Who Sins More?

You know, when I talk to people of southern origin when I go stateside, they often tell me that "they don't trust atheists". I'm not sure why. I try to be polite and say that we're pretty much the same as eveyone else, but there's this intellectual block that I think they have where they associate their religion with "good" and anything else as "bad".

However, the most common reply I get from people of this viewpoint is "If there is no God, why wouldn't you do whatever you want? Why obey anything? Cause if the universe is eternal and our lives are short, it all ends up being the same."

First of all, I'd say that I find the concept of people being good simply because God "made laws so you would" laughable. How many Christians would turn the other cheek if you came up and slapped them? I don't think the number would be too high. Generally speaking, when it comes to faith, people generally ignore the rules they don't like and stick with the ones they do.

Second, it's not at all true. Unquestionably there are more people in the United States that are christian rather then atheist. But if we were to look at a ratio of the population of christians or atheists vs. their populations in prison (proven to have commited a crime, and for the most part, a sin). What do you think we'll find?

Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

According to current population, about 76% of the population is Christian and 15% is atheist or has no faith, ie, no God.

But isn't it interesting when we comare that total to Christians (not including any other faiths that also have divine set of laws). Christians are at 74%, atheists at 0.2%

What does this show? It shows that on average, the prison population ratio of christians is very close to the same ratio of christians on the outside.

However, for atheists, there are far less atheists in jail. Despite having 15% of the population, they only have 0.2% of the prison population (ie, one fifth of 1%).

It would seem to me that faith may influence some people's actions, causing them to be better, but the claim that it's the only reason people are being good is obviously false.

What do you think?

Prove that Atheism is True...

Let's assume for today that I'm having a discussion on theism and atheism with a person of faith. And the statement is made: "Well, can you prove to me that atheism is true?"

To this I typically respond "Of course not, atheism is a logical concept, and thus cannot be proven. However, I do say it's true." (a brief explanation is held in my "Why I'm not religious..." post if this is TL:DR.)

To understand my reasoning, I'll talk a bit about logic.

Logic is best explained, in my opinion, as a conceptual representation of the consistent method of how the universe (and all things in it) acts. That is to say, in our universe, certain things are impossible. A meteor cannot be a meteor and a kitten at the same time and so on.

Let's take a look at the law of excluded middle. The law of excluded middle states that in a question, where there are only two possible outcomes, if you disprove one, the other must be true. This is shown in the following statement "God exists or he does not exist." Because logically something cannot exist and not exist at the same time, there is an excluded middle. You can't sorta exist or sorta not exist.

By this way, Logic is descriptive of the universe. It describes how the universe operates, albeit in small scope. However, these rules are true in all cases.

The true usefullness of logic comes in it's prescriptive power. That is to say, logic is used to direct our thoughts in thinking about certain situations. Using the example above, if God exists and you can prove it, we can disregard the concept of God not existing.

So, where does atheism sit in regards to logic's prescriptive power. Basically it comes down to this. If there is no evidence to support a position it's logically as valid as any other idea that can be envisioned, no matter how ridiculous. The concept of "God created the universe" is on par with "a pink unicorn named phil with a bum leg and a bandaid over one eye created the universe by farting after eating the volcano big box deal from taco bell".

So what you may say. But we come to the law of non-contradiction. That is to say, two conflicting concepts cannot be true at the same time. So, in the above, either God created the universe or Phil did. Both cannot be true. Therefore one must be wrong. And if one can be wrong with the same evidence as the other, both can be wrong. So because of the prescriptive nature of logic, you must discard ideas that have no evidence.

There is no evidence for God. Therefore you must logically discard it. That leaves you with not believing in God, which is atheism. That's why atheism is true.

Sorry about the shorter article, but there's not really much else to say. :)

What are your thoughts?

Love thy Neighbour...

Taking a bit of a break from my Scientology postings to change pace. I'm sure some of my readers who aren't big into the whole Scientology thing will appreciate the break.

As I live my life day to day I always try to put myself into other people's shoes. I drop a coin in a homeless man's jar, maybe tip a bit more at a restuarant or even help an old lady by carrying her groceries.

I laud these efforts, whether they are done by myself or by others. The intent is good and genuine and truely make the world a slightly better place to be.

But what I don't understand is the concept of "Love thy neighbour as you would love yourself." I mean, does my neighbour really want my hands all over...

Call me crazy, but I really don't think loving or caring for someone as much as you do for yourself is a moral teaching, furthermore, I'd say it's impossible for us to do.

Would it be moral for a man with a family to put them into hardship so he could bail out his neighbour from jail (he'd do it for himself...), causing his children to eat poorly and have shoddy clothes? I'd say it's not.

Such examples can be found all over the place. So really, is this a great moral teaching from Jesus Christ? I'd say no. The morality shifts depending on the situation. Thus, it's not a rule, not even a guideline, the good will is there, don't get me wrong, but it's not the correct idea.

But what's interesting here is it highlights one of the great issues I have with religion. The concept of having rules that are impossible to keep. I mean, can anyone really love their neighbour as much as themselves? Can you?

Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Now, I can understand the concept of having an impossible goal. It's something to aspire to. However, when you're told you've sinned (as the above message states) for a totally natural reaction, I have a problem.

And why do they want you to feel bad? So you come back to church to confess and "get right with the Lord". You'd think that if there was a God who designed us, he would have realized that we are sexual beings and that thoughts like this are natural and not make it a sin. Go figure eh.

But isn't that an interesting thought. What about Adam and Eve. More specifically, Adam. While Eve was created from a rib, Adam was created from the dirt in the garden by God. Directly. God created his mind, his intellect and more importantly, his curiosity. It's this aspect that led Adam to taste of the apple.

So, God created something with what has to be percieved as a flaw. He then puts the creation into a situation where the flaw will show itself and then punishes his creation for acting the way he designed him.

Interesting way of looking at it, wouldn't you say? What are your thoughts?

Scientology - Stupid is as Stupid Does

The more I think about it, the more I think it's a good idea to stop here with the Scientology stuff. Not because it's not a worthwhile cause, but more because everyone already knows it's a joke and there's no real point continuing. So, this will be my last scientology post...

The more I look into Scientology, the less I like it. Maybe that's not a strong enough statement. I'd have to say that the more I look into Scientology, the more I want to see it removed from the world. Not because people aren't free to practice what they want, not at all, but because it's so damn stupid.

I mean mega stupid. With a capital M and G. Maybe an A.

Today I'm going to be telling you about one of my favourite Scientology entries. Why is it my favourite? Because it makes a testable claim! Of course, no one has ever tested this, because who wants to waste their time debunking nonsense. And of course, Scientology doesn't do falsifyable tests on things they claim. Mainly because it's burned them in the past (see my post on "How Scientology Defends It's Beliefs).


So, I present to you, the Clam.

L Ron Hubbard writes about how the clam is an engram, that is to say, a bad event on the whole track. The whole track is the entire history of time, which every individual on earth "rides" on. We live, die, we are reincarnated, we live, die, etc.

Anyways, in his book History of Man, LRH writes about how the clam had a rough time at life, as his joints both pushed and pulled. He also write about how barnicales on the shell exploded with gas while sitting in the hot sun. The point? To explain end phenomina in humans. That's right, a clam dying on a beach with exploding barnicles has a direct influence on you!

And I quote:

Should you desire to confirm this, describe to some uninitiated person (Ie, person not in Scientology) the death of a clam without saying what you are describing. "Can you imagine a clam sitting on the beach, opening and closing its shell very rapidly?" (Make a motion with your thumb and forefinger of a rapid opening and closing). The victim may grip his jaws with his hand and feel quite upset. At the very least, he will argue as to whether or not the shell stays open at the end or closed. And he will, with no hint of the death aspect of it, talk about the "poor clam" and he will feel quite sad emotionally.

Later LRH Writes:

But there was more to the spore then this. The spore was like a barnacle. When the clam was cast ashore, these spores were still alive in the shell. The sun would kill the inner cells of the "barnacle" while the outer shell cells still lived. The dead innner cells would form a gas which, under heat, would explode violently - to the agony of the living barnacle shell cells. This bursting was sudden and painful. These spores gave incidents which permitted the human teeth to have a pattern. The ancient bursting engrams are still dramatized by the teeth which, under stress, burst or feel like bursting.

Isn't that interesting? It turns out that when my teeth have some sort of problem, I should be dealing with the engram from the clam, not wasting my time going to a dentist to have him check for some sort of gum disease. Furthermore, Hubbard points out that things actually cook from the inside out. Cooking a steak rare? Impossible according to the physics laid out in this statement.

Brings me to an interesting point. To what degree can we morally allow nonsense like this to alter people's perceptions for treatment of ailments? Do we let a child die from pneumonia simply because his parents have a religious objection to antibiotics? Do we allow someone who might die from a tooth infection go on his merry way because he thinks it's a "Clam Engram"?

What do you think?

This article is presented of a criticism of the Clam Engram presented by L Ron Hubbard in his book "History Of Man" and is therefore exempted from the Canadian Copyright Act due to the clause for "Fair Dealing". Page locations to follow.

Scientology - The Tone Scale

First of all an apology. I had promised to write about Scientology's negative aspects such as forced abortions, family disconnection, fake drug programs, etc, but it's such a large topic and it really needs a lot of time to write up due to a grounding in "Scientologeese". These will be posted on Tuesday August 24th.

But fear not, there is a Scientology post today!

Today's article is about the Tone Scale in Scientology. The reason I'm talking about the tone scale is because this is one of the premiere examples of how silly this "religion" is.

What is so hilarious is that the tone scale compares actions, feelings and thoughts as if they were somehow related. Here's a clue L Ron, they're not. But what's even better is that he assigns a numerical value to the numbers themselves. By what methodology do you determine that Action is 20 on the tone scale while Mild Interest is a 2.9. How do you determine these numbers? Oh right, I forgot, L Ron merely asserted that these were the values. He didn't actually have to prove why they actually were at the numbers they were.


Here's the Tone Scale in all it's idiotic glory!

So, let's say you're on your way to the tax office becuase you've had an audit and you owe the government $15,643 in back taxes. This will ruin you financially and you'll have to spend the next few years digging yourself out of a hole. No vacations, no going out, no nothing. You are at the grief stage, meaning you're 0.50 on the tone scale.

While you're driving, you get a call from the tax office saying that they had made a mistake and informed you about someone else's account. They apologize and say you don't have to come in. You're now cheerful, which woudl be described as 3.5.

To go from 0.5 to 3.5 you need to go through the feelings between. Because feelings are linear right? Not touching them all, but giving you an idea of what you'd go through.

From grief you'd hit numb, I assume in a mental state, so you'd feel nothing. A grey thought. Then, for some odd reason, you'd become terrified. After the terror passes you'd be in a state of despair. Because you know, not being in debt is such a horrible situation. Then you'd hit fear, because apparently it's still a frightening situation, just less so now. After that, you'd be anxious, because you know, who knows what will happen now that you're out of debt. Then you'd be covertly hostile. After that, you'd resent the tax man, but not say anything. Then you'd have no sypathy for your situation, odd because you were just filled with fear and terror. Now you'd resent the tax man and say so, to yourself of course, cause you're in your car.

Hate followed by anger would follow, probably towards the organization, which is normal I suppose. But then you'd have a pain somewhere in your body. No, this is not the same as saying "What a pain in the ass". That's expressed resentment that I listed already. Then you'd be hostile and antagonistic, which is far less of a bad feeling for the tax man overall. Then you'd think the whole process was monotonous and then you'd think it was boring. You'd become disinterested and then contented by the event. You'd then express mild interest about something you've had tons of feelings for already and then be cheerful.

And you'd all experience this in the brief moment that the tax representitive tells you that you're not in deep doo doo.

This post is intended as criticism of the "Tone Scale" represented in "The Scientology Handbook". As such it is exempted from Canadian Copyright Law due to the exemptions for Fair Dealing.

Image source is http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/FULL.HTM.

Bonus - Your Daily Horoscope

For those who aren't particularly interested in Scientology, I thought I'd post a little bonus article today that I've had squirreled away. Enjoy!

This has been a long time coming. Over the past little while, I've noticed that more and more people around me have a strong belief in horoscopes. And I find this particularly infuriating. Don't get me wrong, I appreicate people having fun with horoscopes, just taking them seriously boils my buttons.

Now, I can generally be tolerant of someone's faith in God, Allah, a blue space unicorn named "Peppy the Honry Unicorn" or Shiva, but for some reason, belief in horoscopes really irritates me.

I would suppose that it's not because they're spiritual and fun or that they have secret knowledge of your life or that they claim to be able to predict the future based on how stars are or aren't situated in space. No no no. It's infuriating because is so damn STUPID.

Seriously, it's like if you have an IQ of 90 and are able to put a couple of thoughts together in your skull, you'll come across some of the problems with horoscopes. Such as...


- If they're accurate, why do different papers have different predictions. Why do they seem to be conflicted all the time.

- Why are they so hopelessly general? What use is a messsage of "You'll wake up, eat, and poop today. Not in that order however." I'm still wondering how I managed to poop, eat and then wake up last Tuesday. The aftertaste was horrible.

- The stars have shifted. Over time, as the earth spins, where the sun passes over a constellation has changed. It's fully one sign to the left now. So people born as Aries are probably now Taurus. Does this seem to matter for the horoscope people? Nope.

But you know what the worst part is? It's politically incorrect to call people on their stupidity. If someone walks up to me and says "I had a good horoscope today. I'm going to have a pleasant surprise at work!". I want to say "Here's a surprise, you're a moron!". However, due to social stigma, I'd have to say "Wow, that's so new age of you. Although I don't believe in them".

How have we sunk so low that we can't call idiots for what they are. Idiots.

How Scientology Defends It's Beliefs...

"Never Defend, Always Attack."
L Ron Hubbard, Founder of Scientology

Despite the idiocy of the above, what's my major beef with Scientology? It's simple. They make promises they cannot keep. They claim wonderful things and cannot prove that they actually occur. They reject established medical pratices because they "know better." Families are broken up due to their disconnection policy. They pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to recieve auditing and their courses to become better. Members are locked into rooms for reg cycles, which are basically high pressure sales environments where they're forced to give "donations" to the Church. This will all be explained in the next blog.

This entry is about how Scientology defends itself from legitimate inquiry about their methods and actions.

The proof is in the pudding as they say. Or rather, the lack of proof is in the pudding in Scientology's case.

Let's head back to the magical age of 1950. L Ron had just written Dianetics, the core book of Scientology. At a Lecture in Los Angles he showed 6,000 people the first clear. Hubbard claimed that she had perfect recall.

But I get ahead of myself. You're sitting there saying "What the hell is a clear?" Well, the answer isn't so simple.

A clear is a person who has had all of his or her engrams removed or addressed through a process called "auditing". Auditing is basically a one on one discussion where the person performing the audit is in control of an e-Meter. These e-Meters basically measure the resistance value of the individual.


The e-Meter: A primitive lie detector. Costs about $5 to make, they charge their members thousands for the device. And it is only good for a couple of years, after that it has to be "recalibrated" for another huge cost.

Why resistance? Because Hubbard thought that when a person thinks of a situation where he/she has had a negative thought, the resistance of the individual's body goes up. Yeah, I know.

Anyways, engrams are bad experiences that are locked away in the human mind and preventing the individual from being his or her true self. An example of an engram may be that when you were 3 you bumped your head on a table and now you bear ill will to tables (no, I'm not making this up).

So, auditing (one on one counselling) with the e-meter (device to detect engrams) is designed to confront (face) these engrams (mental locks on specific events).

Back to the story. Hubbard claimed that the clear had perfect recall. That is to say she could remember anything from any time. Even if things happened before she attained perfect memory. The questions flew in. What was the equation on page 217 of this science book? "I don't know." was the reply. What did you eat for breakfast on August 17th, 1946? "I don't know." What colour is Hubbard's Tie (while he was turned away from her). "I don't know."

The 6000 people poured out of the room, calling L Ron a con-man. He was devastated.

This, in my opinion is he source of the phrase "Never defend, always attack." Because his position often was untenable. It's far easier to say "Why do you hate my religion" to a legitimate inquiry of something that was said then to provide evidence. Evidence he did not have.

Anyways, I thought I'd provide you with a few videos showing how Scientology "always attacks, never defends". The first video comes from Mark Bunker, who has a channel on youtube called "XenuTV". It's there that he talks about the Anonymous movement against Scientology (more of that in a later post) and has several videos of him dealing with the attacks of Scientology.

Oh, one other thing. When someone causes a stir in Scientology, the church sends out some of it's more "advanced" members to deal with the person. To make them go away so to say. They'll generally act like jackasses to anyone who doesn't totally agree with what their cult says. The proof is in the pudding (below).

Mark Bunker at a 4th of July Event!


A Protest with a Crazy Lady!

Atheism and Agnosticism

Sorry, but the next scientology post will be coming up on Tuesday. This is a bonus article beacuse I felt like popping another one up. That being said, Tuesday's post will be a lot of fun and will be rather shocking to a few people I think.

Anyways, I wanted to touch upon the terms atheist, theist, gnostic and agnostic.

There is a popular misconception that the string of belief in a God travels from belief to agnosticism to atheism. This couldn't be futher from the truth. agnosticism and atheism are two different comments on two different things.

Gnosticism is a knowledge of God. It can be that you know what God is, wants from you or what his/her favourite ice cream flavour is. Or it could be that you know God doesn't exist. The key here is to understand this is discussing what you know (or percieve to know).

Agnosticism is the rejection of gnostic claims. That is to say, the agnostic has no reliable knowledge about God and finds claims about specific knowledge unconvincing.

TLDR: Gnosticism claims knowledge, Agnosticism rejects that claim.

Theism is the belief in a God. It can be that you believe your God sacrificed himself to himself to create a loophole in a rule that he himself created. It can be that you believe God chose someone who took a bride at 9 to be his holy messenger. Whatever floats your boat.

Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. That is to say, atheists do not believe simply because they do not believe. To most atheists, not believing in God is akin to not believing in fairies, unicorns and/or ghosts.

TLDR: Theism claims belief, Atheism rejects belief.



I don't totally agree with the chart, but it does get the point across.


But to show you that they really are seperate, I'll show you how they're interchangable.

Gnostic / Atheist: This is a person who doesn't believe in God and who claims to know God doesn't exist.

Gnostic / Theist: This is a person who believes in a God and claims to know that God does exist. Or that his faith represents actual knowledge of God.

Agnostic / Atheist: This is a person who rejects both concepts of "knowing about god" and "believing in God".

Agnostic / Theist: Usually termed a deist, these people generally stick to the concept that no faith has it right and but that a God does exist.

Of course, these explanations do not represent everyone of those groups, but it gives you a general idea.

So, what mix are you? Why are you that mix?

Scientology and the Interwebs

For years we have heard about Scientology through celebrities like Tom Cruise and Jason Lee. Of course, we all know that celebrities make well informed and intelligent decisions in regards to their life choices.

But that’s beside the point. Scientology as I see it is a destructive cult who deludes it’s members into believing extraordinary things and has them shell over hundreds of thousands of dollars for books, courses and auditing. Over the next few blog posting I’m going to be talking about Scientology, my experience with it, my opinion on the material and what others have been saying about Scientology. It’s also my intent to give you all a “crash course” in the subject through these postings.

Scientology’s Founder, L. Ron Hubbard:

Like all religious founders, the stories of Hubbard are greatly exaggerated, and you only need to look near the beginning of his biography to see them creeping up. According to the official biography, L Ron Hubbard, at the age of 3 no less, was on his father’s ranch and breaking broncos with the best of them. Let me state this again. A 3 year old was left on a wild horse by his father and managed to tame it.

The story is very suspicious for two key reasons. First of all, how could a three year old break a bronco? To break a horse (as it is my understanding), the person must be able to remain on the horse as it tries to buck him off. A three year old would not have the weight to affectively weaken the horse’s kicks and jumps, furthermore, he wouldn’t have the strength to remain holding the reigns.

The second reason is a little more subtle. Put yourself in the position of L Ron’s father. What person in their right mind would put a 3 year old on a wild horse. What person would put a three year old on a horse without holding him at all? Did L Ron’s father mean to kill him? It would seem that’s the case.

But if it was left to exaggerated stories I wouldn't mind. But it's not. Scientology is in essence a personality cult, much like how North Korea is now.

Here are some things that Scientologists believe about L Ron.

- That he is now researching "Life after Death" as his theta has been seperated from his body. He will return to write new lessons in the future. He died in 1986.

- That he is the only source for Scientology material. No one else is able to figure anything out. Only he can write about scientology. Of course, this is silly, because science, the best method we have to learn about the world accepts ideas from anyone, provided they have the proof to back it up.

- That he had mastered every single aspect of his life. He was a nuclear physicist, a civil engineer and a war hero. Each of these are not true. Hubbard's military record shows that he was not trusted to be in command and fired on Mexico in WW2. He has no credentials from any University to claim he's a civil engineer. And he once stated that "Radiation can be washed off with a garden hose." I think that puts a nail in the coffin for a nuclear physicist.

In the next post I'll be showing how scientologists react to people questioning their faith. Trust me, you don't want to miss that. :)

Moral Absolutes

What is by far my biggest beef with any sort of religion is the concept of moral absolutes. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal for example.

What I find sickening (I apologize, I rarely use this word but I think it's appropriate) is when people adhere to the concept of moral absolutes. It's silly, because it only takes a casual look at the world we live in to know this isn't the case.

I'm going to go through a few of the Ten Commanments and show situations that are good, neutral (neither good nor evil) and evil.


Thou Shalt Not Kill:

Good: A man sits in a room with 12 preschoolers. He is armed with a knife and has killed two children already. You as the sniper shoot and kill the man to save the rest of the children.

Neutral: A loved family member is dying from cancer. He/She is sitting in extreme pain and asks you to remove them from life support. You do so.

Evil: You kill a man just for the fun of it. Taking the cash in his wallet you go and buy a new pair of sneakers.


Thou Shalt Not Steal:

Good: A friend of yours says he's going to get "really messed" on drugs tonight and he has had a history of ODing. You steal the drugs and flush them down the toilet to prevent him from killing himself and/or going to jail.

Neutral: You lend a co-worker $20 bucks and he has said that he has paid you back. You are absolutely certain that he has not because you haven't had any cash in your wallet since you've lent him the money. He drops a $20 on the floor from his pocket and you take it.

Evil: You steal a marble rye from an old lady to help your friend prove to his girlfriend's parents that he did indeed "bring something" to the dinner he attended last week.


Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery:

Good: You and your wife/husband want to explore swinging to expand your love life. You love and trust each other and go through with the event. You're both happier from the experience.

Neutral: You are getting divorced and the papers are finalized and just being processed through the court. You meet someone and spend the night with him/her.

Evil: You cheat on your wife/husband just for the thrill of it, knowing that it'll destroy them emotionally.



Adultery has never been more attractive...


Why do you think people hold onto the concept of moral absolutes? Do you hold onto this idealogy? If so, why?

Why Some Christians Bug Me...

Now, I don't want to say all Christians bug me, I have a few friends who are christian and I don't find them annoying at all. Mainly because they don't try to convert me.

The people who really bug me are the people who try to convert you and don't have a freaking clue what they're talking about. You know the type, the person who's so convinced that they cannot be reasoned with.

Here's some things that bug me about these fundamental Christians.


- They deny every other God, yet when you deny theirs they get offended.


- Biology, geology and other scientific proofs are not trustworthy. However, anyone claiming to be "touched by God" is more than enough evidence.


- The source is more important then the message. They wouldn't dare question a sermon from a priest, however showing them proof that the earth is more then 6,000 years old due to carbon half life dating, impossible!


- They generally know less about the bible then atheists. Yes, we read the bible from time to time. :)


- When told that we evolved from a common ancestor shared with chimps, they feel offended that we came from a "lower" life form. But being conjured out of dirt? No problem.


Why is it that people believe that they have the right to say what is absolutely right when they can't show you that it is? Why do you think that the same people who accept things on faith cannot understand and try to change others who accept different things on faith?

Mosque near Ground Zero...

For all of those who have been reading the news recently, there is currently a hot debate whether a Mosque should be built near the site of the 9/11 attacks in NYC.

Basically the two sides break into the following. The first side are the ones who are looking out for the victim's families. They say that a mosque near the site is disrespectful to the dead.

The second side tend to cite the american constitution which says that the state cannot impose laws that establish one religion over another. They also tend to point out that Islam didn't murder the people in 9/11.

I'd like to tell you my 9/11 story for what it's worth.

At the time I was in my student residence. I was a Biochemistry student and had an old 21 inch TV in my room. I was online when someone told me to turn on the news. What followed was the longest time I've ever watched TV without moving (except for bathroom breaks) in my life. I spent a good 18 hours glued to the set.

The human suffering that I saw was mind numbing. People jumping from windows, screaming for help and trying desperately to survive. Then the towers came down.

I remember at the time thinking that this was long overdue. Not because I was looking forward to it, but rather, I expected something like this would be in the works. We had been far too lax with people who meant us harm. Be it bombing a US military sub to torching embassies, etc.

Anyways, I went to sleep and the next morning I got a call from my Mother. She wanted to let me know my uncle was ok. He was at the towers the previous day but was able to escape. I was floored. It was suddenly more personal and gave a whole new perspective on what I saw the previous day.

It's in that frame of reference that I appreciate the first side's argument. There's lots of raw emotion going around, even 9 years after the event. Families are still mourning and they are still upset. I get that.

However, I also appreciate the type of country that we live in. I appreciate the fact that life for everyone wouldn't be as good as it is if there wasn't the free exchange of ideas, the ability to choose (or not choose) your own religion and the ability to live free. In the US, this is guaranteed by the constitution.

The fact is that the victims of 9/11 weren't murdered by Islam. They were murdered by morons who happened to be Islamic. Oklahoma city was bombed by a moron, a moron who happened to be Christian. Ireland has been bombed countless times by morons who are Protestant or Roman Catholic.

There is this unsettling trend to associate people with their faith as motivations for their actions. This simply isn't a the case. Do you attribute Hitler with people who believe in Christ? His soldiers did indeed have the slogan "God with Us" on their belt buckles. Do you attribute Hitler with vegetarians? (Ok, maybe in voracity of what they're claiming, j/k)

My point is, that not only is it silly to blame the faith for the actions of the few. What's worse is that these people are now trying to deny the rights of innocent people (in relation to 9/11) based on their faith. Which is unconstitutional.

So I'd say let them build their Mosque. Wouldn't the fact that they were allowed to do something like that show the Middle Eastern people that we don't hate their faith and show that we really aren't as repressive as the country they live?

What's your thoughts on the matter?

BONUS ARTICLE! The Myth and Religion of Mac

For those of you who don't know, I work in IT. It's my job to put PC's together, troubleshoot them, install software and generally ensure they're operating optimally.

Over the past few months, my department has become home to a few Macs.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with Mac. I have a problem with their owners. Because generally speaking, they're people who don't have freaking clue about computers and think they're "ahead of the curve" technology wise.

Here's some common myths about Macs that I'd like to dispel.


Macs are more reliable:
This is the worst of them all because it's obviously not true for anyone who has a bit of knowledge about computers. Macs are built with virtually the same components as PC's. They have the same guts. Therefore, they'll fail at about the same time. Macs are not more reliable. They're just shinier.


Macs are better at photo editing:
Bollocks. The Mac isn't better. The software is better. The problem is that most (if not all) successful Mac software is available for the PC. And has been for some time.


Macs have no viruses:
Lies. Macs DO have viruses. Apple only says they don't as a marketing ploy. Don't get me wrong, PC's have FAR MORE viruses, but that's not because of design, but rather number of users. Think about it. If you're a hacker and want to steal credit cards, who are you going to target? PC's who are approximately 87% of the computers in homes or Macs which are 13%? It's not really a hard choice.


Macs are faster:
Nonsense. Macs are not faster then PC's. The reason behind this is the video game market, which until recently Mac was excluded from. It's games that generate new video cards, faster processors and the drive for more ram. Put a top of the line PC against the best Mac has in personal computers and there isn't a contest. You might as well put a VW Bug (shiny and cute) up against a Bugatti Veyron.


What you wish your Mac was...


Macs Crash Less:
This may actually be true, to a degree, but it's not a fair comparison. Macs are a closed environment for the most part, meaning that the only let things in that have been approved by Apple. This isn't the case for PC's. PC's have to handle everything that's thrown at them. So, PC's crash more due to the nature of the situation it's in. But I'll tell you what, I like being able to choose what software I can use.


Basically, if you like flushing away an extra $1000 for a PC you could have built yourself, buy a Mac. But don't fool yourself. To anyone who has a clue and hasn't fallen in love with Macs, we see you as a person with too much money. Which isn't a bad thing. :)