Frank Walton AKA Atheismsucks has been roaming the internet in an attempt to discredit me and slander my name. Normally he is small peanuts, but this has gone on long enough. He states in his blog that I have plagiarized Dennis McKinsey and in doing so has committed a grave error. On top of this, he has spread this rumor around on Myspace and blogs of friends of the RRS for some time now. But this is about to end one way or another.
The fact is, Dennis McKinsey is a good friend of mine, who has supported me and I him over the past several years in our endeavors. When Dennis was looking to get on Internet Radio, I was more then willing to help him get on Freethoughtmedia.com. He even guest stared on the Rational Response Squad where he vocalized his friendship with me, and our history. This show is available for free download on my profile in the playlist box. It is show number 2. In the event that it has been bumped for newer content, here is a link to listen: http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/RRS-Show2-48k.mp3
I recently argued with a friend of mine about minority status in America. She said that Christians were the minority in America and Catholics were the majority.
The idea that I stated, that Catholics and Christians were the same, seemed totally offensive to her. She said that she, as a Christian, did not believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Because they held to different customs and beliefs from the Protestant church, they could not possibly be part of Christiandom.
Among the things that I find wrong with her position, two take absolute prominence.
Firstly, when traveling around any city in the US, there is a marked 3:1 ratio of protestant churches to Catholic churches. That might even be understated. Thus, the argument that protestant Christianity is a minority belief in comparison to catholic Christianity is simply erroneous.
In primitive tribal systems, the support of a persons life was justified by their ability for participation in the activities of the tribe. If a boy could not be trained to hunt, for instance, he had nothing to contribute and his life was not justified.
Thus began the need to prove oneself and validate a persons existence.
Throughout most of agrarian social systems, a woman who was incapable of producing offspring was condemned as unworthy. Even during most of the Christian era, where a child's birth was equated to the building of a prison, women who were "barren" were considered of no real value. Thus, there was a heavy burden placed upon them to justify their existence.
"Mighty Power" VERSE:
Well, it's a mystifying mystery And it's more than a little bit odd This mighty power no one ever did see
This mighty power of god
Yeah he’s so mighty he’s “the” almighty
And you’d better quake with fright
And if he kills your kids and cripples you
You’d better just stay polite
Because even though he’s quite almighty
He’s mighty insecure
And he wants you to say nice things about him
And get down on the floor
And do we really need such animalistic
Gestures of submission anymore?
I don’t see no mighty power
I don’t see nothin’ at all
Crack the Lid
In a Paleolithic camp, Neanderthals gather round
To put their beloved headman in the ground
They gather flowers, and the petals shower down
Pray to the spirits of ancestors, but the spirits never made a sound, cause
It was all superstition anyway,
It was all superstition like it is today, yeah hey
Now Pharaoh’s mummy lies beneath a mountain of stone
He goes to Paradise, but he won’t go alone
Cause he needs forty or fifty palace slaves to serve the throne
Compared to the soul of a king, what’s flesh and blood and bone, but
Now Socrates must drink the poison at the break of day
I came up with this thought while buzzing one night in August 2005 and posted it on a forum. Noone came up with anything relevant to add to it though most thought it an interesting idea. Admittedly, I'm no physicist. There are some here with a greater understanding of the sciences than anyone at the previous forum(including myself), so I figured I'd expand on input by reposting it here.
I just had an interesting thought. Anyone and everyone can feel free to put in their thoughts and/or criticizms of this thought. I did a bit of looking around to see if I could see anything on it(for or against), and I couldn't.
THE FUTURE OF HISTORY
WITH WHISKEY AND SHOTGUNS
WE BLAZE OUR TRAIL
ACROSS THIS RADIOACTIVE
MANKIND ALMOST EXTINCT
FROM THE LAST GREAT WAR
FIGHTING FOR GOD AND COUNTRY
MUTATION AND DEGENERATION
DNA MELTED INTO SUBMISSION
DISTORTED PIGMENTS OF EVOLUTION
A TRUE BEAUTY REVOLUTION
OUR PRECIOUS EARTH
BROILED TO A CRISP
NOTHING BESIDES MAN
ON THIS BARREN ROCK
WITH NO LIFE LEFT TO GIVE
WE JUST WAIT TO DIE
AND ROT SOME NAMELESS GRAVE
SO WITH NOTHING IN OUR HEARTS
AND HATRED IN OUR MINDS
WE PRESS ON INTO NIGHT
WITH SILENCE AND DARKNESS
I am very excited at what is happening here.
A 'howdy' from Kabul, Afghanistan, where I have lived and worked for the past three years. Stumbled across the RRS from a link from RichardDawkins.net while browsing on a rare day off.
I have been active in the skeptical/atheist community for a number of years. I am heartened to see the success of the RSS in reaching a young, intelligent group of people, growing in membership size in a tremendously short period of time. I'm also active over at the JRef (James Randi Educational Foundation) - which is not specifically an atheistic group (although I'd estimate that atheists outnumber deists / theists by a significant majority) and have witnessed first hand the struggle to maintain relevancy and to attract new members.
A man is assaulted in front of his home. The neighbours see this assault take place, but do nothing. A stranger to the area leaps out and assist the man.
Through democratic process and determination, the man who "did the right thing" would be in the wrong. The majority of people in the neighbourhood said, by their behaviour, that turning your back on someone in need was the proper course of action.
When a democratic compromise is reached, the same thing occurs. The democratic vote is bound to be determined in favour of the majority, and the minority for whom the "compromise" is being reached are getting shafted. Any who speak out against what is determined to be the "compromise" are regarded as troublemakers.