verse out of context refutes him, but because the whole idea of a Rapture is absurd and ridiculous. But I have to defend his brand of ridiculousness to expose that whole ridiculous belief system and the hypocrisy of his religious detractors.
Don’t forget to get your Rapture Survivor shirts and Bumper Stickers at RaptureSurvivor.com.
On Primary Day, there was another conversation I had with a Catholic Republican that I forgot to talk about yesterday that I think is worth discussing. It’s in odd because I couldn’t figure out at first if his attitude could be attributed to his religious faith and to his political affiliation. After some thought I think it is his religious faith, which ought to be attributed to his view of “No Compromise.”
The conversation started off talking about taxes. He told me that we have different philosophies and that he wouldn’t expect me to change. He went on to say that he wouldn’t change his philosophy on the subject and that he couldn’t change his principles.
“For example,” he said, “I believe abortion is murder. How can I compromise on that?” He then rattled off a host of other issues (mostly political) that he wouldn’t compromise on including taxes and government regulations.
I told him that to some extent, I agree with him that some issues there are no compromising about, but that some issues to do think Republicans and Democrats can seek compromise on, such as regulation and taxes. He disagreed and there in lies the problem. Democrats are willing to try to compromise and Republicans aren’t. They don’t believe in compromise. But why don’t they believe in compromise?
It comes down to religious faith. They believe things based on faith and not on reason. When someone bases their opinions on reason, someone can reason with them and make a case to change their mind or maybe just to compromise a little bit and find common ground. But if an opinion is a faith based belief, there is no reasoning about it. That is just the way it is. Any compromise is an attack on faith. The reason Republicans don’t believe in compromise is because Republicans are generally religious.
One of the things I love about being the Minority Election Inspector in a heavily Catholic Republican district on Primary Day is that I get a glimpse inside “enemy lines.” Not to say that I consider the people I work with enemies, I don’t. However, I do consider their affiliations to be enemy affiliations.
First, I should point out that while my district is heavily Catholic and Republican, it seems that most of the Catholics don’t really have high regard for Catholicism and tend to be mainly secular. They also tend to vote Republican locally, but on the federal and in some cases state level many are actually pretty liberal. Of course some are not.
For example, while I didn’t really talk much about being an atheist activist and blogger, I didn’t make my lack of belief in god any secret. I talked about taxing the Church and how I can’t understand how any Catholic could still give money to the Church to be used to defend pedophile priests. I also talked about Humanist communities and how we don’t need God to have a community. It seems that these ideas were all pretty well received and one Catholic I talked to even told me that she no longer gives money to the Church for that reason (although she is still active in the Church).
When talking politics, I asked a lot of the traditional Republicans about a few things. I asked for example who they liked for the 2012 Presidential race. None of them liked the current candidate field and so I had to ask who their dream candidates would be. Topping the list was New Jersey Governor Chris Christi. Most liked how he gutted education (including both of the candidates for school board).
The next person who topped the list was Herman Cain of Godfather Pizza. The reason… so Republicans can’t be accused of racism. Yes, a Republican actually said that out loud. The funny part was that I had conversation with a different Republican about Obama that was pretty telling. He said that he though Obama was “divisive.” I asked in what way since he seems to cave into Republicans on almost every issue and has continued much of the Bush Administration’s policies. He told me that he doesn’t like his tone. He then started to imitate a cross between gospel preacher speak and rap. In other words, Obama is divisive because he is black.
I also learned an interesting fact that I think the atheist community should challenge. It seems that the county Register of Wills demands that married couples swear on the Bible in order to get their marriage licenses.
With less then a week before the Rapture, I know many people couldn’t care less about November elections, but for those of us who are just a little skeptical that May 21st will be the beginning of the end, Primary Day still has some value.
I know this is an odd election year and aside from special elections, there are no House or Senate races and the Presidential race is what most people are talking about. The big news of the week is that Huckabee and Trump both announce they are not running and so Romney will most likely be the Republican Presidential candidate.
Still, I want to remind everyone that yes, today is Primary Day and there are important local candidates you need to vote for. Today’s local candidates often become tomorrow’s state and federal candidates. Plus, it is the local officials who help to mobilize state and federal campaigns. My town is run pretty much entirely by the Republicans and as a result, there is almost no “Get Out The Vote” (GOTV) effort here during the even number campaign years.
School boards have now been under a great deal of pressure from the religious to push their holy fiction into our science classes. This is the year to vote for your school board and to make sure that they are supportive of science. For the record, while most Democratic candidates are supportive of science, that is not always the case. Primaries are important! Even these off year Primaries are important.
As Minority Election Inspector for my district, I will be away from my computer all day. Don’t forget to vote!
I was thinking about this the other day. I recently started a new website called “RaptureSurvivor.com” to sell some t-shirts and stuff and while promoting the site, someone jokingly mentioned that the joke would be on me if Camping and friends really got Raptured away. This prompted me to question, “what if Camping did disappear?”
Don’t get me wrong, I am pretty confident that Camping and friends are not going to be Raptured away. But I wouldn’t put it past Camping to orchestrate his own disappearance and that of some of his close followers who might be in on the scam.
This of course assumes that Camping knows this is a scam and that he hasn’t actually bought into his own bullshit. But let’s assume that he knows it is a scam and that he has orchestrated his own disappearance and that of a few friends. Those of his followers who really do believer and didn’t disappear just weren’t worthy. Meanwhile, he is very visible and the news media has undoubted been planning for the post-rapture interviews. So if he is gone, people might just question whether he actually predicted the Rapture.
The guy is an old dude with a ton of money. It really wouldn’t be hard for him to hop a plane or boat to some far off place and watch the media discuss his disappearance. His books would sell even more and he could even have a book finished ready for “posthumous” release.
I am probably over thinking this. He probably has bought into his own bullshit and after the Rapture date, he will probably just have egg on his face in disbelief. He might even die of a heart attack thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
PS Please help promote my new RaptureSurvivor website. Thanks!
While this isn’t a new argument against the idea of Hell, it is still a pretty good one. How could any genuinely good person be happy for all eternity knowing that so many people will be tortured for all eternity in Hell?
I know we deserve it since we just can’t seem to believe in ridiculous ancient myths based on not only insufficient evidence, but in the fact of actual evidence to the contrary. Still, it is pretty likely that those headed to Heaven for all eternity will at least have some loved ones who would be headed in the other direction. How can they really live with themselves? More importantly, how can they remain in the state of bliss?
Sure there is the apologist response that some how the memories of those poor loved ones in Hell would be wiped from the believer’s brain, but how could the believer live with him or her self knowing that now? Besides, our memories are who we are so if you take those away, are you still really you?
Maybe God will clone your loved ones in Heaven. But would those clones really be convincing if they actually belonged there? I mean a clone of me that accepts bliss in Heaven would simply not be believable to any of my good Christian friends.
Of course all this is fun to talk about, but the reality is that Heaven and Hell are imaginary. These concepts were thought up by people who really didn’t think all that much about them. Once we actually start focusing our thinking on the concepts, it becomes clear that the concepts don’t really make much sense. No matter how you think about it, my Hell should be Hell for the believer if the believer has even the slightest sense of decency and moral awareness.
One tactic that I often run into when discussing religion with the religious is a variation of the old sports strategy called, “running the clock.” The idea is to load the atheist up with stuff and waste our time. Here are a few examples:
The most common example is when religious believers simply make multiple false assertions and we are left to write a virtual book to address every issue. If we leave one issue out, they claim victory just before they make another round of multiple assertions leaving us having to address the one point we left out and all the new assertions made. Sometimes it is useful to do this, but it really depends on the person on the other side. Often times, they aren’t even listening and won’t even bother reading the explanations we put forward.
Another example of the “running the clock” strategy is when religious believers give you a book list to read. Every believer has their own favorite authors that they insist with convert you to their religious belief. If I were to read every book ever recommended to me by a religious person, I would never have time to do anything else. However, there are often some names that come up more than others and it might make sense to read some of those authors if one is so inclined. But don’t waste your time trying to read every recommended religious author.
My final example for today is the old context argument. Most of the time when religious believers demand we read the context of a holy verse, they are simply running the clock. They don’t know the context either. The fact is that most of the time, the context of a particular verse doesn’t really change the meaning of the verse at all. There is a reason why atheists often point out particularly brutal verses and that is because they are brutal even in context. In fact, sometimes the context makes the verse even more brutal (like Numbers 31: 17-18). But my point here is that religious believers will use the context argument just to waste your time.
Religious believers always talk about how God grounds morality. The view is that religious people can be immoral and that non-religious people can be moral, but it is all based on God’s standard. That being the case, when a religious person does something immoral, they know it and they have to repent. But the problem is that the standard isn’t really clear. Various god believers have very different ideas about what that standard it. Osama bin Laden is the perfect example.
Most people don’t realize that Osama bin Laden was born with a silver spoon and lots of brothers and sisters. All he had to do is sit back and relax and he would have lived a life of luxury with not a care in the world. However, unlike his brothers and sisters, he actually believed the religious nonsense that he was taught. As a result, he rejected “secular materialism” and became a “freedom fighter.”
Bin Laden believed in Allah and thought that the Koran should be taken seriously. The Taliban shared his view and so when the Russians took over Afghanistan, bin Laden joined the fight because he thought it was the moral thing to do. Trained by the CIA, Osama helped to win freedom for the Taliban, which ironically meant a life of restricted freedom for most people.
His work with forming al-Qadea had to do with his view that “The West” is immoral. Bin Laden, like many religious believers in America, believed that without God (Allah) there can be no moral standard. The difference is that he believed that God’s moral standard compelled him send planes into buildings and kill 3000 people.
While he could have been mistaken about God’s moral standard, it seems that would be a reflection upon God. As I stated before, God’s moral standard doesn’t seem all that clear. People can sincerely believe all kinds of different and contradictory things and attribute them all to God’s clear and unchanging moral standard.
People have argued that Adolph Hitler didn’t really believe in God and wasn’t really Catholic in his heart. They say that he just used the language of God to deceive people and get them to do what he wanted. That may or may not be true and there is no way to really know for sure. But that argument can’t be made with Osama bin Laden. He gave up the playboy lifestyle because of religious conviction. His million dollar compound was closer to a shack with a million dollar security system. Osama bin Laden really did believe in God.
Recently, Sojourner’s Magazine refused to run an advertising campaign which welcomes gays. Sojourners Magazine is supposed to be the liberal good guy Christians, so a lot of people seem to be shocked by their position on this issue.
Jim Wallis is the founder of Sojourner’s Magazine and their principle spokes person and decision maker. While he talks mostly about poverty issues and his anti-war stance, make no mistake he is as anti-gay as the rest of the fundamentalist believers. He claims to be for civil rights for gay people, but what he means by civil rights is that he doesn’t think they ought to be stoned to death.
In his book, God’s Politics, he talks about how homosexuality is a sin and how he does not support gay marriage. A few years ago, after reading his book I published an open letter to Jim Wallis.
Personally, part of me is glad that he is just as hateful toward the gay community as fundamentalists friends. Maybe people in the gay community will see that even liberal Christians hate them and they will rethink religion entirety. The atheist community is pretty strongly united in support of the gay community and we tend to strongly fight in favor of their rights. On the other hand, it would be nice if the gay community could at least have some allies within the Christian community. Ultimately, they deserve to be loved no matter what.
There is no legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage. When push comes to shove, the reason people oppose it at all almost always falls back to religion. I don’t care what the Bible says on the matter there should be a separation of church and state. So don’t let Jim Wallis fool you into thinking he is any different than his fundamentalist friends. He isn’t!
I seem to run into this kind of thing a lot. Atheists can’t seem to put minor differences behind them and concentrate on the spreading reason and fighting against the tyranny of the religious. We have to put our differences aside and work together.
I know that the only think atheists really have in common is a lack of belief in deities. However, being part of the greater atheistic community entails much more. The fact is that if you are part of the greater atheistic community, you almost certainty value reason, scientific education, and are at least slightly vocal about your atheism. In general, most atheists who are part of the greater atheistic community also tend to be politically liberal.
Still, despite all these commonalities and our common goals, atheists tend to argue and fight over seemingly trivial differences. Don’t get me wrong, I love the fact that atheists aren’t robotic clones the way so many religious believers tend to be, but I also think that there is a time to argue and a time to work together against the seemingly insurmountable obstacle that religious believers put before us.
When I was an undergraduate in Philosophy, I had a strong interest in Psychology as well. In fact Psychology was one of the fields on my short list for majors. When I started the Dangerous Talk radio show, one of the formats I toyed around with was a call-in advice show; sort of a Dr. Laura of the atheist community.
There are still a lot of closeted atheists out there and there are many atheists who have either just come out of the closet or have been outed. Main atheists have to deal with issues related to how vocal they should be about their non-belief and how much they should challenge rules and social conventions that are discriminatory.
Now that I have been promoted to a National Atheist Examiner, I would like to start a new series of articles in a “Dear Abby” type format. My plan is to do this every once in a while with issues that I think are common among atheists. It certainly won’t be every article but I would like to shoot for a once or twice a month type thing. The frequency of the “Atheist Advice” articles will mainly be determined by the quality, amount, and relevance of the letters I receive. With that in mind, I want to ask you to send me some letters!
You can e-mail your letter to me at DangerousTalk@gmail.com. The subject line should be “Atheist Advice.” Please put a name (not necessarily your real name) and the state or country you live in. I will not post real last names. Thank you in advance for helping me out with this new project.
Religious fundamentalists tend to be a politically conservative which is actually pretty funny considering that political conservatives whine about big government all the time and religious fundamentalist love to use big government to push their religion every chance they get. For the last 60 years, they have used the power of big government to declare today the National Day of Prayer.
Now, their influence is waning. Atheists are fighting back. There are a few great articles that I have written for Examiner.com that I think we need to spread around today. The most recent article, “Reason and prayer battle for America” just deals with the basic fight. Admittedly, it isn’t my best article.
Last year however, I posted an article, “On Faith: National day of prayer and masturbation,” that deals with the idea of creating a National Day of Masturbation on the same day as the National Day of Prayer. I think that is a great meme to spread around in addition to the National Day of Reason. We should use multiple angles of attack here. The National Day of Masturbation is a little more aggressive and combative while the National Day of Reason is more the peace and love angle.
Then there is the skeptical angle. “Atheism 101: Can prayer heal the sick?” addresses the bare bones bullshit of prayer. Still, there is also another hard hitting angle to explore when dealing with prayer itself. The fact is that prayer can actually be deadly. Not only can prayer not heal the sick, it can cause people to die. Prayer kills! Here is the perfect example: “Prayer death case: Parents found guilty.”
So today, please help to spread these memes all over the internets. It would also be great if you could pass these articles around facebook, twitter, reddit/atheism, digg, etc. I would greatly appreciate that.
May is a holy month for us Jedi, every Star Wars film premiered during the month of May with the original film premiering on May 25th (the official Star Wars Day). However, May 4th is also a day of celebration.
May 4th is a play on the Star Wars greeting of “May the Force be with you.” Both the month of May (already sacred due to Star Wars Day) and the substitution of “Fourth” for “Force” and we have yet another Star Wars Day.
I take my Star Wars very seriously and consider it one of the religions that I believe in. Unlike the Abrahamic religious believers I am aware that my religion is based on fiction, but I find a great deal of wisdom in the Star Wars story.
However, I should point out that for those god-believers who assert that their religion is not based on fiction, I will point out that they cannot actually prove that Star Wars is fiction either. You can’t prove that Luke Skywalker didn’t really live a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Were you there? How can you prove that it isn’t historically accurate then? It takes more faith to not believe in the Force, etc. etc. Insert you favorite ridiculous religious argument here.
Still, there is something about the story that we can all learn from. The Star Wars Saga is filled with wisdom, morality, and life lessons. It is a story of redemption, sacrifice, life, death, love, and loss. It explores politics, the difficulties of war, and the complacency of peace.
So to all my fellow Jedi, May the Fourth be with you!
