My Arguments Against God Featured in the Latest Carnival of the Godless

My rebuttal to William Lane Craig's arguments for god have been featured in the CoG hosted at The Radula.

The author had some nice praise for my paper:

Arizona Atheist submits William Craig Lane's Arguments for God Refuted, an in depth look, not only at refuting arguments for the existence of a god, but at how we understand the concepts of "premise" and "logic" as we proceed in such arguments, clearing up the fallacies not only in the conclusions of the godly, but in the very foundations of how the arguments are generated and presented.

Thank you!

My Arguments Against God Featured in the Latest Carnival of the Godless

Debating Anarchism

Near the end of last year I was emailed by the author of Waging Nonviolence about a piece he wrote about anarchism called Can peace be obtained through anarchy? He asked me for my opinion so I commented on his website.

I responded with the following:

Hi Mr. Everitt, thanks for emailing me the link to your post. It’s very interesting, and I’m happy to see that you found a dictionary definition that doesn’t define anarchy as “disorder,” since that’s not what it originally meant, and is what many peoples’ views of anarchism is.

As far as the question, “Can peace be obtained through anarchy?” Yes, I think it could. There have been several examples of anarchy in action, though most of them have been small, I shall grant anyone that argument. Though, it shows that the principle can work. Now, how well with several million people, that’s another question. That’s why I argue for privatized services, including privatized security one can use to protect your home if you wish. Other privatized services include water, sewage, and garbage, which have been implemented in many places, no government needed. That’s all anarchy is anyway, the lack of a government, so I propose replacing government with privatized services, which operate on a completely free market, through contracts with individuals for such services.

I do not agree with Tolstoy that self-defense is wrong. Any harm that is done to an individual is wrong, therefore, you are completely in the right to stop such action.

Many people bring up these third-world countries where governments have fallen and argue this is what would happen should anarchy become a reality, but what isn’t mentioned is the already present turmoil to begin with.

I also agree with the commentator named T.B. about the always present violence and abuse by the government. A mass murderer – if not caught – could never kill as many people as a government could in a single war, or even the “War On Drugs.” More like war on people (that’s the extent of my “rant” on that subject). But the fact that as government gets bigger, more intrusive, and continues to violate our rights, I don’t see the point in supporting government. Yes, it’s true we vote, but what does that accomplish, really? It simply exchanges one tyrant for another and solves very little, to nothing at all.

I’d like to make one last comment about what commentator J.H. said:

“In an anarchical society the only way to stop your fist (i.e your interests, economic and otherwise) from hitting my nose, is my brute force.”

This doesn’t make sense to me because, while you may protect yourself (or even contract with a privatized security officer to patrol your home) in an anarchical society, what’s the difference between the cops finding some robber, beating the crap out of him, while throwing him behind bars where he’s likely to be raped, beat, or deathly ill in america’s prisons? You’ve simply allowed another group of individuals to use brute force instead of yourself. Brute force is a simple fact of life. Some people wish to take what’s not theirs and they should be stopped with force if necessary.

The point I like to stress is that without government human beings would be free to live their life as they wanted (so long as they don’t infringe upon anothers’ rights), without their possessions and income being stolen ( erosion of personal property laws and taxes) – not to mention violated by police, if not beaten or killed – or violated in some other way by some “authority” whom you cannot protect yourself from (ever see a person protecting themselves from a cop using excessive force? It’s called “resisting arrest”, not the actual, ‘protecting myself from abuse and excessive use of force which should be the right of every individual’).

To which Mr. Everitt responded:

Arizona Atheist, thanks so much for reading the blog and leaving your comment here. I must say, I think it would be a very good response to a blog entitled, “Can Freedom from Government be Obtained Through Anarchy?” As a response to this blog, however, I find it less persuasive.

I personally don’t believe that an anarcho-capitalist system, where individuals contract out for privatized security services, is conducive to establishing a peaceful society. Others have described the potential perils better than I can. I would refer to Ayn Rand, who feared that private security firms in an anarcho-capitalist system would quickly resort to violence as soon as a dispute broke out between individuals employing different firms: “[S]uppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.” With no objective legal code in place, it is certainly well within the realm of possibility that such disputes could eventually lead to full-scale conflicts. In an era when we have seen major (and disturbing) scandals involving private firms like Blackwater, CACI, Titan Corp., and Aegis Defence Services, Rand’s warning seems particularly prescient.

As I noted in this blog, while a democratic form of government does come with warts (including war and incidents of excessive force by law enforcement), it also allows citizens numerous avenues to affect policy and redress grievances. In the case of police abuse, citizens have tools at their disposal to deal with such problems. Even if it is impossible to pursue criminal charges against rogue police officers, citizens can still rid themselves of a mayor, council, and other elected officials if they refuse to address the problem satisfactorily (i.e., by firing the officers, launching an internal investigation, appointing a new police chief who is willing to clean up the department, etc.). Ultimately, public officials are dependent on our votes and financial support, and that allows us our full say concerning their public safety decisions.

Those guarantees simply don’t exist in a state of anarchy, and your belief that “brute force is a simple fact of life” (whether you are an adherent of Tolstoy or not) does not seem to me like any type of foundation upon which to achieve peace.

I responded yet again with the following:

Hi Mr. Everitt,

I hope you had a nice new year.

My point about organization is that without it peace is less likely because of mass confusion. But if there is a structure to society, with known boundaries, that is one large aspect of a peaceful society. I also did mention those several anarchist societies that have been peaceful and successful.

You seem to think (and please correct me of I’m wrong) that anarchy is utopian; that there will be absolute peace and people will respect others all the time, but that’s simply not realistic. It doesn’t happen by any means with the government now, and it sure wouldn’t happen without one. However, the liklihood of there being less deaths and violence is good since the government is responsible for so much as it is. Like I said, it’s a fact of life that there are people out there who wouldn’t hesitate to harm you in order to take what they want, which is where the privatized security comes in. My point was that as it stands now, these brutalizers are our ‘authorities’, whom we often cannot get compensation from if they happen to cross the line. How many times have police gotten off the hook for their abuses? I do not trust the fox to watch out for the hen house. They protect their own and often lie. Even with a change in management so to speak, I sure haven’t seen much change in the level of police brutality lately. If anything, from what I’ve seen, it seems to be on the rise.

As far as the disputes between different agencies I don’t see that as a great argument. Contracts could be set up between them for guidance if such occurrences did take place. Anarchy is not lawlessness; it is truly a society for the people, by the people. Individuals agree with one another about the rules they will live by, instead of it being foisted upon them as it is now.

Ultimately, it’s about the equality of each human being. No human being is above another and no human being is ‘above the law’ so to speak. If another person infringes upon the rights of another something can be done about it because no individual is out of reach of any other individual.

I’m no expert on the subject so I may not be able to answer all your questions, but my friend, who changed my views about government, might be willing to discuss the issue of anarchism with you. You can contact him at his website if you’d like another viewpoint: http://www.bobclapp.com/ The link to his blog is at the top also.

Debating Anarchism

Why Anarchism, Communism and Libertarianism are Pipe Dreams: My Response

I recently came across an article at www.opednews.com titled Why Anarchism, Communism and Libertarianism are Pipe Dreams, by Michael Bonanno. He criticizes my blog post where I explain why I am an anarchist. I'd like to thank Mr. Bonanno for writing this piece as I'm always grateful of criticism since it's sometimes our critics who can spot holes in our arguments and help to lead us to greater knowledge and understanding. Unfortunately, I do not think his piece accomplishes this. I'm going to reply to his criticism in this piece and explain why it doesn't hold water.

Mr. Bonanno begins his piece with much I largely agree with:

I've been following a blogger who calls himself The Arizona Atheist. I agree with his belief that man created god to explain things that couldn't easily be explained, like rain. Unfortunately, too many of us haven't grown out of it yet.

The post I'm referring to however is a post entitled "Why I'm an Anarchist".

It was always a crap shoot with government.

I belong to The Socialist Party of the United States. However, I'm not so naïve as to not know that Germany was a Socialist/socialist nation during the Hitler administration. If government was a crap shoot, socialist government is a crap shoot writ large.

So, I agree, government can really suck. The governments of The Former United States of America have mostly been strong arming bullies, both to the people who inhabited this land and to people who inhabit other lands.

This confuses me, because while Mr. Bonanno criticizes Communism, he is himself a Socialist.

However, in my humble opinion, the struggle between economic systems was what started an already conquering people on a downward spiral and the economic system that ultimately won out has done away with government altogether, especially any semblance of government that the pretty words of the wealthy founders expressed.

The founders wanted a democratic republic which included a House of Lords and, until the early 20th century, pretty much got their way. Senators were not elected by the people until the 17th Amendment to The Constitution passed in 1913. Many of the founders, especially people like John Adams, probably did an interred 360 when that happened.

Common people, and only a small percentage of the common people, had the opportunity to vote for representatives and could only hope that those representatives represented them the way in which they said that they would represent them during election campaigns. Of course, it's the Senate that has all the rules and "flexible" guidelines to overcome anything that "the people's house" might pass.

Today, thirty years after our Democratic Republic was terminated, even members of The House of Representatives have finally become wholly owned subsidiaries of "the private sector". I began calling our government a Corporacracy some years back, not knowing that Ralph Nader had already coined that word. Further, I didn't realize that the term Corporatocracy was already in use, coined, I believe, by Benito Mussolini. So I guess from now on I'll just use the word Corporatocracy so as not to confuse the matter.

The Corporatocracy is really not a government as such, though. It doesn't govern. No one governs. The Corporatocracy tells those who are in positions that hold the titles that those in government once held what to do; where to go to war; how to distribute health care; who cleans up oil spills; who gets to create wealth on the backs of formerly solvent Americans and squalor entrenched citizens of third world "nations". The quotes indicate that The Corporatocracy recognizes no "nation". It is the nation and it expands from Beijing to Madrid and from Kabul to Pretoria and from Helsinki to Phoenix and from Reykjavik to Seoul. There is no part of this global nation that The Corporatocracy doesn't own, although Latin America is once again showing to be the only place on earth with enough balls to, yet, again, fight its intrusive death grip.

I agree with much of what he has to say about the corporations who run things; that is completely right, and I couldn’t agree more.

But then he begins his discussion of Anarchism:

So, anarchy? No one governs and the private sector runs things. Sounds a lot like what Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman said would be the saving grace for those who would be so lucky as to be saved. As Orwell wrote in his exceptional microcosm of the macrocosm, Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Well, Animal Farm was a government, you say, and, indeed, that's right. The Soviet Republic was a government, but the rulers of The Party were no more and no less than Chief Executive Officers of a nation state. They did to the poor in Russia and the satellite nations what The Corporatocracy is doing today. They hoarded and left those who actually created value with little or nothing. Only, to repeat once again, today we're doing it with no government.

Later on he says,

Anarchy is a bit like what I envision "pure communism" to be. One great big commune in which everyone gives what they can and no one takes more than they need. We know that's a paraphrase of one of the most important premises of pure communism.

Here is the same unfounded strawman that I’ve come across before. Anarchism is not Communism. Libertarianism is neither Anarchism or Communism.

Libertarianism is an approach that does not wish to do away with government entirely, but tries to make it smaller, more manageable by the people, and makes it so it has less control over our lives. Like my friend Bob Clapp likes to say, “Libertarianism is one cop and one judge.” It is the smallest form of government you can possibly have. Now, he doesn’t mean this literally, but just to illustrate the kind of very small government that Libertarians wish for.

Communism was, in its intended form, to be a society that was run by the people and all production and ownership was held by all equally (not the power mad lunatics who ran Russia).

Anarchism is a belief that a society without rulers is the desired form of social organization. All people are free to live as they wish, do as they wish with no restrictions so long as they do no harm to another.

While each of these ideas have some things in common, they do have their differences and I do not think should be lumped together.

Mr. Bonanno’s argument seems to criticize my belief that private companies can replace government as he lists several examples of private companies screwing people over and doing unethical things.

In part, he says,

Today, the difference in pay between CEOs and those still fortunate enough to work for a manufacturing corporation in The FUSA is upwards of 500-1. Top executives no longer talk about beating the competition with good service and quality products. Today if the competition gets too close for comfort, they simply buy the competition. Of course this leads to less and less competition which could lead to monopoly capital once again and we'll have to hope for the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt.

Protective tariffs, which leveled the playing field between the deservedly advancing American worker and the squalor entrenched Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese (yes, Vietnamese, those who "aggressively" obliterated our destroyers with their sail boats in the Gulf Of Tonkin and who lived in the land in which 58,000 Americans died), Korean, Taiwanese, Malaysian, etc., etc., those tariffs were Hiroshimaed and the patriotic American private sector tossed aside those "important" American production workers for the more "accommodating" Chinese workers. They found the Chinese acceptance of $1.44/hour much more to their liking as well as the devil may care Chinese attitude towards the Orb which we continue to rape and continue to choke to death. They can literally work Asian and African workers to death without improving their standards of living and flaunt their newly found freedom to bring the sh*t that was produced back into The FUSA.

At first, people loved it, right? Wal-Mart sold shoes that used to cost $40 or $50 at 2 pair for .99 sales. All this because there were no workers to include in work decisions, to whom to pay a living wage, to whom to give a reasonable amount of paid time off to rest and recuperate and these are just the workers who man the stores in The FUSA.

I don't know when the last time was that I walked into a Wal-Mart, but I am sure, judging by his professionalism and demeanor that the older man, not old man, who said "Welcome to Wal-Mart", had an important job with Monsanto or Dow Chemical in his recent past. I can only assume that he was paid at least $60,000 to $75,000 a year for that position when they downsized, rightsized, delayered or otherwise corporate sweet talked him into the unemployment line.

I agree that there are no guarantees (I am not proposing some utopian dream). I am proposing breaking up these large powerful companies and organizing a society around the social contract. Private companies compete with one another (and there will be no government to hand over our money to help a failing company out!) and the ones that provide the best services and treat people the best will obviously win in a free market economy. The idea of natural selection at work. In this way, the best companies will thrive and the ones that partake in unethical acts and treat it’s employees and customers unfairly will die out. The very problem is government, who often is in bed with these powerful companies and keeps them afloat despite their failings. Remember the government’s multi-billion dollar bailout of Fannie Mae, several auto companies, and AIG?

It must also be shown that privatized companies are not always as the author would have you believe. There are several examples of highly effective, cheaper and less bloated (in contrast to the government) privatized services.

In Reminderville, Ohio, the city receives complete police protection from a private firm run by Arthur Robataille. Because of this, the people of Reminderville pay only half of what they originally paid the sheriff's office, and the service level is a lot higher. They contract for 90,000 per year calls for Corporate Security, Inc. to provide the service of seven officers, two patrol cars, and a six minute response time. One of the outcomes of this is that burglary rates in one 3.5 square mile area dropped from 14% to 0.7% per month and remained there. [1]

Another city is Oro Valley, Arizona, which privatized its police services. The town hired a private firm to replace the County Sheriff's department. Even though the private firm gave higher quality service, cut a substantial amount of the cost, and had the complete support of all the citizens, the arrangement was challenged in court by the state law enforcement officer's association. Due to legal expenses, the private firm decided not to fight. Today, Oro Valley's government run police department costs four times as much in inflated-adjusted dollars. [2]

That is an excellent example of what happens when the government senses competition: it wants to extinguish it. Despite it's claims of wanting to help its citizens, what this proves is the monopoly the government wants on everything. I think the reason is clear. The more it forces its way into peoples' lives, the more power it will ultimately gain over those people.

In San Francisco, at least at one point; I’m not sure about the current situation, the entire north section of the city has/had eighty "private police beats" and are/were owned by private specialists. Business owners, homeowners, and landlords pay them. Each patrolman purchases a beat and negotiates the contract with each property owner. The costs for the service has produced a per annum savings in theft and damages in excess of four times that of the contracted costs, and nearly ten times that of when the local government "protected" them. [3]

Other than the above examples, other services across the U.S. have been successfully privatized and operated more effectively and at a greatly reduced cost. [4]

Refuse Collection........................... 489
Water Supply.................................. 286
Street Construction/Maintenance... 206
Hospitals......................................... 107
Libraries............................................ 88
Fire Services..................................... 65
Full and Partial Police Services........ 28

In fact, there have been 66 services that have been available by contract from private firms. Everything from traffic-signal maintenance, zoning & subdivision control, to welfare have been privatized in at least one location. [5]

He also draws from the age old argument against Anarchism, that of peoples’ often bad natures:

And don't tell Libertarians because they'd be pissed, but they count on the same safety net that anarchy and communism count on; the innate goodness of human kind.

Is this the innate goodness that drives people to force place holders for former government positions to send men and women to their deaths for the purpose of stealing riches and minerals and fossil fuels from nations who really want the revenues from those riches to improve the lives of the people in their own countries? Is this the innate goodness which drives the top officers of corporations to send American jobs to third world slave nations, sending once seemingly stable Americans into the throes of poverty? Is this the innate goodness that drives Corporatists to force place holders for former government positions to send the CIA into Latin America to assassinate people like Salvador Allende and to threaten and demonize Hugo Chávez? Is this the same innate goodness that whips up hate against brown skinned people coming to what was once their country anyway and taking jobs offered them by those very same instigators?

I would definitely agree that human beings are not always the most charitable but many often are and that seems to be forgotten by many who criticize Anarchism. There still must be rules put in place, which is the purpose of the social contract. The only difference is that people individually will agree or not to a law they must live under so as to stop any form of mob rule (which is what democracy ultimately is anyway; for example, the vote).

Aside from the social contract to help govern behavior hopefully society will continue marching along that moral continuum where we gain ever greater moral insights. Just as societies once saw slavery as just another part of life, now it is seen as one of the greatest evils. Hopefully in time, humanity will see that treating others fairly is also an excellent moral principle to follow. It seems, however, that not all corporations are as greedy as those in America. In several countries, such as Britain and France, the ratios of the salaries paid to top-tier CEO’s and those paid to the same firms’ average employees is 24:1 in Britian; 15:1 in France; and 31:1 in Sweden. [6] Hopefully this country will follow suit. Regardless, this data does show that corporations are not always greedy and humanity can move towards a society that treats others fairly and with respect. Regardless of what CEO’s average pay is, the fact is that the social contract can be used to set standards of behavior and anarchism does not assume that all people are good. There are methods of dealing with trouble makers, thieves, etc.

Near the end, the author says the following.

How can a 5'2" man who makes sense get to a large audience to teach them that we indeed need a government, one that's elected directly by the people; one that's made up of people who engage in very short political campaigns; one which is made up of people who don't have to mortgage their first born just for the privilege of losing in a primary; one which is made up of people who are not only not beholden to The Corporatocracy, but also not beholden to any political party; one which is made up of people who want to govern and govern well, not get a good paying job with a lot of perks; one which is made up of people who think that a government salary will make them comfortable albeit not necessarily in a position to purchase an original Renoir and consequently one which is made up of people who could care less how much money liars, murderers and thieves wave under their noses.

Who can make the changes that need to be made to reform our political system so we can get such a government? They are the very place holders who sit in The House of Representatives, The Senate, The White House and on The Supreme Court today, that's who they are.

They are The Corporatocracy.

Sorry 'bout that.

I’m not familiar with this author and his writing style and whether or not he is contradicting himself, but it seems he is arguing that only government will be able to change itself. I’m sorry, but as he just said in his article earlier, the corporations run the government! Why do you think all those lobbyists are there? I believe that “the people” have never truly run their governments. It’s always been the rich and powerful who have the money to run for office and they in turn line their own pockets and make decisions that help themselves and those who pay them. Sure, in some cases “the people” can effect some change, but very little and ultimately the government does what it wants regardless of the peoples’ desires.

The last two lines confuse me. Is the author saying that it’s The Corporatocracy that will effect this change? And he says, “Sorry 'bout that” almost as if he is saying that even though government isn’t always what we wish it was it’s all we've got and it’s still a necessary institution.

If that’s the case, I disagree completely. As I’ve shown, there are many options for privatization and the smaller the organizations the more easily we all can manage these institutions that are there to help us in our daily lives. That is, after all the sole purpose of government; to help and protect the people. And as the founders argued (for what it’s worth anyway), they felt that any government that failed to help people and “secure rights,” not take them away and abuse people, should be abolished.Why are so many against this very acceptable principle that was one of the foundations of this very country? I believe those in power have indoctrinated it’s citizens to believe falsely that any form of rebellion against government is wrong, even though it was a basis of the founding of this country. Those in power want to keep their power. It’s that simple. Why do so many feel they must protect and defend such an immoral and destructive force? I still am not entirely sure.

Again, I thank Mr. Bonanno for responding to my piece, but I believe he has failed to rebut my arguments in favor of anarchism; a real chance at true freedom.

References

1. Every Man and Woman an Island: The Individual Human Being as Prime in the Universe, by Robert Clapp, Trafford, 2004; 117

2. Ibid.; 118

3. Ibid.; 118

4. Ibid.; 119

5. How to Shrink Government: Privatizing the Public Sector, by E.S. Savas, Chatham House Publishers, Inc., 1982, 62-64

6. Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris, Alfred A. Knopf, 2006; 46

Why Anarchism, Communism and Libertarianism are Pipe Dreams: My Response

Why I Have No Religious Beliefs - Updated & Expanded

About three years ago I wrote a post of the same name summing up my reasons for becoming an atheist. In this updated post I'm going to try to go into a bit more detail than before and add information I neglected to in the first post.

I was never raised in a religious home. I was never indoctrinated by my parents, though my mother when I was younger would often try to get my father and I to go to church; for what reasons I’m not sure. But my father would have none of it. As it turns out he was (and still is) an atheist and that’s why he didn’t care to go. As for my mother, I do not know what her beliefs were when I was a child, but at this point in her life she considers herself an agnostic.

I have very few memories about any religious instruction. Most of it comes from a day care I attended as a child for a few years that was run in a church. I recall being forced to attend church services once or twice a week, but that didn’t affect me. I mostly thought it was boring and didn’t pay any attention. All the children who attended the day care, however, were (from what I recall) told to practice for a small concert that was being put on by the church and we all had to rehearse. I recall the woman leading the practices asking me and several others if were going to make the performance that night. I told her I wasn’t going to make it. I didn’t like practicing and I had no desire to be up on a stage singing those songs.

Other than that, I recall asking my mother when I was younger “what we were” referring to religious belief and she told me that we were “Christians, because we believe in god.” I also remember my mother telling me that when I die I would be rejoined with my foot (more on this later) I had lost when I was a child (I’m assuming she was imparting the belief that once you die you will get a new body in heaven).

I remember being very confused as a child about who god was. Was Jesus god, or were there two gods, even though I would always hear there was only one god.

I did believe in god as a child and would occasionally pray for something. Once I found an insect (maybe a grasshopper) that looked injured to me and I tried to help it stand up since it was laying on its back wiggling its legs. After several attempts it seemed to me that it was helpless so I decided to “put it out of its misery.” I stomped on it and killed it, but before doing so said a prayer before killing it.

I also believed that god knew and saw all that you did, both in action and thought and sometimes that would bother me. I do not recall exactly why.


One last memory I have, and I cannot recall where it occurred (maybe the day care I spoke of earlier), I was sitting in a group with other children and a woman was holding up a picture of Jesus that was similar to the one on the left. Since it happened so long ago that may even be the very same picture used. It looks very familiar, though I’ve also seen it since.

I recall her explaining to the children and myself how we have to let Jesus in. He wants to be a part of our lives; we just have to realize that he is at the door asking to be let in and all we have to do is let him in.

Fast forward to my teenage years.

So what I’m about to say all makes sense I think it’s best to explain that I am an amputee and have been since early childhood. I was a very well-adjusted child. I didn’t care what others thought of my leg. I recall one faint memory when I took off my prosthetic leg for my classmates for a kind of show-and-tell. But things changed when I entered middle school.

When I began my three years in middle school (from sixth grade to eighth grade) that is when most children begin to find themselves and begin their journey to adulthood and try to fit in with their peers. It was this period of time when I first realized that I was different from other children. Prior to middle school I had always been raised like any other child. I ran and played, did my best to do what other kids did, despite my prosthetic leg.

In trying to fit in I realized that a lot of people seemed to dislike me; they would avoid me or act as if they didn’t like me. I sometimes wonder if since I was on the bottom rungs of the popularity ladder if some people just pretended to not like me for fear of being teased because they befriended someone who was unpopular.

I did have several good friends who did not care about the prosthetic leg, and that got me through middle and high school. But despite my friends helping me out during tough times, some people can be too cruel for words.

One time in a music appreciation class this group of kids every day would harass me. For weeks this went on. One day one of them asked if I had termites. The group laughed loudly. He was obviously asking this because this idiot thought my prosthetic was made of wood. They haven’t been made like that since before I was born at least. Another time this girl who was friendly to me at first out of nowhere became one of my worst antagonists. One day the teacher decided to create assigned seating alphabetically by each students’ last name. As it so happened she was supposed to sit right next to me. When her seat was given to her she got furious and refused to sit in the seat next to me. She yelled out, “I ain’t sitting by no cripple!” I cannot describe how small I felt. I looked over in the other direction at one of my friends who was sitting next to me. I can still remember the immense sympathetic look in his eyes as he watched how this girl was reacting.

One experience that truly made me depressed happened in middle school and cemented my belief that it was my prosthetic leg that caused people to dislike me. At first it was just a belief I had; perhaps I was just being paranoid or wrongly feeling discriminated against, but one day I got confirmation that my belief was true, which caused me to feel even more depressed. I had liked a girl in a class but she had a boyfriend at the time. We were still friends anyway. Once during a class I overheard her talking with another girl who asked her, “Would you go out with him?” And the girl I had a little crush on replied, “Yeah,” to which the other girl responded with some shock, “But he’s only got one leg” as they whispered back and forth to each other. Of course, obviously not quiet enough. After which the girl I liked retorted, “It’s not what’s on the outside, what matters is what’s on the inside” and the other girl said, “Yeah, but...” and I think they glanced over at me and saw I had heard them so the rest of the conversation I did not hear because they lowered their voices even more.

These and many other unfortunate experiences drove my self-esteem to near non-existence. In the summer of 1997 I pretty much hit rock bottom from all the teasing I had endured over the years. I was a sophomore in high school at the time. I remember countless times asking god to take the sadness away; asking god why he let me live. When I was a baby I was premature and almost died and was not expected to live. I wondered why god would save me only to make my life hell later on. Was this his plan for me? Why didn’t god answer my prayers? These and many other questions and thoughts raced through my mind.

After so long of living in despair and not having my prayers answered I basically gave god ‘the finger’ and I finally realized that I had to help myself. And that’s what I did. I read books on philosophy, Buddhism, psychology, etc. and just sat and thought about my life. Sometimes I would think for so long and hard, trying to figure out how to solve my issues that I would get frequent headaches, and until that point in my life I never got headaches, and still rarely do.

It was at this point I would call myself an agnostic. Looking back I cannot recall my feelings exactly; if I still believed in god or just didn’t give a shit about him because of his negligence. Because of Buddhism and a lot of self-diagnosis and pondering I cured my depression and my self-esteem began to rise again.

It was after this period in my life that I didn’t give god, or religion in general, much thought until about 2005 when I was visiting friends out of state. I didn’t know it at the time but they were Christians and cared about my salvation. One of my friends asked about my religious beliefs and I told him that I didn’t really know one way or the other; that I liked a lot of the teachings of Buddhism because it’s teachings about living in the present moment was probably the single thing that helped me the most. I would torture myself by replaying all of the horrible things people would do and say to me over the years. Through Buddhism I learned to stop this destructive cycle so I could begin healing.

He then preceeded to make fun of Buddha by referencing something (I can’t recall now exactly) about his weight. It was then that I was officially introduced to the process of witnessing. My friend takes out a book titled The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God, by Lee Strobel, and quotes the book about the (with my current knowledge of these arguments I know it was the) first cause argument. At the time it sounded convincing, but I am not one to just take someone’s word for it, so it was after I got back home from my trip that I bought that book along with several others, including God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World, by Patrick Glynn and searched the internet for answers.

For about six months of reading these books, searching the internet and reading what both sides had to say I slowly began to make up my mind about who was right. I read about the Discovery Institute’s goals of sneaking religion into schools, the many lies by historical revisionists who claim America is a “Christian Nation,” and the many claims by Intelligent Design advocates about the alleged flaws of evolution. I looked at what both sides had to say and eventually sided with the non-believers and science. The reason the arguments of the non-believers and scientists swayed me was because they made more sense and there were many instances where a counter-argument by a non-believer/scientist had much more evidence going for it. In addition, by researching many of these topics myself, it was clear there was some deception going on because many of the claims by the Intelligent Design camp, and other theists, just did not stand up to the facts we knew about the world, history, etc. If a group must feel they can’t be honest in order to make their case then that seriously harms their credibility, and that made me doubt the Intelligent Design proponents’ claims as well (not to mention the historical revisionists).

It was at this point that I truly began to doubt the reality of god. After several more months of searching and learning I finally had made up my mind. I was a confirmed atheist.

I have been continually researching and learning ever since and the more I learn the more I doubt the existence of god (not to mention all the other claims of the supernatural) and believe that, at least this point in time, it seems that science will continue to poke holes in the fantasy so many people love to fool themselves with. But only time will tell.

Why I Have No Religious Beliefs - Updated & Expanded

Why I Am an Anarchist

A few years ago I summed up the reasons why I am an atheist and I thought it would be a good idea to do the same for why I am also an anarchist.

I was first exposed to anarchism in February of 2005 after being given a copy of my friend Bob Clapp's book Every Man and Woman an Island as a gift. At the time, however I hadn't yet met Bob. I first met him about nine months later after wanting to begin weight training and I heard he was an excellent trainer. And from the five years or so I trained with him I can confirm that.

I read a chapter or two each night before going to bed and I enjoyed the book. What he said made a lot of sense, though at the time I was doubtful about how realistic the idea of an anarchist society would be. It was over a period of a few years as I talked with Bob and researched the idea of anarchism that I came to believe that it might be possible. The many examples of societies functioning just fine (and oftentimes even better) when government intervention is replaced with privatized firms was the big argument that convinced me.

His concept of Prime, however, was one aspect of his book that for some reason I just couldn’t wrap my brain around at first. It took a while of talking with Bob between sets while at the gym for me to understand it. According to Bob, I am only one out of I believe three or four people who have been able to fully understand it.

The concept of Prime is Bob’s underlying principle and is (I believe) why he is an anarchist: because governments are anti-Prime, or in other words, they do harm to individuals through violence and forces them to bend to their will without their consent. If governments simply helped people without infringing upon their rights and harming them he would be fine with government (and I probably would be as well). Unfortunately, throughout history that has never been the role of government, even though that’s what it was created for.

As I read through Bob’s book for that first time, I was shocked at the stories he told of police and government misconduct and just plain stupidity. It really opened my eyes and made me think. Bob’s philosophy has surely shaped the way I view the world and society at large, though even before reading Bob’s book I have for a long time had a bit of a dislike of authority which, honestly, is one reason why I believe I was perceptive to the idea of anarchism. Though that does not change the fact that government wrongfully violates human beings’ rights on a constant basis and that should be considered wrong no matter who you are.

I agree with some of my critics that anarchism, as a system, has never been tried on a large scale and it would require a complete reworking of society [Actually, anarchism has been tried on a large scale. I just wasn’t aware of it when I wrote this post.], but I believe that would be to the benefit of all individuals. I believe that government should just let people live and let live and not force them to live under their rule, and/or a large section of society would have to uncondition themselves from the indoctrination that the government force feeds its citizens on a constant basis; it’s claim that it must exist or anarchy will lead to strife. However, if one looks at this objectively we already are living in a world of strife because of the government’s pointless campaigns to torture us into submission; it’s theft of what rightfully belongs to us; it’s murdering and harming of innocent (and not so innocent) individuals who do not deserve such treatment; and last but not least, it’s unethical spying campaigns. This cycle of abuses will never end until we do what the founders of this country did: tell the government to go fuck itself and start anew - this time without repeating our past mistakes.

While thinking about and researching anarchism, and at the same time researching religion, I began to see the similarities between government and religion and how the apologists for government often use similar arguments as religious apologists. I reasoned that if the arguments for religion was faulty and the arguments for government are similar in many ways, then it stands to reason that the arguments favoring government are illogical as well. I’ve written about this issue here and here.

This sums up why I am an anarchist, and as always feel free to write to ask me any questions you may have.

See Also: My Deconversion: From Statist to Anarchist

The Tao of Arizona Atheist

Why I Am an Anarchist

Intelligent Design is Creationism

This article, written on July 12, 2009 is the last in a series of articles dealing with intelligent design. See also Parts One and Two

It should be clear by now that intelligent design is, in fact, religious in nature. This can be seen throughout the writings of some in the movement. In my article Intelligent Design: Giving Science a Wedgie I demonstrated how Phillip E. Johnson used religious language in one of his books; he used the word “Creator”; in the Wedge document the Discovery Institute made references to God, and in the first sentence it says very clearly,

“The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.”

The pseudo-science textbook Of Pandas and People has been proven to originally be a creationism textbook. The co author, Percival Davis, who as I mentioned in my article What is Creationism and Intelligent design? admitted the religious nature of intelligent design is more proof of the religious nature of I.D.. This is proof of the I.D. movement's goal to get religion in schools in order to fight the tide of “materialism” and “godlessness” that's supposedly being forced on all our children. However, this isn't just about religion but some of the founding principals of our government, namely the separation of church and state, since there are many Christians who could rightfully be called historical revisionists. They rewrite history claiming that the U.S. was founded as a “Christian Nation” so they can more easily get religion in schools. Their thinking is to convince people that it was never the intention of the Founding Fathers to have a separation of church and state so it's perfectly OK to have religion in our schools. [1]

The fact that intelligent design is creationism (and hence religion) was brutally exposed during research for the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial when original drafts of Of Pandas and People were subpoenaed and The National Center for Science Education found the “missing link” proving that intelligent design was creationism. Here is a short video about the find:



That video amply demonstrates the deceit of those in this movement, and as I'm fond of saying, how can people trust these individuals when they've been exposed for the hucksters they are?

Now that the term for their religious beliefs, intelligent design, has once again been exposed, it's been noted by some experts on I.D. that the movement has begun to back away from using the term intelligent design, and instead use terms like “academic freedom” or “critical analysis of evolution” when writing policy proposals for science standards in various schools across the country. [2] Some might be familiar with the term “academic freedom” if you've watched the poorly made 2008 documentary called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed [3] about intelligent design (though they don't say this explicitly), the main theme being that teachers' “academic freedoms” are being threatened when they are disciplined and disallowed to teach “evidence against” evolution, which is actually I.D. trying to pass under the radar.

Due to the evolving nature of the intelligent design movement we must be more diligent than ever because I fear these ideologically driven individuals will not stop and all of us who stand for science and the founding principals of this country must come together to continue to expose and discredit this deceptive and unethical movement.


1. arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-lies-from-christian-revisionists.html

2. Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse - Video with Barbara Forrest, presented Saturday June 16th 2007 at the Center for Inquiry in Amherst N.Y.

3. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Super Trailer) ; accessed 5-30-10 [Changed link location]

Intelligent Design is Creationism

Intelligent Design: Giving Science a Wedgie

This is part two of a three piece series on Intelligent Design that I wrote back in July of 2009. The first part can be found here.

For those of you not in the know, what the title refers to is the infamous Wedge document [1] that was leaked onto the internet by Matt Duss and Tim Rhodes in 1999. This document was an internal document of the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (currently called the Discovery Institute) that laid out the battle plan of the intelligent design movement. I'm unaware about how Matt Duss got a hold of the document but it was Tim Rhodes who actually leaked it.

The Wedge proposed a three step process in order to essentially change the definition of science to include the supernatural (ie. God). They are as follows:

I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity
II. Publicity & Opinion-making
III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

The first phase has been taking place for many years (with the exception of “scientific research”) and spawned such books as Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and William Dembski's The Design Inference.

Included in the second step in their strategy are their attempts to confuse the public about what science is. To quote the founder of the movement, Phillip E. Johnson:

“We call our strategy 'the wedge.' A log is a seeming solid object, but a wedge can eventually split it by penetrating a crack and gradually widening the split. In this case the ideology of scientific materialism is the apparently solid log. The widening crack is the important but seldom-recognized difference between the facts reveled by scientific investigation and the materialist philosophy that dominates the scientific culture. What happens when the facts cast doubt on the philosophy? Will scientists and philosophers allow materialism to be questioned, or will they rely on Microphone Man to suppress the facts and protect the philosophy?” [2]

In another book Johnson also had this to say about naturalism:

“Naturalism is not something about which Darwinists can afford to be tentative, because their science is based upon it. As we have seen, the positive evidence that Darwinian evolution either can produce or has produced important biological innovations is nonexistent. Darwinists know that the mutation-selection mechanism can produce wings, eyes, and brains not because the mechanism can be observed to do anything of the kind, but because their guiding philosophy assures them that no other power is available to do the job. The absence from the cosmos of any Creator is therefore the essential starting point for Darwinism.” [3]

I would say that Johnson is badly mistaken because first of all, natural selection can be observed and even controlled. In the 1930's a breakthrough called population genetics, which are mathematical models that describe changing gene frequencies through many generations, have simulated the effects of mutation and selection. Later on in 1937 geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky published Genetics and the Origin of Species which showed how selection in fruit fly experiments gave amazing demonstrations of evolution in action. [4] [5]

Second, Johnson's argument that natural selection cannot be observed is not only false, but hypocritical. The reason is because Johnson, nor any other intelligent design proponent has ever given any proof or proposed any mechanism by which the Christian God has acted, or will act in a way that “helped” the natural processes of natural selection along.

Third, this claim that there is a non-material world is not supported by the facts. There is overwhelming evidence that materialism is true and that there are no supernatural dimensions, occurrences, or beings simply because of a lack of solid evidence. [6]

Even if there were such a thing as a non-material world, it would be impossible to test such occurrences because there would be no way to determine why or how God chose to “design” something. In order for something to qualify as science it must be testable and must be reproducible. This cannot occur with a being that does what it wants, when it wants. To hammer the matter home further allow me to quote Donald R. Prothero:

“[S]cientists practice methodological naturalism, where they use naturalistic assumptions to understand the world but make no philosophical commitment as to whether the supernatural exists or not. Scientists don't exclude god from their hypotheses because they are inherently atheistic or unwilling to consider the existence of god; they simply cannot consider supernatural events in in their hypotheses. Why not? Because...once you introduce the supernatural to a scientific hypothesis, there is no way to falsify or test it." (emphasis in original) [7]

This phrase “methodological naturalism” is very important because that's what scientists do, despite their personal religious beliefs. Science must exclude the supernatural not because of some bias, as Johnson claims, but because it's untestable, and therefore, it isn't true science.

So far the Wedge strategy hasn't really gotten past stage two, which is where I hope it will stay, but I'm afraid the damage has already been done. The public has largely already been duped.

Intelligent design proponents usually avoid publishing their views in legitimate scientific journals because they know what they're peddling is religion – not science – and so they avoid the people who actually have detailed knowledge of scientific matters and go after the less knowledgeable: John Q Public.

Real science is done through peer reviewed research, where experts in the field examine and critique other scientists' findings. Intelligent design, with it's outrageous claims, wouldn't last in a real scientific journal (of course there are a few I.D. advocates who have gotten into legitimate scientific journals, but usually it's either through deception [8] or they water down the I.D. aspects of their paper so it's more in line with peer-reviewed research).

Because of this they target the general population, attempt to get their ideas taught in school classrooms across the country (many legal battles have been fought and won against this tactic. Two examples are Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and Edwards v. Aguillard), and appear on national news [9] to get their views heard and influence the populace.

This is why I believe education is so very important. Especially science education. The I.D. movement is preying on peoples' ignorance and I'm sorry to say it's working. With many atheists, educators, and scientists working hard [10] to battle the rising tide of intelligent design it's a battle that's going to continue for a long time to come.



1. The document can currently be found here: The Discovery Institute's Wedge Document - accessed 5-30-10 [I changed the link location for the document]

2. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, by Phillip E. Johnson; 92

3. Darwin On Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson; 117

4. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald R. Prothero; 93

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster#History_of_use_in_genetic_analysis; accessed 7-10-09

6. http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2007/12/evidence-against-supernatural-there-are.html

7. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald R. Prothero; 11

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy; accessed 7-10-09

9. http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2009/06/discovery-institute-lies-they-tell.html - The second video refutes Discovery Institute member Casey Luskin's bogus claims.

10. Some excellent references about intelligent design/creationism are the following:

a. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, by Barbara Forrest & Paul R, Gross
b. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald R. Prothero
c. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design - Expanded Edition (2006), by Ronald L. Numbers
d. The Science of Evolution and The Myth of Creationism: Knowing What's Real and Why It Matters, by Ardea Skybreak
e. http://www.talkorigins.org/

Intelligent Design: Giving Science a Wedgie

What is Creationism and Intelligent Design?

This is an older piece I wrote for another publication back on July 9, 2009.

For readers who are unaware of this movement that's been an almost constant fixture in American life since the mid 1800's I'm going to give some brief background information to get everyone up to speed.

Creationism, and its most recent form, Intelligent Design (I.D.), is a religiously based movement that is a reaction to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution that has been attempting to find scientific evidence for “Creation” ever since Darwin published his most famous book Origin of Species in 1859.

What exactly is “Creation”? It is a belief that God (most notably the Christian God here in the states; other religions, such as Islam, replace the Christian God with their particular god) created all life in seven days, which takes Genesis, the first book of the bible, literally.

One of the first publications about “Creation Science” (another term for Creationism) was from 1961 with the publication of John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris's Genesis Flood, which sought to find scientific evidence for the great flood as told in the bible.

Fast forward several years to the 1880's and 1890's and this is when many Christians began to become very alarmed with the idea of evolution gaining greater and greater acceptance, and even before then began protesting that evolution was being taught in our public schools. This caused many religiously-minded parents to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, which they accomplished in several states.

One Christian in particular, William Jennings Bryan, a Presbyterian layman and a three-time Democratic candidate for the presidency of the United States, condemned evolution because it preaches that “man has a brute ancestry” and how it's “substituting the law of the jungle for the teachings of Christ.” [1]

Many Christians believed that a belief in evolution would cause a lack of morality and would be disastrous to society, and to Christianity itself.

Unfortunately, things have not changed much since that time.

Fast forward again to 1987 with the court case Edwards v. Aguillard, in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it was unconstitutional for Creationism to be taught in schools. [2]

This was a devastating blow to the Creationists but they weren't done yet and had other tricks up their sleeve. In the early 1990's a new theory cropped up; it was called Intelligent Design. It's proponents argued that life was “too complex” to have evolved only through naturalistic means, and that life required some kind of “intelligent agent” or “designer” to help the natural processes along. Most of the arguments used by Intelligent Design proponents are the same as the Creationists, the only difference being they don't admit (at least most of them [3]) that the “intelligent agent” is the Christian God. They do this to skirt the 1987 Supreme Court ruling because everyone knows that Creationism is religion in disguise and isn't true science. In order to get around the ruling they simply deny Intelligent Design is religiously motivated at all, but they've failed at this as well, which I'll get to in the next piece.

In reality Creationism and Intelligent Design are very much alike. Only the details differ. For example, there are “Old Earth” and “Young Earth” Creationists. Old Earthers accept that the earth is roughly four and a half billion years old, while Young Earthers follow the bible religiously (pun intended) and believe that the world is roughly six to eight-thousand years old. Intelligent Design proponents agree that the earth is old and do not take the bible literally, however there are some who take the bible literally. Both Creationists and I.D.ers use essentially the same tactics. Just as in the 1800's many Intelligent Design proponents believe that evolution is responsible for moral decay [4] and that if you teach children in schools that they're basically upright apes, then they will act like animals. This same argument is in use today by many advocates of I.D., of course, no theorist has been able to come up with any data proving this.

Probably the greatest similarity is the fact that both Creationism and I.D. attempt to undermine good science and inject supernatural explanations in favor of materialistic ones, but this is a completely illogical view since no I.D. advocate has been able to demonstrate that there is anything but a completely naturalistic world.

In the second piece, I will address the Intelligent Design movement's underhanded tactic to sneak religion into schools and go into more detail about their views.

Notes:

1. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, by Ronald L. Numbers; 56

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard; accessed 7-9-09

3. One person who clearly admitted the religious nature of Intelligent Design is Percival Davis, co-author of Of Pandas and People, a Creationism textbook masquerading as a science book.

4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0306news.asp - Another school shooting in America: What's needed to bring healing to this land?, by AIG-US Executive Director, Ken Ham; accessed 7-9-09

What is Creationism and Intelligent Design?

Barton & Beck: The Deceitful Duo

I am subscribed to Chris Rodda's posts on The Huffington Post and she has quite a bit of useful information there. Her most recent article addresses the new partnership between Glenn Beck and David Barton, who has appeared on Beck's televiston show a number of times spreading his usual nonsense about how america is a christian nation.

You can view Rodda's article on this here and you can view the video she created below.

No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools from Chris Rodda on Vimeo.

Barton & Beck: The Deceitful Duo

Two of My Book Reviews Are Now Hosted Locally

About a year ago I had decided to create two PDF documents out of two of my favorite book reviews: David Aikman's The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness and David Marshall's The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity.


I had seen other bloggers create convenient PDF documents of some of their favorite/popular works and I thought that would be a neat idea so I did the same with some of my writings. I found ‭‭‬Scribd.com and decided to host my documents there. There they've sat for about a year and they amassed thousands of views during that time. However, recently, I've decided to host my two favorite reviews directly on my blog. It would make it easier for visitors to read the material and it would make it more ‬convenient if I ever needed to make any changes (like the Afterward I recently added to my review of The Truth Behind the New Atheism).








Here they are. Enjoy!

The Truth Behind the New Atheism: A Refutation

The Delusion of David Aikman: A Refutation of The Delusion of Disbelief

Two of My Book Reviews Are Now Hosted Locally

Carnival of the Godless # 143 Features One of My Posts

The most recent Carnival of the Godless features an addendum I had written for my review of The Truth Behind the New Atheism about the claim by christian apologists that christian morality and the bible were the causes of the abolition of slavery. I show that this view is flawed and give my reasons for why I firmly believe it was the natural rights philosophy, made popular by the enlightenment, though they existed long before that series of events.

The Carnival is hosted at revatheist.wordpress.com.

Carnival of the Godless # 143 Features One of My Posts

America: Land of the...Hypocrites?

America is often called the "Land of the Brave" but I do not see much bravery in this country. Why? Because the very principles with which this country was built have been forgotten. Have so many forgotten one of the founding principles? That of natural rights? [1] Have people become so afraid of the government that they seem to bow down and cower with fear at this beast we have created? And yes, we have created it; not necessarily us, but our recent ancestors who allowed the government to get bigger and bigger and gain ever greater control over our lives. [2]

Absurd seat belt laws, drug laws, parking laws, speeding laws, and the list goes on and on. [3] Our freedoms are slowly being squeezed out of us as I type.

A natural right that the founders felt was important was the "right to alter or abolish governments." [emphasis mine] To quote Michael Zuckert:

Since government exists to secure rights and only for that purpose, governments which fail to secure rights can have no legitimacy [...] This so-called "right to revolution" must be "among" the other rights [and] [g]iven its relation to the primary rights, it too must be an "unalienable right."

Obviously, the founders were not anarchists like myself and believed that without government this,

leaves rights once again insecure, as they were prior to the existence of government. [4]

Of course, as several experiments have shown us, [5] there can be a society without government and society will not fall apart, however, science has shown us that our evolutionary heritage has placed limits on how well a society can function. Ideally a society with approximately 150 individuals (however some communities have been found that contain as many as 400 individuals) can be found to function well without any need of any hierarchical structure. Any more than this and social controls, such as "shunning" and the social guilt felt is not as effective in larger groups. Therefore, larger groups need to split into smaller groups, which help to ensure social control and cohesion. [6]

It seems possible that given a multitude of groups containing fewer individuals anarchism is possible, and there is some evidence to support this. An anarchist society called Modern Times (see here) existed in America in the mid 1800's and during the time which it existed, there were no reports of any crime whatsoever.

But back to the founders' views of revolution.

Even though it's obvious the founders most likely would not have wished for the complete abolition of government, given the growth, power, and abuses of the government as it currently is, I see no reason why even the founders themselves wouldn't hesitate to cry out for a revolution (of course, they were also well to do and, like most rich politicians, enjoy power like our current rulers so I may be wrong about this - perhaps if they were on the other side of government and not the ones in charge?).

I believe that revolution and the abolition of government is the best solution, not a new form of government (unless we can create one that does not abuse its power, which is unlikely), since history will likely repeat itself as it did in England and America. The English attempted a similar coup against the king in the seventeenth century England during the Glorious Revolution and then they had to do it again when the powers in England became too oppressive and those in America fought the American Revolution to break free of the government's power.

How many times must we repeat this cycle? It's often said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Does this mean, then, that most Americans are "insane?" Deluded? Or what? Clearly, government is not working as well as we all (I would hope) expect. It's gotten too big, powerful, and oppressive, and we must reclaim our natural rights and one of the rights this county was founded upon [with a slight twist of course]: the right to revolution and the abolishment of government.

In closing, allow me to quote Michael Zuckert once more:

The Americans, with their clear affirmation of the right of revolution, introduced a novelty into politics; they were willing to take a chance with the disruptive principle, they were willing to encourage an adversarial or a judgmental attitude by the people toward their government. [7]

It seems that those like me who speak out against and oppose government are more "patriotic" than these flag waving, constitution-spouting apologists for the government will ever be!


Footnotes

1. I have been reading the book The Natural Rights Republic (1996) by Michael P. Zuckert and it has inspired me to write this piece.

2. Some good examples can be found here and here. An excellent book on this topic is also Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, by James Bovard

3. Arizona even currently has a catchy little slogan to help indoctrinate...I mean help people remember about how much the government cares for our safety that they've created a law to force people into buckling their seat belts: "Click it, or ticket." Bullshit! It's just another in a long line of "laws" that are imposed for nothing more than to catch those going about their day unawares and they forget some of these obscene laws, like "jay walking." Then those in power can fine those poor people who did nothing at all wrong. Pathetic!

4. The Natural Rights Republic: Studies in the Foundation of the American Political Tradition, by Michael P. Zuckert, University of Notre Dame Press, 1996; 27-28

5. The Abolishment of the State, Part 1 See also: Ignorance Abounds

6. The Science of Good & Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule, by Michael Shermer, Henry Holt, 2004; 40-42

7. The Natural Rights Republic; 100-101

America: Land of the...Hypocrites?

Amazon.com's Favoritism Toward Christians

I don't know if this is the case or not for a fact, but as I reported in an earlier post, apparently David Marshall's denigrating posts to me and his name calling were not outside of Amazon's comment policy, even though they sent me a link to the very policy that forbids the following, including:

* Profane or obscene, inflammatory or spiteful comments
* Messages that abuse, denigrate or threaten others
* Repeated unwelcome messages that harass or embarrass other customers or participants [emphasis mine]

These messages that are posted about me on a continuous basis for over a year clearly violate their policy, but the "senior member" of the "Customer Discussions team" told me they do not violate their policy. As I said in the above post, this idiot seriously needs to consult a dictionary and learn what those words in their very own policy mean because the posts in reply to me and about me are more often than not extremely insulting and belittling. But I suppose Amazon favors some posters over others and they are given more leeway because I've seen peoples' posts deleted by Amazon for a lot less than what Marshall, Bain, and Fraser have said to me and about me for the last year and a half (at least)!

As I said at the end in the above linked to post,

Well, this was certainly not the news I was hoping for. And it sure lets me know where Amazon's politics lie.

Amazon.com's Favoritism Toward Christians

Redflex Putting Their Foot in their Mouth

Via CameraFraud it's been exposed in a court case that the speed/red-light camera company, RedFlex, falsified documents and did not have their equipment properly certified, which puts into questions years of photo enforcement tickets. Here is the full story:

Redflex’s Eleven Year Lie

The writing would appear to be on the wall, or so the saying goes. The time line is left to interpretation.

The court case, which Redflex actually won against American Traffic Solutions may have hurt the winner more than the loser. Karen Finley, CEO of Redflex was forced to admit under oath that her woefully incompetent multi-national corporation was operating in the United States for 11 years(’97 – ’08) with falsified FCC documents, which said the company’s radar equipment did not need to be certified. As you can guess, the equipment absolutely did need to be certified, which means Redflex was lying through their teeth for years in order to score contracts with cities.

Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar and CameraFRAUD had an observer in court who witnessed Finley saying that the offender who supplied the company’s false documents was hit with the steep penalty of a withheld bonus, once the infraction was discovered. That bonus better have been a lot of money, because the parade of class action lawsuits coming from this little admission might cost Redflex a few pennies to defend.

TheNewspaper.com also covered the ATS vs Redflex case and published a transcript of a portion of the Finley testimony.

Could anyone say that tickets issued by Redflex from 1997 – 2008 are justified, knowing that the equipment they were using to measure speed was not even certified?

Eleven years of Redflex photo tickets from all across the country are now also in question, legally.

Oops.

Oops is right! And shame on those bastards for lying and scamming millions out of innocent people! Shame on the damn government that allowed this company to track and record every private citizens' whereabouts! And the sad thing is that this company, if it is anything like Lockheed Martin, retains all rights to all footage taken. To quote from my paper:

Lockheed Martin, which makes about 85 percent of [the red light cameras], often leases the cameras to cities because they are expensive, and enables Lockheed Martin to retain rights to all the data collection [...]

Where will your footage end up? Just think about the privacy risks of this. It's frightening.

Redflex Putting Their Foot in their Mouth

Hypocrisy at its Worst

I've often been accused of being a jerk, "immature", etc. by a few theists (ironically by the same ones who started off calling me names to begin with and I simply responded in kind!) and even atheists. Some wonder why I lost my temper so much with David Marshall. Well, here is an excellent recent example; an example of precisely why I've gotten so furious with him in the past and why, after so long of taking this kind of abuse, I finally lost my temper and fired back. Then this asshole actually calls me the immature one! You've got to be kidding me! The hypocrisy dripping from that statement is too much to bear.

Recently, at an Amazon.com customer review Marshall is at it again with his hypocritical and condescending attitude towards me and, let me tell you, it took so much of my strength not to hurl a dose of his own medicine back at him. For those of you who favor the "be the bigger man" approach I think you'd be proud of me for not responding to the following crap in a more...aggressive way. Listen to this condescending bullshit:

I know how angry being condescended to makes you, Ken. But you are presumptuous to think you are Aikman's equal, or mine, for that matter. Get a doctorate in history at one of the world's leading universities, and better yet, show that you can reason and argue at his level, and you will have earned the right to be talked to as if your arguments were as worth taking seriously as those of Dr. Aikman.

Then of course, right after that statement he couldn't seem to resist insulting me:

[...]and maybe I can begin to talk to you as if you were MY intellectual equal. I would actually like it if you learned to do those things; I get little pleasure out of refuting unlearned fools.

It's funny because he doesn't mention all of the scholars of Communist Russia I've read who have come to different conclusions, and those who also are not blinded by their religious prejudices like Aikman is!



Here he goes again, trying to act all high and mighty, while trying to pretend to be some kind of demented caring mentor:

You'll find this patronizing, but it is honestly meant. From my POV, you seem almost to have taken some of my earlier advice, and are trying to improve the quality of your arguments -- some. That's why, despite all the nasty language and stupid insults you've cast my way (the ones I've read), and the endless (from my POV not very trenchant) negative reviews you posted all over the internet, I don't write you off, as JR does. Keep working, and even if you don't learn balance, or to evaluate an argument fairly, you may become an able (if one-sided) critic.

And this guy is a teacher of some kind! I sure as hell hope he doesn't treat his kids this way. Here he is again being a hypocrite when he mentions my insults towards him. And from my POV he's a condescending asshole who very obviously is unable to judge the quality of an argument if it doesn't favor the conclusion he wants!

It's funny that he says this about the supposed "quality" of my arguments because even as far back as 2008 I was poking holes in his arguments and exposing his errors - errors he's never once owned up to, despite the overwhelming evidence! I've never denied making a hand full of errors in the very first draft of my review of his book way back in late 2007, but once I realized those problems I quickly went to fix them. It's been over two years since they have been fixed, but Marshall can't seem to realize when I actually am right about something; his biases most likely. And I'd never take any advice from such a hypocrite as this. I have much more honor and respect for myself than that! Besides, I've been writing good arguments against books by christian apologists since before I ever even heard of Marshall! Granted, over time I've learned more and gotten better at writing my reviews, but that sure as hell had nothing to do with him!

And true to form, Marshall brings up the few times I've insulted him. When will it end? He neglects to tell people that it was exactly this kind of attitude and name calling which drove me to that point to begin with! He started it, I finished it. Hypocrite!

And here he is insulting me again...this time about my writing.

You should also work on your English. That's a "run-on" sentence. Also scotch the passive in the first line, "I was only able to borrow . . . "

He has been an ass about my writing since our earliest discussions. Shit, I'm only a high school graduate with no professional writing experience. Does he expect me to be Shakespeare incarnate?! I agree I'm not the best writer in the world, but I'm certainly not that bad and I've gotten much praise about my writing throughout my life, even during my school years. Besides, when I'm writing while angry due to being called names and being talked down to, I don't often bother to write my thoughts out in perfect fucking english. This is just another example of him being an ass.

More condescending and hypocritical nonsense:

You need, I think, to learn to love truth more than your own ego, and more than your philosophical attachments, if you want to become a reasonable formidable skeptic. Also, you might take a writing class, and straighten out your grammar.

I know that's advice you don't want, and probably unpleasant, but I am a teacher, and you still very much need an education. I bother saying all that, because I do think you've tried (more than some long-term posters on Amazon), and you certainly have initiative.

This is the kind of crap I've had to put up with for two years from Marshall. Would you take this shit lying down? It's ridiculous! If anyone needs a damn education it's this guy! It just pisses me of when he tries his fake caring attitude crap. He can shove that condescending attitude right up his ass. And you might have been wondering, my dear reader, just why I would get so pissed at Marshall, and once or twice I finally snapped and insulted him back. Just take a look and see!

After spending time on this I really am getting tired of David Marshall. The only reason I wrote this was to expose his bullshit for all to see. I wanted to collect more evidence against his (and his buddy's) lie that I am to blame and I insult people all the time. What a bunch of hypocritical nonsense! I've got tons of proof that I've saved of Marshall and his buddy Fraser insulting people for no reason, and this is just the latest example in their long history of treating skeptics and atheists like total crap, all the while pretending as if they never do any wrong. These guys are in serious denial.

I should have done this a long time ago when he first began with his insults but I reported one of his posts; the one where he calls me a "fool," and hopefully Amazon will delete his comment, per the comment policy that forbids name calling and other dishonest activities (which they have been spreading all over Amazon about me for at least a year):

The upload, download, or transmission of any Content that is unlawful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, indecent, lewd, harassing, threatening, harmful, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, abusive, inflammatory, or otherwise objectionable [emphasis mine]

I even reported one of Bruce Bain's libelous posts about me (just one of the many posts where he spreads lies about me) but Amazon last I checked has failed to enforce their very own guidelines. I finally took some peoples' advice and reported their insulting and libelous activities and Amazon does nothing. This is why I felt I had to deal with their nonsense on my own. When all this started happening with their behaviors I had a feeling Amazon would do nothing and I was right. But perhaps I'm being a bit hasty. They need to be taught a lesson so maybe I'll sit down and write Amazon directly. That might get them off of their asses so they finally do something.

This post turned out to be a lot longer than I meant for it to be, but this hypocrisy and immaturity by these christian apologists/christians in general needs to be exposed. And they still claim that atheists can't act morally. These christians need to look up the definition of these words:

Hypocrite:

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Some of them also very badly need to look up what the word lie means as well since despite all of the dishonest things they spread about me they resent it when I call them what they are:

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Or perhaps the term pathological liar would be more accurate:

a person who lies to the point of it being considered a disease or condition, an abnormally habitual liar [emphasis mine]

I think that about sums it up. Oh...and I think the word asshole describes Marshall to a tee. I'm not insulting him; I'm only using a word that very accurately describes his actual personality:

a stupid, mean, or contemptible person

That about sums it up. I doubt there is one person who would disagree with my opinions after reading the contemptible crap Marshall spewed at me the other day.

Enter Bruce Bain:

The really mind blowing and hypocritical thing is that Bruce Bain replies and actually has the nerve to tell me that Marhall's insults weren't that bad and that I should "develop a thicker skin, because oversensitivity is not an asset in public discourse." What the fuck!? I respond in a hostile manner to Marshall because of his insults, and afterwards I'm called immature, the things I probably shouldn't have said spread all over the Amazon forums just to discredit me, but another christian does it and it's just fine! He is immune. Whatever he does apparently is just fine. Fuck you Bain. Go look up the word double standard you stupid piece of shit. If you can figure out how to even use a dictionary. And once again, people wonder why I get so damn furious at these three imbeciles (Marshall, Bain, and Fraser)! There is no reasoning with them; try to be polite and they just insult you and talk down to you; say one little thing that is out of line and they never let you live it down, all the while they act act in the same manner, if not worse, and they see no problem with it. Hypocrites all around!



Update - 6-2-10

I've recently written Amazon.com about the abusive behavior of David Marshall and asked them to look into the matter. The following is the letter I wrote them with proof included. Only time will tell if they actually do anything. Thus far, I've clicked on the "report abuse" button three or four times where Marshall calls me a fool and so far nothing has been done. I'm hoping this letter will get the ball rolling. This crap needs to stop. I'm sure the other forum members will appreciate my initiative in getting Marshall to straighten up his act.

Hello,

I'm writing to report some abusive behavior towards myself by an Amazon.com participant named David Marshall. In the Customer Review of The God Delusion by a reviewer who goes by the name of Jeri Nevermind "loves to read" he continuously was disrespectful and called me a "fool." I have reported one of his posts a few times but so far nothing has been done about it so I decided to write instead.

The reply with the name calling can be found here -

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2ITXJG70HV1V5/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=22&cdPage=3&asin=0618918248&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2B9U1XUIGA1I4#Mx2B9U1XUIGA1I4

I would appreciate it if you took a more proactive approach to keep this kind of thing from happening on your forums because it is a large problem. David Marshall has also called other participants "fools" as well. I would like to also report this posting of his -

http://www.amazon.com/Consider-seriously-Religulous/forum/Fx238ZENNZM4HA2/Tx18GGDCVC8I5NW/14/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=338&asin=0618680004&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2J3S6WK66J6XG#Mx2J3S6WK66J6XG

David Marshall is a very abusive forum member and I believe some kind of action should be taken; perhaps ban him from the forums for a time, and allow him back on a probationary period until he can clean up his act and begin to treat other forum participants with respect and stop with the name calling.

I would greatly appreciate your attention on this serious matter.

Thank you.

Update - 6-3-10

Well, I've received two replies back from Amazon. After the first reply, they said the comments are within their guidelines. I was shocked at this since their very own website says explicitly that messages that "abuse" and "denigrate" others is against their policy. I wrote them again pointing this out and I get a reply from supposedly the "senior member" of the "Customer Discussions team" and he decides if comments go against their policy or not. I think this guy seriously needs to consult a dictionary to understand what their policy even means!

The comment policy they sent me clearly bans the following forms of behavior:


* Profane or obscene, inflammatory or spiteful comments
* Messages that abuse, denigrate or threaten others
* Text or articles written by someone else, even with attribution for the author, except for brief quotations from a book, article or other product related to the discussion
* Any personal information about children under 13
* Descriptions that intrude on the privacy of another person, including revealing personally identifiable information such as their name or address
* Text that promotes illegal or immoral conduct
* Repeated posts that make the same point excessively
* Repeated unwelcome messages that harass or embarrass other customers or participants
* Repeated posts that promote an item in the Amazon.com catalog
* Any form of "spam," including advertisements, contests, or other solicitations for other websites or companies; or any URL link that includes a "referrer" tag or affiliate code. [empahsis mine]

The many posts these individuals have posted over the years are clear violations of their very own damn policy! How is someone calling another a "fool" and utterly disrespecting their opinion without cause not denigrating?!

Perhaps this "senior member" needs to consult a dictionary:

To denigrate means to:

charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; to disparage; belittle

If the above comments weren't belittling to this idiot, I'd sure as hell like to know what they would consider inappropriate! I do not know why they denied my request, but I think it's complete and utter bullshit. Their policy states very clearly that the behavior by Marshall (not to mention Bruce Bain and J.R. Fraser, whom I sent copies of their slanderous posts against me as well) was inappropriate and that's that. Hell, the name calling you'd think would be clear grounds, but Amazon says it's not inappropriate. Ridiculous.

I have heard from others that they tend to favor authors and maybe they're just giving special treatment and giving him more leeway on his behavior, despicable as it may be.

Well, this was certainly not the news I was hoping for. And it sure lets me know where Amazon's politics lie.

Hypocrisy at its Worst