I respect this guy very much for having the courage to stand against the masses of fools that have no-doubt flamed him for “selling out”.

Those of you who read this site know that I’ve been heavily promoting Ron Paul as a candidate for President in 2008. Until today all of my posts about him have been positive. But alas, I am not a fanboy. I heap praise when I like something, and I call attention when I see something that doesn’t look right.

Well, something doesn’t look right…

[ Edit: It has come to my attention, from an ample number of unrelated sources, that the race quotes attributed to Ron Paul did not come from him directly, but from a staffer who was subsequently fired. This still leaves the religion quotes, but I can live with those given his hands-off philosophy to government. ]

Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. — Printed In Ron Paul’s Newsletter (but not written by him)

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action. — Printed In Ron Paul’s Newsletter (but not written by him)

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. — Ron Paul

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. — Ron Paul

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. — Ron Paul

He’s also of the opinion that there is serious disagreement within the scientific community regarding global warming. I was under the impression that the only people disagreeing at this point are in denial.

I’m not abandoning Ron Paul, but these quotes definitely make me uncomfortable. The problem with the race quotes is that even if he has legitimate explanations for them they will still be used against him (very effectively) during the entire campaign. And that’s the last thing he needs when already fighting a nearly impossible battle.

The problem with the religion quotes is that as an atheist I think a largely secular society is the way to go, and he clearly disagrees very strongly. I do agree with him about maintaining Christian holidays and traditions within our country, but to me that’s not so much a religious issue as one of national identity and cohesion.

Either way, he has weaknesses. The only question for me (and for other potential voters) is whether those flaws are outweighed by his strengths. And according to my current tally I’m going to say that they are.:

Racism means many things to many people. Oxford says it’s “the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race”. That’s a pretty broad definition, and arguably isn’t negative in and of itself.

The common use of the word is far more malicious and, in my opinion, ill-informed. Most people use the word to mean “any sort of behavior or view that reflects negatively on a race other than their own.” Both of those definitions are incorrect, in my opinion. Here’s my view:

True racism is when a person has negative feelings toward someone based on race alone. When person A has all of the characteristics that person B normally accepts as constituting a “decent” person (education, dress, speech, attitude, etc.), but they reject them anyway because of their race, that makes them a racist.

Too often this is confused with behavior-based judgment, and this misunderstanding harms society greatly. When a group of 15 black men walk into a mall dressed as gangsta-rappers — shouting, laughing, and ogling every woman that passes by — the hate that is directed at them is based on their behavior, not their race.

This is in stark contrast to the stereotypical white father who won’t let his daughter marry a black guy from a great family who just got his MBA from Harvard. That’s racism. And until we as a society can openly acknowledge and discuss this distinction we’re doomed to continue in our fear-based silence that does nothing but harm us.:

As we all know, candidates trying to win elections are ecstatic when they discover something an opponent has said or done in the past. Well, Ron Paul has given his enemies just what they are looking for. Here are a few choice quotes on race from his past:

Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. — Ron Paul

…he went on to say (paraphrasing) that good people like himself are always told that it’s wrong to be afraid of black men, but that given how much crime they commit it’s basically rational to have such a fear.

Here’s the thing: I’m all for open and honest discussion of race — including bringing up and discussing the merits of negative stereotypes. I’ve done a little of it here and intend to do more in the future. But Ron Paul is running for president, and in today’s world you just can’t be a viable candidate with that kind of language in your past.

I think there are two options here:

1. He’s a decent and honest guy who was a bit too haphazard with his language concerning race in the past. And if he addresses things properly he may be able to pull out at least a shot at being a front-runner.
2. He’s a closet racist and these comments are simply examples of it shining through. If that’s the case then more and more will surface to support this fact. At that point he’s done. He’ll not only get very little support at that point, but mine will be gone as well.

It’s quite sad, really. I was very much for him based on what I had seen thus far. But alas there are chinks in the armor. First I heard him say he wasn’t convinced about global warming. Then there’s this stuff about us being a Christian nation. And now this stuff about black people.

Oh well. gg.

I’ll give him a chance to explain himself (even if it’s a logical defense of controversial views), but if he flip-flops or comes out with a clear racist slant, I’m done.:

Visiting some family. Will return soon.

My favorite thing to do is try and understand how the world works. This is what gives me go, and it’s the purpose of this website. Whenever I have something shown to me, or I “discover” something I add it to my ever increasing body of knowledge that I use to analyze the rest of the world. Ultimately, the goal is to find the unified theory of everything (trite, but true).

I am sometimes rather lumbering when attempting to express myself, and it bothers me greatly. I’ll think I’ve assembled something worthwhile only to find that it collapses under the scrutiny of “many eyes”. This is embarrassing, and it hurts my ego when it happens. The common-sense approach is to simply not overextend — to be very careful with every word, research extensively, and don’t post anything if you aren’t 101% sure. That’s safe. That’s professional. That’s mature.

Meh…I can’t do it. My obsession with learning is so compelling that I simply must share what I “think” I know about the world. I do this for selfish reasons that may seem counter-intuitive, i.e. I do it to learn just as much as to teach. In other words, I am actually sort of gaming the system by putting forth my ideas framed as “lessons”, while simultaneously hoping someone will come along and show me why I’m wrong.

This is no attempt at manipulation or gesture of false humility. I truly want to be shown the flaws in my viewpoints. Here’s what I wrote on the matter back when I first started this *log:

Being right is boring, not knowing is through-provoking, but being wrong is absolutely exhilarating.

The unfortunate consequence of the fervor with which I put forth my ideas and viewpoints is that I occasionally often overextend and come off looking dumb. As I said, this irks me immensely, and because of search engines my bouts with stupidity will haunt me forever.

But you know what? I say fuck it. I’d honestly rather overextend and fall over than never make the attempt. I think the debate is worth it. I think what we all learn from the discussion is worth it. If I have to look stupid sometimes just so I can put a thought onto paper, so be it.

So to you who are reading this, I ask that you forgive me when I stumble. Please don’t confuse my strong assertions with arrogance or the belief that I really do have all the answers. I don’t. I’m looking for them, I want them badly, and I’m willing to occasionally look like a fool to get them.

The difference between me and a typical evangelist is that I have no loyalty to my opinions. I just want to be right. I truly don’t care if I’m right when we start the debate or if I’m right after it’s over. Either way, I’ve either learned something or helped someone else do the same.:

I was just taking a shower and had a frightening idea. With all this talk of the National ID program, and the inclusion of biometric identification into the system, I started thinking about other trends in technology that could impact it.

So the main danger, critics argue, of the National ID system is that as it becomes prolific it will get used for more and more purposes. I think this will include private industry before too long. We already send copies of drivers licenses to do credit checks, for example.

Well imagine what will happen when we understand genetics better — all the way to the point where one could have a test done and a computer could map out the person’s tendencies and weaknesses. We’ve all heard about the fat gene, a propensity for violence, being vulnerable to alcoholism, depression, etc.

Well what if that data were to be stored in people’s files? What if it were to be converted into an individual risk matrix (IRM). So on your card (and in the database) would be everything about you up until that point. Obvious things like age, race, height, weight, etc. But also things like country of origin, who your parents were. What affiliations they had (think semantic web), etc.

Now imagine this information being at the disposal of local law enforcement. They stop the Arab kid down the road and run a “query” on him. Hmm…missing school a lot. He’s been going to the local Mosque quite a bit. Oh, and he’s genetically prone to religious devotion by a margin of 2.6 deviations. And he’s walking out of a hardware store with a bunch of mechanical-looking stuff.

Or how about your insurance agency doing a “query” on you. Credit score, genetic risk factors for suicide, depression, heart disease, current health records, etc. And all this information gets run through an algorithm that decides whether you get a policy and how much you’ll be charged.

Or a local redneck at a bar late at night when the cops show up. Ok, he’s at a bar. His father died in a drunk driving accident, he’s divorced, and he has no ride home. Genetics indicate he’s likely to fight if we attempt to arrest him. Call for backup.

The scary thing is that all of these things could be used for good. Some other ideas that open up once the genetic material is easy to attain and replicate:

college admission, dating sites, ordering brides…

Thoughts?

The similarities between the stories and characters in the Bible and those from previous mythologies are both undeniable and well-documented. It is only due to extreme the extreme religious bias that pervades our world today that people rarely get exposed to this information.

In this short piece I’ll attempt to show blatant similarities with regard to two of the most important Biblical narratives: the Genesis story and the character of Jesus Christ.

The Book of Genesis’s Flood Story Mirrors The Epic Of Gilgamesh From Hundreds Of Years Earlier

Here are a number of elements that both Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis share:

1. God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
2. God knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
3. God ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew), and the hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat.
4. The arc would have many compartments, a single door, be sealed with pitch and would house one of every animal species.
5. A great rain covered the land with water.
6. The arc landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
7. The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
8. The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
9. The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

Keep in mind the level of detail in these similarities. It’s not a matter of just a flood, but specific details: three birds sent out, resisting the call to build the arc, and a single man being chosen by God to build the arc.

Then consider that the first story (Gilgamesh) came from Babylon — hundreds of years before the Bible was even written. Do you honestly think, based on the similarities above, that those who wrote the Genesis story had not heard the Gilgamesh story?

And if they had heard it, and they were simply rehashing an old, very popular tale, what does that say about the Bible?

Jesus’s Story Is An Obvious Rehashing Of Numerous Previous Characters

Perhaps even more compelling is the story of Christ himself. As it turns out it’s not even remotely original. It is instead nothing more than a collection of bits and pieces from dozens of other stories that came long before. Here are some examples.

1. Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the savior and redeemer.
2. Hercules was born of a divine father and mortal mother and was known as the savior of the world. Prophets foretold his birth and claimed he would be a king, which started a search by a leader who wanted to kill him. He walked on water and told his mother, “Don’t cry, I’m going to heaven.” when he died. As he passed he said, “It is finished.“
3. Dionysus was literally the “Son of God”, was born of a virgin mother, and was commonly depicted riding a donkey. He healed the sick and turned water to wine. He was killed but was resurrected and became immortal. His greatest accomplishment was his own death, which delivers humanity itself.
4. Osiris did the same things. He was born of a virgin, was considered the first true king of the people, and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven.
5. Osiris’s son, Horus, was known as the “light of the world”, “The good shepherd”, and “the lamb”. He was also referred to as, “The way, the truth, and the life.” His symbol was a cross.
6. Mithra’s birthday was celebrated on the 25th of December, his birth was witnessed by local shepherds who brought him gifts, had 12 disciples, and when he was done on earth he had a final meal before going up to heaven. On judgment day he’ll return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. His holiday is on Sunday (he’s the Sun God). His followers called themselves “brothers”, and their leaders “fathers”. They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners.
7. Krishna had a miraculous conception that wise men were able to come to because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and was met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man.
8. Buddha’s mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a holy child destined to be a savior. As a child he teaches the priests in his temple about religion while his parents look for him. He starts his religious career at roughly 30 years of age and is said to have spoken to 12 disciples on his deathbed. One of the disciples is his favorite, and another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around speaking in parables and metaphors. He called himself “the son of man” and was referred to as, “prophet”, “master”, and “Lord”. He healed the sick, cured the blind and deaf, and he walked on water. One of his disciples tried to walk on water as well but sunk because his faith wasn’t strong enough.
9. Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, “The Son of God”.

The problem, of course, is that these previous narratives existed hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus did.

Logic Sets In

Many are familiar with Occam’s Razor, which states that, all things being equal, one should not seek complex explanations when more simple ones are available. No one disputes that these other stories predate the Judeo-Christian Bible, so we really only have two options:

1. The religious explanation is that while the other stories were very much the same as those in the Bible, they are all false. But when they occur in the Bible (despite it being much the same content), this time the stories are true. One explanation of the resemblances to the earlier myths is that Satan created them to lead people astray from the true Messiah that would come much later. So essentially, an ultra-powerful and evil being (Created by God) influenced humanity to create deceptive stories — thousands of years before the real version — so that people wouldn’t believe the real thing when they saw it.
2. The alternative explanation is that the nature of storytelling during the period was such that central themes propagated through time. This combined with the natural tendency to have certain repeating elements in human stories, and the fact that the Bible stories came after the other ones, explains the similarities to previous myths. And since the stories of worldwide floods, virgin births, and people rising from the dead that the Bible is based on were false to begin with (which everyone agrees on) — they are also false in the Bible. In short, the Bible is simply another iteration of the same themes that came long before it.

Which of these two explanations makes more sense to you?

–

References and Additional Reading

Jesus: Original or Fake? http://www.bandoli.no/nooriginaljesus.htm

Comparison of Babylonian and Noahic Flood Stories http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm

An Easter Blessing http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/blessing.html

I got a great response to my recent “nice guy” post. It seemed to ressonate with a lot of people. Of all the great comments the one in the title stood out the most. The quote belongs to someone named Morris, and I very much appreciate the comment he made.

I think this is going to be the starting point when I try and help future friends who are having partner problems. I have a number of thoughts on the matter as well — some specific, some broad — but this single nugget seems to capture them all. It’s about independence and being happy with yourself. If you don’t have that then any relationship you enter into is bound to have issues.

Again, for posterity:

You’re not ready to meet your future spouse until you’re ready to be single for the rest of your life.