On the Financial Crisis

Peter-Ashley Jackson money makes the world go round

The financial crisis was not caused by healthcare, or poor people, or gays, or social welfare, or teachers. It was caused when Fortune 500 corporations in a poorly regulated banking industry played the same scam on home buyers as the “rent to own” stores. They give the customer the item (couch, stove, or in this case… house) and set em up with a payment plan he/she can’t afford. When the sap can’t make the payments, they repossess the item and re-sell it to someone else.

Trouble is, when the scam is played on huge numbers, there’s no one left to re-buy the repossessed items. The result is devastating to the average consumer, and a gold mine for the ultra wealthy who can now buy up everything at dirt cheap prices. The punishment to the banking industry for these unethical practices? They are given TRILLIONS in corporate welfare, paid for by the same people who got screwed over by them.

Somehow, I just don’t feel as upset about Uncle Sam taking $100 from me to help feed and shelter a poor family as I do when they take $200 to help upgrade someone’s Leer Jet!

6 Questions Christians are Always Asking Atheists

6 Questions Christians Ask Atheists

Let’s imagine a story. There’s an invisible being that follows you wherever you go. It watches you constantly—inside and out. It knows your thoughts before you think them. It claims to love you unconditionally, but that love comes with a chilling twist: if you don’t love it back in the precise way it demands, it will punish you for eternity. No questions asked. No appeals granted.

This being, omniscient and omnipotent, rewards obedience with occasional wishes and emotional highs, but punishes dissent—even silent thoughts—with infinite torment. If you follow it with unwavering loyalty, you’ll spend forever worshipping at its feet. But if you dare to question it? You’re damned.

And yet, this story isn’t found in ancient mythology or dystopian fiction—it’s often the centerpiece of modern religion. This is the context many atheists are asked to accept without evidence, and when we don’t, we’re called arrogant, rebellious, or lost.

Here are six common questions Christians ask atheists—and how we might thoughtfully respond.

---

1. “Can you prove there is no God?”

No, and that’s not how logic works. If I told you I had a unicorn in my garage, would the burden fall on you to disprove it? Or would it fall on me to show the unicorn?

The burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. That’s true in science, law, and common sense. As the great Carl Sagan put it: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If you’re claiming that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving supernatural being governs the universe—one who listens to prayers, reads minds, and tracks your every thought—you need to bring compelling evidence to the table.

Atheism is not a claim to know with certainty that no gods exist. It’s a position that says: “I have not seen sufficient evidence to believe that any do.” It’s not about arrogance; it’s about intellectual honesty.

---

2. “Are you angry at God? Are you rebelling?”

This one always makes me smile. Asking if I’m angry at God is like asking if I’m angry at Bigfoot or the Tooth Fairy. How could I be angry at something I don’t believe exists?

I’m no more rebelling against the Christian God than I am against Zeus, Odin, or Santa Claus. Just as Christians don’t believe in Vishnu or Thor, atheists don’t believe in any deity—including the one that happens to be culturally dominant in their part of the world.

When we reject belief, it’s not a rebellion. It’s a conclusion based on reason, evidence, and the courage to ask hard questions.

---

3. “How can you see a sunset and not believe in God?”

Sunsets are beautiful. They inspire awe, reflection, and peace. But a sunset is not evidence of the divine—it's evidence of science: of Earth’s rotation, atmospheric particles, and the bending of light.

Claiming that a sunset proves God’s existence is like claiming that thunder proves the anger of Thor, or that the ocean’s tide proves Poseidon’s presence. Nature’s beauty and mystery don’t automatically imply magic.

Understanding the mechanics behind a sunset doesn’t diminish its beauty. If anything, it deepens our wonder. The universe is vast and stunning and profoundly intricate—and understanding it through science only makes it more miraculous, not less.

---

4. “If you experienced what I have, would you believe?”

I probably have. Many atheists were once deeply religious. I was raised Christian. I prayed. I felt spiritual euphoria. I spoke in tongues. I cried during worship. I believed I had a relationship with Jesus. I felt the “presence of God.”

But emotions are not evidence of truth. People across every religion and cult experience the same overwhelming feelings—Muslims, Hindus, Sufis, Mormons, even followers of destructive cults like Jonestown. Spiritual highs are part of our neurological wiring. They don’t confirm which belief is “true.”

So yes, I’ve experienced what you have. The real question is—have you experienced what I have? Have you allowed yourself to question deeply held beliefs? Have you ever stood on the edge of uncertainty and chosen to build a worldview based on logic, empathy, and inquiry?

---

5. “What if you’re wrong? Isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?”

This is Pascal’s Wager in disguise: the idea that it’s better to believe “just in case.” But here’s the problem: there are thousands of gods humans have worshipped. Which one do we hedge our bets on?

Your belief system likely reflects where you were born and who raised you. If you were born in India, you might be Hindu. In Iran, Muslim. In Utah, Mormon. So who’s to say which deity is “the right one”?

If I fake belief to be “safe,” that’s not faith—it’s fear. And if your god is omniscient, wouldn’t he know I was faking it?

And what if you’re wrong? What if there is no afterlife—and this life, this fleeting, miraculous life, is all we get? What a tragedy it would be to spend it living for someone else’s expectations instead of your own.

---

6. “How can you have morality without God?”

Morality doesn’t come from religion. It comes from empathy, social cooperation, and cultural evolution. Babies aren’t born with morality—they learn it. Feral children, raised without human contact, don’t develop a sense of right or wrong. Morality is taught, refined, and, at its best, questioned.

Some people follow moral rules only when they believe they’re being watched by a divine enforcer. That’s not morality—that’s obedience.

True morality asks, “What causes harm? What’s fair? How would I feel in someone else’s shoes?” It grows beyond cultural norms. Otherwise, slavery, misogyny, and genocide—all of which were once justified by religious doctrine—would still be “moral.”

The most moral people I’ve met weren’t driven by fear of hell or hope of heaven. They were driven by love, reason, and responsibility.

---

Final Thoughts

Being an atheist doesn’t mean living without awe, purpose, or values. In fact, for many of us, it deepens those things. When you realize there’s no cosmic parent cleaning up your mess, you take more care with your life. When you believe this life is all there is, you savor it more. You love more fiercely. You fight harder for justice.

The world is already full of magic—real, tangible, breathtaking magic. The sound of laughter. The rhythm of the tides. The endless dance of galaxies. We don’t need invisible creatures to explain it.

All we need is curiosity, compassion, and the courage to keep asking honest questions—even when the answers are hard.

Real Men are Brave and Strong

Disclaimer: Given that men and women are equal representatives of the human race, the qualities of a real man may be identical to the qualities of a real woman or simply, a real person.

I was raised in a culture that clearly defined what it meant to be a real man. As a male in this environment, the importance of achieving real manhood can not be overstated. As a dyed in the wool skeptic and moral relativist, I would be disappointed if my opinions were interpreted by anyone as some universal definition of manhood.

Real Men are Brave:

If “brave” means “fearless,” I would have to judge one who claims this quality a liar. The fear

response is hardwired into humans and most other animals, so fear is a given. True courage is the ability to do the right thing in spite of one's fear. If we use this second definition, I agree that bravery is necessary to real manhood. A real man has the guts to stand up for the underdog, the unpopular, and the underrepresented. Ironically, many of the characteristics of real men, as defined by culture, are rooted in fear and cowardice.

Real Men are Strong:

I place a high value on physical strength and put forth a good deal of effort to develop and maintain it. However, this quality can easily be dismissed as essential to real manhood. A frail and weak individual who puts himself between danger and someone vulnerable to harm would certainly meet the standards of real manhood. I would specify strength of character as a necessary component of real manhood.

Real Men Wear Prescribed Hairstyles and Clothing:

In my hometown, this prescription includes short hair, with either khaki pants and boat shoes or camouflage and boots. While there is nothing wrong with enjoying the prescribed stuff, I consider one who fears to deviate from it, a coward. No courage at all is required to conform. Fear of being different is indicative of one who does not have what it takes to be a real man.

Real Men Take Care of Their Own:

This is an instinctual characteristic found in many lower animals. Real chimps, baboons, and bison take care of their own. A guy who demonstrates this quality has not distinguished himself beyond the level of a primate. I think a real man must set the bar higher. A real man should take care of all who are unable to defend themselves from abuse and exploitation regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, political group, regional affiliation, socioeconomic status, or even species. One who only takes care of his own is less than a real man.

Real Men View Homosexual Behavior with Disgust:

If this were true, we would have to exclude Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, and Richard the Lion Hearted from the category of “real men.” A large research study tested attitudes about homosexuals in self-identified heterosexual men. The men were then divided into two groups, homophobes, and non-homophobes. Both groups were hooked up to plethysmographs (instruments for measuring erections) and asked to view male, homosexual,

pornographic videos. Only the homophobe group became sexually aroused. This response did not occur in the non-homophobe group. In other words, guys who have huge issues with gay people are often covering for their own homosexual tendencies.

Real Men Take Charge:

Yes, I would say that taking charge when the situation warrants is inherent to real manhood. However, one who wants to take charge in ALL situations is simply arrogant and self-deluded. Real men have the maturity to defer to a more qualified individual when one is available. An intelligence that exceeds the level of any single individual within a group emerges whenever a group of people cooperates and respectfully works together. 

Real Men Express only One Emotion, Anger:

Unless damaged, all people experience the full range of human emotions. Which requires greater courage, to express emotions that show vulnerability or to hide them? Hiding is not a behavior I typically associate with being a real man.

Conclusions:

Make your own.

On Snobbery

sto del Río Agardando por Snob

I had a fairly unpleasant high school experience. In the middle of my tenth grade year, my family moved from the coast of South Carolina to the Piedmont of North Carolina. My new high school had two distinct social groups: tobacco farmers’ kids and the privileged children of fairly affluent parents from Bermuda Run Country Club, a gated community. Oh, there was a tiny, third social group of transplant kids from the Sea Islands of SC… me.

Universally, the tobacco kids were unsophisticated, but emotionally mature. Each worked on the farm from a young age and gained an adult-like tempering from being productive and from contributing to the welfare of his/her family. The Bermuda Run children were emotionally infantile and inflicted a smug, judgmental snobbery on each other and on the rest of us. Prior to the move, I was honestly unaware of the phenomenon called, “name brand.” I quickly learned that wearing shirts with the wrong animal embroidered on the chest or sneakers with the wrong stripe on the side meant ridicule and a sense of shame.

In retrospect, I give the Bermuda Run children a pass. They were simply mimicking their parents. I can understand this level of immaturity in high schoolers, but am always surprised that any adult would want to extend such puerile behaviors beyond adolescence.  Pretentiousness is rare in the upper class, but pervasive to the middle and upper middle-classes. Most Bermuda Runners fell into these latter categories. Bermuda Run parents universally applied the absurd costumes and manners of sociological “wannabes.” Ironically, pretentiousness does not result from feelings of superiority. It is conversely, a manifestation of extreme insecurity. Snobbery is a desperate clinging to the superficial in the absence of genuine self-worth.

Pretentiousness is a “passive-aggressive” behavior that demonstrates craven hostility[1]. The intent of snobbery is to inflict emotional harm on others. It can effectively harm the immature, but ultimately causes greater harm to the snob him/herself. Snobbery is born of fear, vulnerability, and social incompetence. It serves as a mechanism for generating scraps of esteem in people so small inside that these tiny perceived victories are of value. Pretentiousness is a “short game” that sacrifices intimacy and meaningful relationships for pettiness and cruelty[2].

---

[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201401/how-spot-and-deal-passive-aggressive-people

[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200906/field-guide-the-snob-some-it-haute

Are We Dancing Bears?

If you want to understand a species, observe the behaviors of its members over time. Bears have specific behaviors that have been exhibited throughout bear history. Bears forage, hibernate, are omnivorous, and so on. While the reactions of one bear in a particular situation may be unpredictable, the general behaviors of the species are extremely predictable.

Likewise, observation of the human species yields similar understanding. Throughout history, humans have always organized into groups, aspired towards moving up in their respective social pecking orders, developed religious systems, fought with groups having opposing views and with groups having desired resources, and so on.

It is possible to train a bear to dance and do tricks. A bear can rise above its nature and learn to do things beyond the scope of the average bear. However, training a bear to dance does not change the behavior of the bear species. The dancing bear is an anomaly and will likely be rejected by other bears in nature.

Individual humans can also rise above their base nature and, using the highly complex human mind, learn to live as relatively enlightened, rational animals. But, an enlightened individual does not change the overall patterns of the human species. Socrates, Plato, Gandhi, the Buddha all demonstrated varying levels of enlightened understanding... but they were anomalies and were ultimately rejected by their species.

The species did not become enlightened by the efforts of enlightened individuals. Instead, the human species simply incorporated concrete aberrations of abstract, enlightened messages into the same systems and patterns that have always existed in humans (i.e. forming groups, moving up in social pecking orders, fighting with groups that have opposing viewpoints, etc.).

I postulate that enlightened beings are no more than dancing bears. They are an interesting anomaly having little impact on the species at large. Bears behave like bears. Let them be bears. Humans behave like humans. Let them be humans. We each have the opportunity to develop our minds and bodies far beyond those of the typical human, but that will not change the nature of the human species.

On Critical Thinking

Kevin Friery Questions from the Floor

By nature, critical thinking leads to more questions than answers. For a skilled critical thinker, issues are rarely simple. Because critical thought requires approaching a problem from many angles and many perspectives, solutions tend to come in shades of gray rather than black and white. 

People who are not inclined towards critical thinking, have a much greater tendency to see things in terms of black and white. For them, conforming to a solution posed by the group with whom they identify is easy and even the obvious "right thing to do." They may interpret the failure of critical thinkers to do likewise as "crazy" or "stupid."


Critical thinking does not come naturally to humans. It requires ongoing training and self-discipline. The difference between the skilled critical thinker and the average thinker is as dramatic as the difference between the physique of a pro body builder and the average physique.

Teach's Precepts for Critical Thinking:

1. High levels of certainly often correlates to low levels of critical thinking [1]
Examples from the Left and the Right of failure to critically evaluate the issue:
1. On the Left: "All of my friends at the health food store say that immunizations are dangerous and cause autism. There are scientific studies that prove it. Immunizations are part of a conspiracy generated by the medical industrial complex."
In truth, there was a single flawed study linking immunization to autism. The results have not been replicated, and overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the need for immunization reflects the consensus of the scientific community. So, if you believe that immunizations are bad, this belief is likely based on anecdotes, your need to conform to the group with whom you identify, and on your intuitive feelings of paranoia.
2. On the Right: "The guys on Talk Radio say that climate change is a myth. Many scientists agree. The whole global warming thing is a conspiracy perpetrated by liberal scientists who want grant money."
Actually, there has never been a more researched natural phenomenon in history than climate change. Overwhelming scientific evidence supports the validity of climate change caused by human activity and this view is supported by a consensus of the scientific community. If you believe that climate change is not occurring or that it is not caused by human activity, this belief is likely based on anecdotes, your need to conform to the group with whom you identify, and on your intuitive feelings of paranoia. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.short
That said, alternative theories to the scientific consensus are a VERY good thing. On occasion, the scientist who opposes the consensus will find strong opposing evidence. As opposing evidence accumulates and eventually outweighs supporting evidence, the scientific consensus will shift to the new position. So, if and when evidence opposing immunization and opposing climate change theory accumulates to the tipping point, good critical thinkers (like the scientific community) will shift to the new position.

I was once trying to teach a particularly difficult theory to a class. About half the class understood the theory and the other half didn't get it. When polled, 100% of the students who understood the theory said they agreed with the theory while 100% of those who failed to understand the theory described it as "stupid." It takes time and effort to become informed on complex issues and no effort at all to have a gut level response. Ironically, the informed individual is more likely to be uncertain about his/her position than is the uninformed individual.



2. Objective evidence and logic outweigh popular views and intuition
3. "Feelings" are not evidence. "Common Sense" is not evidence. "Faith" is not evidence. "How I was raised" is not evidence. "Anecdotes" are not evidence.
4. Changing positions when opposing evidence outweighs supporting evidence is the hallmark for critical thought.
5. Ego is the greatest obstacle to critical thought.

[1] "Critical Thinking and Emotional Intelligence." Critical Thinking and Emotional Intelligence. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Resolution to Be Less Tolerant in 2015

mt 23 Resolutions.

I plan to be less tolerant of Bullies who camouflage insecurity by feeding cowardly egos on the suffering of the weak and less fortunate.

I plan to be less tolerant of Bigots. They are cruel and stupid, more animal than human. I will not eat at the same table with one and would prefer not to drink from water fountains used by these filthy creatures.

I plan to be less tolerant of Homophobes. Their obsession with what other adult human beings do in the privacy of their bedrooms is twisted and perverted. They should be excluded from any role where they have influence over children, be it parent, clergy, teacher, or scout leader.

I plan to be less tolerant of people who think the statement, “That's just how I was raised,” excuses bad behavior. As children we have no choice but to comply with the norms of our families and cultures. As adults it is our sacred responsibility to improve the world by meticulously evaluating the values and “morals” on which we were raised and discarding any that cause harm or suffering to others.

Message from the Bones of a Broken Pirate

We are here to remind you of who you are.

You are temporary.

You are broken.

You are parts that fit together less and less comfortably

You are a sputtering, coughing stream of semi-consciousness

See how easily the veneer peels away and exposes your frailty?

See how your posture mimics a sail on a still afternoon?

You are the scent of stale, empty space

Hear your voice deepen and crack like an old wooden hull?

There is no place to hide, but you try to hide

You are afraid

You are dishonest

What would happen if you forced your crooked frame into the light of day?

Dare you take a peek at what is real?

Would you die of shame?

Can you neutralize the mechanisms that imprison you?

You made the locks so strong

And you love them so

On Mood Disorder

dierk schaefer Brain

The human brain is the most complex item in the known universe. Isn't it a "no brainer" that this physical organ will sometimes malfunction and need treatment? The heart is a pump. The kidney, a filter. Have an issue with one of these simple organs and everyone you know will tell you to comply with your medical treatment. But, when the brain malfunctions, people say treatment is bullshit and you just need to get over it... The result? ... the tragic loss to suicide of some of the most brilliant, talented, wonderful minds in history.

On Ancient Texts

Robin Zebrowski Ancient Text

There were cultures in the ancient world (like the Mayans) that were quite advanced for their time. But, their knowledge was minuscule when compared to the unfathomable range of information advanced by the modern age of science. Referring to ancient texts for "wisdom," is like referring to a six year old for advice on doing your taxes.

On Road Rage

Tony Fischer Road Rage (Ever Drive in NYC?)

Just saw a grown man screaming, beating on his steering wheel, and shaking a billy club at the driver in front of him. He looked for all the world, like a comic idiot. 

Road rage comes naturally to humans. The driving errors of others is a source of frustration for everyone. Road rage is also infantile behavior. I'm not sure if this manifestation of extreme immaturity is due to a vague perception of anonymity, or a false sense of safety at being encapsulated in an automobile.

While other people's driving errors are not to our liking, our own driving errors are, likewise, equally annoying to others. The appropriate adult response to crappy drivers is to note one's own discomfort, drive on with a greater degree of caution, then go home and fuss to friends and family. If, on the other hand, the response is to wave fists and weapons, lay on the horn, curse and gesticulate, pull in front and slam on brakes, or engage in extreme tailgating... it is an indicator that you need to grow the f@&k up! The road is not an elementary school playground.

Critical Evaluation of some "Old Sayings"

 "Absence makes the heart grow fonder."

This may have some validity in the short run, but in the long run, absence tends to quell (but not necessarily eliminate) emotional connections. Otherwise, the grief one feels at the death of a loved one or the termination of a romantic relationship would increase in intensity over time, rather than the gradual tempering of the grief response we have all experienced.

"You can’t teach an old dog new tricks."

This is simply a false statement. Old dogs and old people have the capacity to learn throughout the lifespan (in the absence of brain disorders). http://jag.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/03/0733464811431824.abstract

"Lightning never strikes twice in the same place."

Another false statement
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/myth-lightning-never-strikes-twice/19890

"Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach."

Aside from my own personal objection to this sentiment, this saying doesn't make sense. Teaching, like all jobs, requires a specific skill set (i.e. good communication skills, charisma, ability to inspire others, passion, knowledge of subject matter, etc.). The world’s greatest biologist could be a terrible biology teacher. The world’s greatest auto mechanic might be completely incompetent in the instruction of car repair.

"Faith can move mountains."

Faith can move… nothing. Dynamite, bulldozers, big trucks, and people of action have proven an effective means for messing mountains up, but faith has yet to move even a grain of sand. On a side note, “faith” is generally regarded as a positive attribute. The term refers to belief without evidence, based on gut feelings or intuition. I consider this a slippery slope. If I accept even one idea without evidence, have I not opened the floodgates to falling for believing any number of absurdities? Doesn't this define gullibility and make me an easy mark for those who would manipulate me to their advantage?

"People with book smarts have no common sense."

Research has shown the exact opposite. Different types of intelligence tend to positively correlate with each other. In other words, folks who are highly intelligent in one arena, tend to also be highly intelligent in other arenas (and vice versa). We all know exceptions to this pattern and tend to use them as “evidence” to the truth of this old saying. However, using rare exceptions to nullify overwhelming data to the contrary speaks more to our psychological need to “take smart people down a peg” than it does to the validity of the saying… Besides, isn’t it common sense to have book smarts?

"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

Hmmm, this one is just self-evident bull shit.

Corporate Policing

David Shankbone Day 12 Occupy Wall Street September 28 2011 Shankbone 54

Human beings are complicated, conflicted creatures. We spend our lives wrestling with ourselves, trying to choose the "right thing to do." To help us make the right choices, we establish government with laws to guide us. We fill every city with police officers to ensure that citizens behave properly. Even with this level of oversight, many citizens still make bad choices and sometimes have to be removed from society.

Interestingly, there is a bizarre disconnect when we are dealing with "corporate citizens." While few take exception to the regulations designed to enforce appropriate individual behavior, voices rise up in anger when we regulate the behaviors of corporate citizens. Some even suggest that corporate citizens should police themselves!

So my question is, if individual citizens are so bad at regulating their own behaviors that they require law enforcement on every street corner, how could we expect people who are operating under the anonymity of a corporation to behave appropriately with so little enforcement of such very weak regulations?

If you con someone out of their money and then you lose that money gambling, you have committed a crime. You may be prosecuted, fined far more than you lost gambling, and sent to jail. If Citibank cons someone out of their money and then loses that money gambling on risky investments, Citibank is reimbursed with tax subsidies while their victims lose their homes.

Like ·  · Promote · Share

On Takers

Nic McPhee Wealth and poverty (And to all a good night)

The average CEO of the S&P 500 corporations earns $16.3 million per year, while the average full-time minimum wage worker earns $15 thousand per year.

Is the guy with multiple personal secretaries and a private jet who works full-time in a beautiful office and gets $230,769 every week for his efforts a taker? 

or

Is the guy on food stamps and HUD who works full-time over a hot grill and gets $269 every week for his efforts a taker?