Pro-Afterlife Extremism Fuels Atheism

Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, recently wrote an article for BBSNews entitled "Religious Extremism Great Advertisement for Atheism."

In the article, Annie lines up very recent examples of religious extremism, and explains how their own extremist actions are arguments for atheism:

Religious extremists are doing such a good job of demonstrating the harm of dogma and religion all by themselves that there is really very little left for rationalists to do. Rev. Pat ("take out Chavez") Robertson calls down God's wrath on the pro-evolution voters of Dover, Penn. Next he deems Ariel Sharon's stroke an example of divine punishment.

The Robertson example should be obvious. It makes Robertson look like the insane and irrelevant televangelist that he is, in love with an imaginary friend who he gleefully assumes is smiting everyone that rubs him the wrong way.

Annie's next example:

The notorious Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, a one-man argument for atheism, switches from picketing the funerals of AIDS victims with his loathsome "God Hates Fag" signs, to demonstrating around the country at funerals for soldiers who have died in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

The Rev. Phelp's conduct is obviously not convincing any agnostics or "non-religious" people that Jesus is the way, nor is he making any atheists second-guess their convictions.

Annie provides a few more examples of the bloodthirstiness of pro-afterlifers, such as the 9/11 hijackers, the warmongering Christian politicians in the West, and even the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.

Annie is right, you know. Most people may not see it yet, but atheism has been gaining steam in the developed world, in part due to the actions of extremist religious groups.

Is it any surprise that the average Joe will be repelled to or repulsed from these various theistic worldviews according to the actions and statements of each worldview's most enthusiastic flag-waver? I think not. And who are the most enthusiastic flag wavers of religion, God, and the afterlife? Who is out there acting and speaking the loudest in the name of their religious beliefs? The Rudolphs, the Bushes, the Osamas, the Robertsons, the Phelps family, and even those Christians from Rapture Ready who can't wait to die.

Let the religious spokespeople screech their lungs out, claiming that their God destroys, or demands the destruction of, everything around them. Let the extremists proclaim from the mountaintops that, according to their worldview, everyone is born a worthless wretch. These apocalyptic, pro-afterlife worldviews can't compete with science, materialism, or atheism. In today's free marketplace of ideas, the actions of these religious extremists help Kill The Afterlife.

Aaron Kinney Deconverted Again!

Yes, I just went through another deconversion. Don't worry though; I'm still an atheist! How can an atheist "de"convert anyway? No, this time it was a political deconversion to anarcho-capitalism. I have given up my addiction to the concept of government, and it only took me 10 years longer to give up government than it did for me to give up God and the afterlife! Just for the record, I will still refer to myself as a libertarian on occasion, because libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are compatible concepts.

Kill The Afterlife is not a political blog, and I don't want to talk politics here (that’s what I have The Radical Libertarian for). But I thought my political deconversion would be worth mentioning, in part because a political deconversion is similar to a religious one (just how different are God and state concepts really?), and in part because I employ the Burden of Proof in my post at The Radical Libertarian blog. If any of your recall, the Burden of Proof was the subject of my very first post at Kill The Afterlife.

So all you atheists (and even pro-afterlife theists) out there, check out my post at The Radical Libertarian about my very recent deconversion to anarcho-capitalism. I think you will find it interesting food for thought, and I think you will like how I apply the Burden of Proof to politics and anarcho-capitalism.

Kill the state. Kill the afterlife.

More on Manata and Meta-Data

Paul Manata took the time to respond to my post. His response can be found here. Paul wastes no time in misrepresenting me:

I mean, these guys actually think that the laws of logic (not just our thoughts of them) are actually material entities!

This is not true. I never said that actual logical laws were material entities. I did say they are material, but I said they are meta-data or properties of material entities. More specifically, I said that logical laws were concepts used by humans to help understand the nature of the reality we exist in.

Maybe it will help if I say it like this: I assert that both gravity and the laws of logic are material, but I do not assert that gravity, or logical laws, are separate material entities themselves.

Manata then speaks about his views on the laws of logic:

...but I don't think that they are concepts. You can have a concept of a law of logic, but a law of logic is not a concept. In "A Companion To Epistemology" (ed. Dancy and Sosa) a concept is "... a way of thinking of something - a particular object, or property, or relation, or some other entity" (p.74, emphasis mine). So, I may think of my fiancé that she is beautiful, but is this concept my fiancé?! Basically, Kinney shows his ignorance of both concepts and logic.

Manata seems to be insisting that the laws of logic are actual separate entities if I am reading his fiancé analogy correctly! I have never heard anyone familiar with logic claim that logical laws are separate entities themselves! Does Manata think that the laws of logic are separate, immaterial entities? I am going to take a dictionary definition here to defend my position. Dictionary.com says that logic is A) A system of reasoning; B) A mode of reasoning; C) The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science. That sounds a lot like a conceptual tool to me. At any rate, it sure doesn't imply that logic is a separate entity, like Manata's fiancé is.

Of course, I must admit right now that Manata does not typically like it when I use the dictionary, as he has called it bad form before when I called it in to play. I am interested in seeing Manata's definition for logic.

At any rate, Manata cannot escape these truths. The laws of logic, like the theory of gravity, are conceptual tools used to understand the way reality works. What we call gravity and logic are simply properties of the matter/energy that the universe is comprised of. Properties of matter/energy are not independent entities themselves, but are data that describe data. They are the proverbial meta-data of the entities to which they belong.

Manata then continues on his fix of considering logical laws independent entities:

No, if I interpret Moore as saying that they are instantiations that does not rescue Moore from the problem of universals! Actually, what I said was that if Moore wants to take these as instantiations then he has the problem of universals! So, does Kinney even read and grasp what I'm saying? It appears not. So, interpreting Moore in Kinney's way actually brings up the problem of universals! That is, how can one entity be multiply exemplifiable? Kinney here shows he not only doesn’t understand concepts, logic, but he also doesn't understand the problem of universals.

First off, let's look at the Dictionary.com (gasp!) definition of "instantiation": To represent (an abstract concept) by a concrete or tangible example: “Two apples... both instantiate the single universal redness"

So logic is a concept, and the logical laws written in a book are concrete representations of the abstract concept of logic. That's assuming that we agree on the dictionary definition of the word "instantiation" which I'm not too sure Manata will agree with. But at least I have more ammo to support my earlier contention that logic is a concept and not an independent entity.

But let's get back to the universals problem. Manata said, "That is, how can one entity be multiply exemplifiable?" Remember though, that I specifically clarified earlier in this post that logic is not "one entity" as Manata put it. Logic is a property of reality, not an independent entity. But what if I were to say that logic was an entity and that it applied singularly to the entity of "reality"? Would it still be "multiply exemplifiable" if we considered logic to apply singularly to the single entity of reality?

Paul continues:

A logical law doesn't require matter for its instantiation. Also, it does not "depend" on matter for its existence, otherwise it would be contingent. Laws of logic are necessary in all possible worlds. There is no possible world were laws of logic would not/do not hold. So, what about the logically possible world, "matterless world?" Logic would hold in this world, and therefore cannot "depend" on matter for its instantiation. Furthermore, we're talking about logic qua logic, not the instantiation of logic.

Manata has it exactly backwards. Just last night I was watching the Science Channel and there was a special on the multiverse theory, where there are an infinite number of universes, all with different sets of rules. The rules change between universes, but the one constant thing is matter. Astrophysicists interviewed on the show talked about how the laws we operate in break down at the big bang singularity level, and how universes can duplicate themselves and have different laws between them. No physicist in the show ever implied that the laws were constant while matter was not. It was actually the other way around. And no scientist in the show implied a matterless world. In fact, they all implied that matter/energy is the one necessary thing for a "world" to even exist. What world can exist with no matter/energy, but with laws to govern said nonexistent matter/energy?

Remember, that if logic is a property of matter (logic is meta-data, and matter is data), then the logical laws would only exist if matter/energy was in that "world" too. I think the physicists on the show I watched last night would agree with me, as they clearly implied it when talking about the multiverse theory.

Regarding meta-data, Paul had this to say:

Huh? A concept is data about data? What about the concept: meta data? is that meta data about meta data?

Let me clarify. Thoughts are electronic signals in your brain. That is the data. These electronic signals are interpreted by your brain to have meaning. That meaning is the meta-data. And to answer Paul's question, the concept of meta-data is not meta-data about meta-data. It is just like every other concept. That seems like a silly question to me.

Regarding my claim that meta-data is material, Paul says:

Again, this is nothing but an assertion. Kinney just asserts this junk and offers zero arguments to back it up. I mean, he just thinks he can announce his view point and therefore that settles it?

Did Paul forget the part where I used a sound wave analogy? Or when I used a computer software analogy? Does Paul want to argue that a sound wave and a software program are both immaterial? Because that's what it seems he is saying.

Furthermore, Kinney cannot know, by observation, that "all meta data" is material.

True, I cannot observe all the meta-data in existence to confirm that it is all material. And Manata cannot know, by observation, that anything, including logic, is immaterial. Manata also cannot know, by observation, that God exists.

Kinney's argument:

1. All meta data is material.

2. Logic is meta data.

3. Therefore, logic is material.

Every premise is questionsable. Not one is obviously true. Furthermore, not one(!) of the books I have on philosophy or logic defines logic as "meta data" (not even Ayn Rand, Kinney's hero). Actually, and this is most embarrassing, logic is contentless. It has not "data."

Ayn Rand is not my hero. Maynard James Keenan is my hero, for the record. I even state this on my MySpace page that is linked from this blog. Where did Manata get this idea that Rand is my hero? I'm not even an objectivist.

And can Manata back up his assertion that logic has no data, or does he just assert? Manata should follow his own advice. All concepts are meta-data, and logic is a concept. Logic helps us make predictions about the universe and understand how things are. Logical concepts make claims about the properties of matter/energy. Sounds like it has data to me.

I'm wondering if Manata and I are using the same definition of "meta-data"?

Manata then provides arguments for why logic is immaterial, answering my previous charge that he cannot provide an argument. Thank you Paul for doing so. Lets look at them:

1. Material things are extended in space.

2. Logic is not extended in space.

3. Therefore, logic is not material.

Logic is not an entity, but a property. Properties are extended in space to the degree that the matter/energy they are associated with is extended in space. The speed of light is material just like light itself is material. Windows XP is material just like elecro-magnetism is material. And logic is material just like matter/energy is material.

Here's another:

1. If laws of logic are a material entities then they has location in space.

2. Laws of logic do not have location in space.

3. Therefore laws of logic are not material.

Again, the laws of logic are not material entities, but properties of material entities. So this argument is incorrect as well.

Here's another

1. If logical laws are necessary then they hold in all possible worlds.

2. Matter-less world is possible world.

3. Logical laws hold in matter-less world.

4. If laws of logic are material then they would not hold in matter-less world.

5. But they do hold in matter-less world.

6. Therefore, laws of logic are not material.

Premises 1, 2, and 3, and 5 are incorrect. Man do I wish I had a transcript of the show I saw last night on the Science Channel! A matter-less world is not a possible world. Logical laws can change between universes, but the existence of matter/energy is a prerequisite for the existence of a universe, according to the interviews of the scientists I watched last night on the Science Channel.

Here's another

1. Laws of logic are universal entites.

2. No material thing is a universal entity.

3. Therefore logic is not a material thing.

In response to premise 2, I would have to ask if the universe itself is A) material, and B) a universal entity?

Secondly, I never claim that if you can't burn a law of logic then it must not be material. All Kinney does here is show that he does not have the skills required to represent others arguments properly.

Oh boy. Manata didn't realize that I was trying to give a deliberately literal interpretation of what he said as a way to illustrate the way-too-literal interpretation that he made of what Dr. Moore said. Let's look at what Paul said regarding logic and it's materialism/immaterialism:

Furthermore, does Dr. Moore actually think that if he burnt his logic book he would be burning actual laws of logic?!

...And, does the good doctor seriously think he could crumble up a piece of his logic book, wet it and put it in a straw, and shoot someone with a law of logic?

See what is implied? Is it too far of a stretch for me to take Paul literally and to conclude that he said that if you cannot burn it or shoot it out of a straw then it isn't material? Is Paul conceding that I shouldn't have read him so literally like the way he read Dr. Moore so literally?

Before I post this, I want to take the time to thank Paul for responding so nicely. I read his entire post and didn’t feel insulted or offended as I usually do when reading what he writes about me. I don’t know if Manata consciously reduced the insults in his writing or if it was just be chance, but either way I want to thank him. So thanks Paul!

Manata: If it Doesn't Burn, it Isn't Material

Paul Manata thinks that concepts such as the laws of logic are immaterial. Manata has a bone to pick with meta-data, to be sure. According to Manata, if you can't burn the laws of logic, then they aren't material:

...does Dr. Moore actually think that if he burnt his logic book he would be burning actual laws of logic?!

Of course not. Dr. Moore is much more intelligent than that. And so is Paul, but he doesn't want us to think so in this case. Paul wants to blur the distinction between data and meta-data, and pretend they don't exist. Paul also wants it to look like Dr. Zachary Moore doesn't distinguish between data and meta-data. Manata takes one of Dr. Moore's statements out of context and way too literally - seemingly deliberately - in order to mount an attack using the problem of universals:

Dr. Zachary Moore has said, when asked if the laws of logic are observable entities, that,

"Of course they are. I can observe them any time I want in my logic book at home."

Now, Moore happens to think that the human notations are the actual laws! I mean, let's say his logic book has this notation expressing the law of non-contradiction:

(p^p)

So, since that is the actual law then if a book had expressed it thusly:

(x^x)

then that would be a different law of logic! If not, then we see that the same law can be instantated in two different expressions. Now Moore has more problems on his hands, namely, the problem of universals.

Dr. Moore clearly meant that he could see the instantiation of logic by reading said book. He didn't mean that he actually had the law contained within the book. You cannot contain concepts on paper, but you can represent the concepts on paper via meta-data. When I read a book by David Mills, am I actually consuming his physical electro-chemical thoughts? Can I destroy his actual thoughts if I burn his book? No!

If Manata really does think Dr. Moore literally meant what he said, then Manata isn't as smart as he seems. But I am betting that Manata knows better, and that he knows what Dr. Moore meant to say, but is deliberately misrepresenting it to be mean, to attack strawmen, and to generally give himself a rise from his own strange behavior.

If Manata acknowledges what Dr. Moore meant to say, then Manata's attack using the problem of universals disappears, and instead the problem lays on Manata's shoulders for his strawman attack.

We can expose the flaw in Manata's arguments simply by replacing "logic" with "sound wave." A sound wave is material (I doubt Manata will dispute that, but he might). A sound wave depends upon other matter for its existence, just like an instantiation of a logical law requires other matter (like paper and ink) for its existence. A sound wave -what you hear, rather- is meta-data, just like a logical law written on a piece of paper is meta-data. And any given sound wave, like when you talk or listen to your Walkman, is an instantiation of the concept of a sound wave, in the same way that writing down a logical law is an instantiation of the logical concept you had in your head.

And what is a concept? A concept is an idea represented by electro-chemical signals in the neurons in your brain. A concept is meta-data. A concept is purely material, just like all other meta-data, including logic and sound waves and the operating systems installed on our computers.

And meta-data, for anyone who doesn't know, is data that describes data. So a software program, for example, is the meta-data, and the electro-magnetic 1s and 0s that the software is composed of is the data itself. Another example is the sound wave: a wave of energy/pressure moves through the atmosphere, which is the data, and then you hear words from that sound wave that contain conceptual meaning, which is the meta-data.

A sound wave is not burnable. A sound wave is not containable in a jar. But a sound wave is purely material. The same thing applies to software programs, thoughts in your mind, concepts, and yes, even logic. Why? Because all meta-data is material.

Manata cannot even provide an argument for why logic is immaterial. The best he can do is misrepresent Dr. Moore's statements by taking them way too literally, and then claiming that if you can't burn a law of logic, then it must not be material.

At least Manata has the market cornered on banana jokes.

Muslims to West: Allahu Akbar!

From CNN.com.

A Danish newspaper recently published some cartoon caricatures of Mohammad, the prophet of the Muslim mental virus faith. One of those cartoons shows the prophet wearing a Turban that resembles a bomb. The cartoons portray an extremist image of the Mohammad and of Islam.

So what does the global Muslim community do in response? Act in violent and extremist ways, that's what! I'm all for free speech of course, and I'm all for free protest too. But Muslims are causing property damage to Danish embassies in Indonesia and other regions, all the while shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is the greatest). I'm not in favor of property damage, obviously. Also, I am not in favor of anyone reacting violently to an insulting caricature of a person who isn't even alive. But since in Islam, all pictures and drawings of Mohammad are considered immoral, I doubt they would be much happier even if the caricature was all flowery and complimentary.

Independent action and self-responsibility is a foreign concept to most Muslims (as well as most pro-afterlifers in general), and it's evident in how they praise God for every single causal act that happens in their lives. Newborn baby? Allahu Akbar! Death in the family? Allahu Akbar! Win the lottery? Allahu Akbar! A Yankee bomb falls on your house? Allahu Akbar! Got cancer? Allahu Akbar, dammit!

The Danish Prime Minister's reality check has gone unheeded by the infuriated Muslim protestors. The Danish Prime Minster said:

"A Danish government can never apologize on behalf of a free and independent newspaper. This is basically a dispute between some Muslims and a newspaper."

His legitimate disclaimer went unheeded because Middle-Eastern Muslims don't typically understand that a newspaper in the West can have an unrestricted and independent "mouth" that the Government cannot or will not control. The Muslims think that all of Denmark, indeed all of the Western World, is responsible for this offensive cartoon. Flag burning has not been restricted to the Danish variety over this issue. Why don't they just burn the UN flag? I think it would be more appropriate, since the UN flag has a picture of the entire planet on it.

I am also curious as to why Muslims think that their all powerful and all merciful Allah needs the help of their (by comparison) puny little selves to defend and protect Him? For God to even get offended is to imply that a human can force reactions out of Him, which would imply that humans can have power over Him, which would make the all-powerful Allah not so all-powerful, which would of course make Him not God.

While the whole Western World isn't responsible for the cartoon, a lot of Westerners definitely think of devout Muslims in the same way the cartoons portray. So the Muslim community is in a sense lashing out over their anger of how the West views them. At any rate, the Muslims are projecting. They want to blame the West for this offense, but in reality the only thing responsible for this portrayal of Mohammad is the institution of Islam itself! It is the mental virus faith of Islam that demands certain behaviors of its adherents. These Islamic behaviors leave a sour taste in the mouths of those who witness them, and in response, some newspapers speak their mind about what they see in the form of an offensive cartoon.

Who is responsible for this whole outrage? Nobody, unless you count Mohammad. The proper question is: What is responsible for this whole outrage? The answer is Islam. The answer is afterlife-belief, and it's dehumanizing, alienating, and demoralizing attributes. Think about it. The Muslims aren't even defending themselves, but their faith and their prophet. They are offended not because they were the target of an insult, but because their institution of Islamic faith was insulted. It is the Islam that the West is poking fun at, not the Middle-Easterners. And it is the afterlife-belief, in this case the Islamic faith, that is the problem.

I think that the French Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, sums it up terrifically when he says:

"I am totally shocked and find it unacceptable that -- because there have been caricatures in the West -- extremists can burn flags or take fundamentalist or extremist positions which would prove the cartoonists right."

Yes, Monsieur Douste-Blazy, the cartoonists are right.

Allahu Akbar!

Paul Manata Misses Point of My Post; Embraces Racism

Paul Manata has indicated in no uncertain terms here and here that he will not take back the racial slurs he threw at me. He doesn't think that he did anything bad, in fact he thinks what he did was funny (funny for a proud Aryan Klansman maybe?), and considers my request for him to take back what he said "childish." I honestly don't know if I can call racism "childish," but it certainly scores lower than any other "childish" remark in terms of quality of conduct.

Anyway, I have decided to respond to the meat of Manata's post, despite the fact that he stands proudly beside his racial slur. I have cooled down and I think I can reply to him without resorting to his level of poo flinging. In responding to the meat of his post, I will dispel his incorrect belief that I was using a racism charge to evade the real content of his post.

The first thing to note is that Manata completely missed the point of my post, and nowhere in his reply does he address my actual point of posting. To refresh everyone's memory, the title of my post was "Morality Cannot be Based on God's Rules." In my post, I explained objective morality, and then explained how Christianity steals from it, and I also demonstrated that the Christian, in his/her denial of self-interest as the foundation of morality, cannot account for their moral system. In other words, a Christian cannot provide an objective reason for following God's rules or caring about where they end up when they die: Heaven or Hell. I explained how the Christian can only get moral justification for following God's rules by stealing from the objective self-interested morality. I even wrote a sample dialogue between an atheist who subscribes to objective morality, and a Christian. I think it's safe to say that the point of my post was indeed what the title claimed it to be, that morality cannot be based on God's rules.

Strangely, Manata's entire response does not address or even acknowledge this point. All Manata does is attack the objective moral system with strawmen, misinterpretations, and attempts to assert the primacy of subject over object.

In reference to my explaining of objective morality, Manata quotes a source of objectivism from geocities and states (for clarification, "Aynisphat" is Manata's racial/ethnic slur for me, Aaron Kinney):

We note here, then, that the term "existence" in the "axiom of existence" is a "a collective noun denoting the sum of existents." So, Aynisphat is not all that exists but rather he's one particular existent. "An 'existent' is 'something that exists be it a thing, an attribute or an action.'" So, it looks as if Aynisphat is saying that another way of saying the "axiom of existence" is to say the "axiom of existent.

Manata is failing to see something important. Sure, "existence" is a collective noun, but it is also an adjective. It is an adjective because I (noun) have the property of existence (adjective). So when I say "axiom of existence," I am not saying "axiom of existent," at all. What I am saying is exactly what I mean, "axiom of existence," where existence is an adjective or a descriptor or a property. Existence is a property of an existent. Here is an example to demonstrate my point: My Mustang is an existent (noun). It exists (adjective), or has the property of existence (adjective).

Manata wants us to think that "axiom of existence" is a statement with two nouns and no adjectives. This simply isn't true, as the statement "axiom of existence" clearly contains a noun (axiom) and an adjective (existence). Manata is trying to strawman me by making it look as if I'm saying something that I'm not, and he is attempting to remove a significant portion of my message by changing an adjective to a noun.

So Paul Manata tried to erase the descriptive properties of the word "existence." It is important for Manata to attempt to jumble up and confuse what I said by reassigning adjectives to nouns, for only by attacking these fundamental concepts and jumbling them up can Manata hope to destroy objective morality. Fortunately, I only need to point out his trickery and his attack falls apart.

Once Manata feels that he has established the confusion of noun and adjective, he uses it to make a few assertions:

So, Aynisphat doesn't really begin with the axiom of existence but rather with the axiom of existent. Basically, Aynisphat is not really telling us something new but is just spouting off Descartes' axiom, "I exist."

See? He is literally trying to remove the entire descriptive property of the adjective "exist" like an illusionist making a quarter disappear. But it doesn't really disappear. In fact, the adjective/descriptive properties of the word "exist" can be seen within his own quotation of Descartes! Manata quotes him as saying "I exist." Look at that statement. It has a noun and an adjective. "I" is the noun, and "exist" is the adjective or descriptor.

Manata continues:

As such he is not using any universally accepted axiom that no men can deny but yet he tries to offer a universal system of objective morality.

Since Manata failed to remove the adjective from the equation, his argument here is totally empty. It is in fact an axiom that no man can deny. I challenge Manata to successfully deny it. I assert that in his act of denying it, Manata will be forced to implicitly concede it's axiomatic truth.

Manata then goes on to accidentally reveal that he has no understanding of what universality is:

More devastating, is that Aynisphat has a gigantic jump in his reasoning. How does he get from the axiom of his particular existence to the value of all other existents, or the value of all other life? This is nothing but a very hasty generalization. So it looks as though Aynisphat has a lot of work to do if he is going to prove how we get from the axiom of his existence to the value of life as considered universally.

Emphasis mine. The more proper question is, how can Manata assert that the value of existence is not universal? In other words, what makes Manata different from me? We are both human. We both exist (have the property of existence). We both require the same things to continue our existence.

I think a good thing to do right now in response to Manata's silly question begging is to quote myself from two posts ago. I said this: "It also says that what is good for one human is good for all humans, since all humans exist in the same reality and all the rules apply universally. In fact, if a rule cannot be applied universally, then it is not really a rule. So the only moral "rules" that exist are the rules that apply universally."

For Manata to say "How does he get from the axiom of his particular existence to the value of all other existents, or the value of all other life?" is the same as if Manata said "How does a scientist get from gravity existing on Earth to gravity existing all throughout the universe?" If gravity didn't exist everywhere, it wouldn't be a law. And if the value of existence was not applicable to all conscious existents, then it wouldn't be a law.

I would like to give a serious answer to Manata's question that I bolded thusly: Is there any objective difference between my existence and the existence of anyone else that would justify Manata's assertion that the rules or laws of existence don't apply equally to all of us? Or to use the gravity metaphor, I could say: Is there any objective difference between the existence of this planet and the existence of any other planet that would make the law of gravity not apply to all planets equally?

Later in the post, in reference to my statement about how the value of one's existence is presupposed, Manata says:

All Aynisphat is saying is that if one didn't exist he would not be able to conclude that it would be good if they didn't exist. But the reason for this is not because it is indeed objectively good that they exist, but merely because they would not exist to conclude it. So, Aynisphat offers another logical leap. He confuses the inability to say one is good with the objective fact that they are good, or have value.

Wrong. It is indeed objectively good that they exist because in the mere act of using one's consciousness, making decisions, making evaluations, etc... the value of one's existence is implicitly stated. If one's existence did not have value, then one would not exercise their existence. To use another metaphor, if I spend money, I am implicitly agreeing with its value in my act of spending it! If the money has no value to me, then I cannot logically spend it. And if I claim that the money has no value to me but I continue to spend it, then I am contradicting myself and indeed proving that the money has value because I am utilizing it in the act of spending it. This is about implicit agreement through the act of utilizing the "thing" in question. Whether it’s about money or conscious existence, when you utilize it, you endorse it and agree that it has value. Actions speak louder than words, and if you use money while condemning it, you are trumping your condemnations by endorsing the money through your act of spending.

Manata continues to embarrass himself by showing a total ignorance of universality:

Aynisphat concludes by saying that, "Human morality cannot be used to conclude that humans should not exist, for without humans, there would be no human morality to use to reach that conclusion." Despite the many numerous problems with this claim, all one has to do is claim that they do not think that all humans should not exist but only some! This satisfies Aynisphat's criteria that there be humans to reach the conclusion that some humans have value.

Ridiculous. Only some humans, huh? Again, the universality principle comes into play. And no, this does not satisfy my criteria whatsoever. It violates my criteria in fact: the criteria that these rules be universally and symmetrically applied. These kinds of rules must be universal and symmetrical. For more details on this, check out the excellent essay by Francois Tremblay entitled The Moral Razor.

Manata also seems to violate one of the principles of his own Presuppositionalist worldview (I'll tell you which one in a moment):

Also, again, we must press the point that it does not follow that humans have value because no one could say or conclude that they do not have value if they didn't exist.

Manata's Presuppostionalism states that it can only prove the existence of God by proving the impossibility of the contrary. In the instance of evaluating the value or non-value of one's existence, I have proved the impossibility of the contrary (proved that one cannot logically conclude that one has inherent non-value), and therefore proved my position that value of existence is foundational and presupposed in the mere act of existing. So I wonder what Manata will do about this particular issue: will he concede my point about proving the value of existence, or will he concede that his Presuppostionalism can not prove God's existence merely by proving the impossibility of the contrary? Manata has to concede on one or the other.

Manata then throws around a scenario:

Also, what if a mad-man said that no life has value and so he wants to kill everyone. Would Aynisphat tell him that he can't conclude that because then there would be no humans to say that all life should die? To this the mad-man would respond, "And that is exactly what I want to happen!"

If a mad-man said that no life has value, he would be objectively wrong, and he would be wrong because he would implicitly endorse the value of life in his mere act of living, evaluating, thinking, condemning, etc... And as far as what I would tell the mad-man, I would say "Go ahead and try it!" and I would then proceed to defend myself from him, because he is a mad-man that can't be reasoned with. However, we can note that logically the mad-man cannot come to the conclusion that his existence is inherently without value for the reasons I have already stated.

Manata later confuses the object-subject relationship and says:

Making sure we're "with" Aynisphat he then goes on to say that, "Now an objective, atheistic morality says that what is moral is what is good for you." This is helpful. Notice how Aynisphat basically tells us that what is moral is what is moral for you. And, what does he mean here. A pedophile will tell us that molesting children is "good" for him. So, is that moral? Hitler thought it was "good" for him to rid the world of Jews, so is that moral?

What I mean is that what is good for you is moral (self-interest), and yes, it is very helpful. A pedophile may tell us that molesting children is good for him, but he would be objectively wrong. Notice that Manata implies that what someone "thinks" is good for them, objectively is good for them. This is simply not true. I can "think" that gravity doesn't affect me but that doesn't make it objectively true. On the same vein, a child molester may think that acts of sexual coercion are good for him, but that doesn't make it objectively true. Manata fails to understand that existence (object) has primacy over consciousness (subject), and confuses the object-subject relationship. Morality is objective, which means that no human can "choose" that, for example, coercion is moral or good. Because morality is objective, we can only perceive or recognize it, not define or decide it. The same thing goes for gravity: we can only perceive or recognize gravity; we cannot choose or decide if and how gravity applies to us. That is what the word "objective" means and its pretty clear that Manata doesn't grasp this.

Manata then makes an ass of himself with a blatant and obvious strawman:

The PLO also tells us that objective, atheistic morality "also says that what is good for one human is good for all humans, since all humans exist in the same reality and all the rules apply universally." And so molesting a child is good for all children

So at first Manata refused to recognize universality. But when child molestation comes into play, then Manata recognizes it. He's picking and choosing parts of my moral code, depending on the scenario, to make a strawman then knock it down.

Manata then simply confuses what I said and further exposes his ignorance of universality:

But, Aynisphat now tells us that, " In fact, if a rule cannot be applied universally, then it is not really a rule." But above he said that what is good for one is good for all. Therefore, it appears that whatever is good for one can be applied universally! Is it "good" to give a cancer patient chemotherapy? If so, then should this rule be applied universally? But I don't need it; it would not be good to give me chemo. Therefore, since it cannot be applied universally then we should not give chemo to anyone, but since it is good for one person then it is supposed to be good for me also.

Notice that Manata thinks my statement about universality and rules is backwards? I was arguing in favor of applying rules universally, not against it. I actually am not sure if Manata made this error on purpose or accident, but I think it's on accident. Manata asks if it's good to give a cancer patient chemotherapy. I would reply that it is good to provide a good or service to someone who desires it if a mutually beneficial exchange can be agreed upon. Manata wants to confuse specific objects and/or services with moral principles. You see, morality is about principles, not about giving chemo to people per se. Morality refers to the principles of interaction between people, not about the specific chemotherapy you may be able to provide to someone. So while Manata tries to strawman me by claiming that my moral code says chemo should be given to everyone, the truth is that my moral code deals with principles of consent and trade and such. So, I can deconstruct Manata's strawman by saying, no, my moral code does not say you should give everyone chemotherapy regardless if they want or need it. My moral code says only that if two or more people wish to exchange goods and/or services, and they can agree to the terms, then it is good for them to do so. To "give" chemo to everyone implies that consent of the recipients is not sought, and the chemo is forced on everyone. Furthermore, there is no trade or symmetry of value exchange. So in reality, Manata's strawman example violates the principle of universality/symmetry in that his forcing of chemo on everyone does not seek consent for the recipients, nor an exchange of value. It is a total strawman and a misapplication of the principle of universality.

Manata throws a few more examples around:

Is lying good? What if we want to save someone from a murderer? Can we lie to protect them (ala, Anne Frank)? So, since it is good for one person to lie then it is good to lie universally. But, what if a doctor lies about a patient’s situation? Is that good? if not, then it is not a rule and no one should lie. But now what about poor Anne Frank?

Lying is not good because it is (usually) coercion. The foundational statement is that initiation of coercion is not good because it hurts people, including you. Lying usually falls into the category of coercion. Lying to save a friend from a murderer is good because you did not initiate the coercive act, but are instead using the coercive act of lying in defense against someone else's initiation of coercion. Pretty simple, really. If a doctor lies about a patient's situation, it depends on if the patient asked for the truth or asked to not be told bad news. In other words, if the patient asked to not be told the truth, then the doctor didn't coerce the patient when he lied to him, because the patient gave consent.

Manata then makes a claim:

I'm afraid Aynisphat is all confused... as am I.

Not Manata, I am not confused. My position is wholly consistent. You are the one that is confused, because you cannot understand universality, you cannot understand consent vs. coercion, you cannot understand the object-subject relationship, you can only prop up strawmen, and you failed to address the topic of my post: that morality cannot be based on God's rules.

Manata brings more tired and similar scenarios:

Now, what if someone does not say that it is wrong to kill and or molest him?

Manata presumes that by his silence he is endorsing immoral acts. But I can at least say that "kill" is not contextual and the word should be "murder," and sexual assault is only assault if one does not consent to it. So if this person doesn't have a problem with being "molested," then he isn't really being molested. In other words, it is logically impossible to rape someone who gives willing consent to the sexual act.

Can he then say that he can kill and molest others?

No, of course not. For nobody has the right to murder or sexually assault him. Again, these rules are objective. They are not decided on or chosen. They are concrete, like gravity. You cannot escape these rules.

I mean, what if it is in his self-interest to do so?

It isn't. It cannot possibly be proven that it is in one's self-interest to initiate coercive acts upon another. Destruction is never in anyone's self-interest. I challenge Manata to support the claim that initiation of coercion can be in one's self interest. I stand ready to offer refutations to any support Manata can provide for that claim.

Manata then tries to claim that self-defense is not possible in my moral system:

What if someone is attacking my wife and family? Can I kill him? But I don't want to be killed and so if I killed him "I am implicitly stating that it is ok for me to be killed."

If someone initiates coercion on you, then they implicitly state that it is ok for you to respond to them with coercion. Self-defense is justifiable because self-defense, or the rejection of coercive acts being executed upon you, is within one's self-interest.

Manata then says:

Lastly, maybe I don't want to be coerced but why does that mean I should not coerce others?

Universality, or symmetry. Again, see the essay that Francois Tremblay wrote called "The Moral Razor."

How do I "implicitly" state that it is okay for me to be coerced?

By initiating coercion against another. It's similar to the way that you implicitly agree that money has value every time you spend it.

I hope this post wasn't too tiring for all my readers. It’s a long one and after reading it, I think it's a bit boring and repetitive. But I wanted to reply to Manata's post adequately, and drive my points home. I think I did a decent job of showing Manata's strawmen, his confusion over concepts, and how he missed the true point of my post.

Manata, you didn't even address the real claims in my post: that Christianity cannot account for a reason to follow God's rules without conceding the self-interested objective morality and inherent value of existence as a foundation. You didn't address my example dialogue between an objective-morality atheist and a Christian. Your attacks on my moral system have failed, as I have refuted each of them. And you have done nothing to refute my claim that morality cannot be based on God's rules. Since you didn't address the topic of my post, I will consider it unchallenged.

I might even go so far as to say that you "implicitly" endorsed my post topic as valid by remaining silent on it LOL ;)

Is Paul Manata a Racist?

Paul Manata's most recent post regarding my objective morality can be seen here. Every time he writes a blog post about me, he posts the link in my comments section. His most recent post about me seems to imply some kind of racial/ethnic slur.

In his post, he says:

Assert Aynisphat ( ياسر عرفات‎) born Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Aynisphat al-Qudwa al-Husseini (محمد عبد الرؤوف القدوة الحسيني) and also known by the Kunya Abu Aaron Kinney
(أبو عمّار), is Chairman of the Pop off and Lament your Objectivist pseudo-philosophy (PLO) (2004-); and president of Kill The Afterlife (KTA) (2005-).

What’s with the Arabic-sounding names for "assert" and "Ayn"? Is this ad hominem attack more of a racial/ethnic/Arabic slur or a religious/Islamic slur? And what does Ayn Rand have to do with Arabs? I am not sure about any of this, but either way I don't like it. I wanted to write a reply to his post, but I don't know if I can keep it civil. I refuse to write a post in response to Manata that uses Manata's degree of personal attacks and insults, and I don't know if I can keep from doing that this time.

Manata is a textbook example of how not to be a Christian. For it is obvious that unless you already are a Christian, you will be turned off by the high level of insults and jokes Manata writes at the expense of the subjects of his posts. I honestly don't know what Manata's aim is in his insulting and seemingly racist style of writing: To entertain his Christian audience (which seems to be working), to piss off as many non-Christians as possible (which is definitely working), or to merely soothe his apparent insecurities (which doesn't seem to be working at all).

Regardless, I think his act of assigning Arabic names to me deserves an explanation. They seem discriminatory based on either race or religion (or both). They also are misplaced, since I am Caucasian (not Arabic), an atheist (not a Muslim), and a libertarian (not a Randist).

I am not going to provide Manata with a proper response until this issue is settled. Manata wants to play the morality game, but only while his opponent is operating under the distraction and stress of insulting and racist charges. I would love nothing more than to tangle with Manata on the morality issue, but to do so while he is heaping so much derision on me would be far too degrading. Manata knows that I have repeatedly asked him to tone down the ad hominem, and he once said he would try to do so when dealing with me, but it looks like he either forgot about what he said in the past, or he was lying to me. I've done nothing to provoke this new level of insults from him.

I hope that you, the reader, will take the time to click on the link to Manata's post, read what he wrote, and judge for yourself if Manata is trying to insult me by equating me with an Arab or a Muslim, and therefore slinging ethnic/racial or religious slurs. What do you all think?

Morality Cannot be Based on God's Rules

There has been a lot of talk lately about morality with and without God, and which worldview steals from whom. I want to set the record straight here, and demonstrate exactly how a theistic morality steals from an objective, atheistic morality. In this blog entry, I will be comparing objective morality with (what else?) Christian theistic morality.

Objective, atheistic morality begins with the axiom of existence. In other words: I exist. From this axiom, we can ascertain the value of existence, or the value of life. In fact, the value of one's own existence is just as objectively true as the fact of one's own existence. This is because it is impossible to conclude that one's existence as bad or undesirable without first conceding that it is indeed valuable and precious. If someone says, "It is bad that I exist, and I should not exist," they are making a big mistake, for in their mere act of concluding such a thing, they are presupposing the value of their own existence. This is because one cannot make such a conclusion without existing in the first place, and if one were to not exist, it would be impossible for them to conclude that it is good that they don't exist! Human morality cannot be used to conclude that humans should not exist, for without humans, there would be no human morality to use to reach that conclusion.

With me so far? Good. Now an objective, atheistic morality says that what is moral is what is good for you. It also says that what is good for one human is good for all humans, since all humans exist in the same reality and all the rules apply universally. In fact, if a rule cannot be applied universally, then it is not really a rule. So the only moral "rules" that exist are the rules that apply universally.

From here, the objective, atheistic morality says that all moral justifications have to be based on one's own self-interest. I presuppose the value of my existence, I operate under the same moral rules as everyone else, and my moral choices involve me choosing the action that best serves my self-interest. Self-interest is a powerful concept, and is indeed essential to morality. Through self-interest and universality, I can say that it is wrong for me to coerce someone because it is wrong for me to be coerced. If I commit a coercive action against someone, then I am implicitly stating that it is ok for me to be coerced. I would be violating my own self-interest, and therefore would be acting immorally.

This moral code is objective because it looks at the facts of reality and one's own existence. This moral code is atheistic because it requires no God, requires no afterlife, and requires no immaterial entities or dimensions for its use.

Theistic morality, on the other hand, says that you should obey God because either he tells you to, or you will roast in Hell, or a combination thereof. In my appearance on The Atheist Hour, Pastor Gene Cook said that we should do what God says because He says so and because we should be devoted to Him and obedient to Him. When I pressed Gene further, he admitted that Hell is a punishment for those who fail to follow God's word. But then I took it a little bit further. You see, the Christian morality does not admit the concept of self-interest; it does not recognize the axiom of existence and how we conclude one's inherent worth in their own existence. The Christian moral code steals from the objective, atheistic moral code. It steals the concept of self-interest, and it steals the concept of the inherent value of one's own existence.

In other words, all Godly/theistic moral systems presuppose the objective self-interest based morality as a foundation, and their theistic moral systems are nothing more than accessories, despite the fact that they masquerade as being foundational.

Here is an example dialogue where anyone can expose the theistic moral problem I described above. I managed to quickly sneak it in on Gene Cook's show, but he didn't want to dwell on it. I suggest you try it with your own local Christian and see what results you get!

Atheist: What's your morality based on?

Christian: God and His holy word. What's yours based on?

Atheist: My own self-interest. In fact, so is yours. You just fail to recognize it. May I ask for what reason would you follow God's holy word?

Christian: Because he says so and because you have to love Him.

Atheist: But why should I care what God says or follow his commands? What will happen?

Christian: He will forgive pretty much all your sins if you believe in Him, but you will be cast into Hell if you don’t believe and submit to Him.

Atheist: So your moral code is a carrot/stick approach, huh? Sounds like coercion to me. But you still haven’t given me an "ought," Christian. Why should I care if I get sent into Hell and burned forever and cast away from God?

Christian: Because pain hurts and nobody wants to be hurt or destroyed.

Atheist: But why? Why should I care if God hurts me or destroys me and I feel pain because of Him?

Christian: Ummmm... because God tells you to?

Atheist: And where does the Bible say that you should presuppose the value of your own existence and avoid pain and destruction? You see, you have no reason to follow God's word, or care what he does to you, without the foundational objective morality that I have presented. The only reason you follow God's word is because you presuppose the value of your own existence and happiness. The value of your own existence and happiness is the foundation of your moral system, and your Christian morality is nothing more than an accessory that is wholly dependent upon the foundation of your own self-interest for it to have any meaning.

Christians sometimes claim that atheistic morality steals from theistic morality. This is simply not true. I've just demonstrated that theistic morality is not even a moral system at all because it is not foundational; it is an accessory to the foundational moral code of self-interest from which it steals.

Morality is about each of us making the best choices for our lives. Morality is not about wholly submitting to another conscious entity a priori, regardless of how omnipotent or omni-whatever that entity is. And the only way you can even justify wholly submitting to another entity is by taking it to the foundation and showing that this submission would be the best choice for one's life. But either way, morality can only be based on principle(s), not specific commands or third-party entities. Morality is founded upon the principle of rational self-interest, not on some creator God, nor his dictates.

Andrea Yates Claims Christianity Insanity

From CNN.com:

Andrea Yates pleaded innocent by reason of insanity in the drowning deaths of her children Monday as she made her first court appearance since her 2002 capital murder convictions were overturned.

Chairwoman of the Offspring Murder Club, Andrea Yates, is trying once again to avoid jail time by pleading insanity. She was already convicted for the drowning deaths of 3 of her 5 children (She actually drowned all 5, but for some reason they convicted her on only 3), but the conviction was overturned when a doctor testified that a Law and Order episode recently aired that portrayed a drowning children/insanity plot, when in fact no such episode existed.

Yates was suffering from two mental problems that, when combined, caused her to kill her children. One of those mental problems was an extreme case of postpartum depression. The other mental problem was an extreme case of Christianity. The Christianity served as a catalyst for her postpartum depression, and sent Yates into an underwater-breathing-lesson frenzy with all 5 of her children, ages 6 months to 7 years.

According to the Wikipedia article on Andrea Yates, she told her jail shrink in regards to her children:

It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell.

Doomed to perish in the fires of Hell, huh? Andrea Yates obviously thought that some imaginary afterlife dimension made her children's existence in this reality pointless. Her afterlife belief served as justification for her to methodically drown each of her 5 children.

As a hardcore anti-afterlifist (I know that's a made up term but it sounds funny so I'm keeping it), I cannot help but wonder: Would Andrea Yates have killed any of her children if she were a materialist who was free from the chains of afterlife superstition and Christianity? Probably not, and there are two reasons.

The first reason that Andrea Yates would most likely not have killed her children without afterlife belief is because that even with her postpartum depression, her lack of an afterlife belief would have provided her with no catalyst or justification for the taking of her own children’s' lives. The quote from Wikipedia above explains it all too well. She believed her children were doomed to eternal torment in Hell. As I have argued time and time again, the afterlife takes primacy over this life for pro-afterlifers, and Andrea predictably believed that her children’s' existences in this reality were able to be sacrificed for something more important. Imagine assigning values so incorrectly that you think that your child's best interests don't necessarily involve actually being alive! It's hard to give life on this Earth the number 1 primary slot when you don't think that death is the actual end of one's existence.

The second reason that Andrea Yates would most likely not have killed her children is because that without subscribing to the flavor of Christianity provided by preacher Michael Peter Woroniecki, Andrea Yates would likely not have had 5 children and would not have suffered from postpartum depression to the degree that she did. You see, Andrea Yates suffered from postpartum depression before her 5th child, and Andrea's psychiatrist told her not to have another baby because of the certainty of future postpartum depression issues. But Andrea's preacher had a very pro-procreation (another funny made-up phrase) brand of Christianity, and Andrea, with all her confusion over primacy assignment, took the advice of her preacher rather than her psychiatrist. So baby number 5 comes along and Andrea acts out on her postpartum depression just as her psychiatrist predicted. Whoops!

Andrea Yates was most definitely insane when she drowned her children. She had a faith-based insanity, and she is probably still insane now. She assigned primacy to her faith and her belief in an afterlife, and it caused the deaths of her 5 children, not to mention that her own life is effectively over and her husband's life is a shambles. Personally I think insanity defenses are irrelevant and that she should be punished severely for her actions, regardless of how crazy she was or is. However, I do think it would be a pleasant irony if she won the insanity conviction, got admitted to a mental hospital, and then had her rehabilitation progress measured on how well she managed to shed her afterlife and Christianity superstitions.

Andrea Yates made the wrong choice: superstitious immaterialism. Instead of killing her children, she should have Killed The Afterlife.

The Offspring Murder Club Gets Some New Members

Again thanks to Blacksun for posting about this earlier.

In an earlier post, I formed The Offspring Murder Club. This is a sad, shameful club where membership is strongly discouraged. Yet, there are many pro-afterlifers that are doing everything in their power to join this club, and predictably enough, they are using their pro-afterlife convictions as motivation for murdering their own children!

Recently the club acquired some new members. A total of 9 members of a Mexican family are suspects in the ritualistic slayings of two daughters, one a 7-month-old and one a 13-year-old. Not to mention a dozen or so sacrificed farm animals. A judge recently sent 8 of the family members to a mental hospital.

The article states in no uncertain terms what the family's pro-afterlife worldview caused them to believe about the daughters:

Officials said the parents, grandparents and aunts of a 7-month-old and 13-year-old hacked the baby to death and fatally stoned the teenager earlier this month after they became convinced the girls were demons or possessed by the devil.

Emphasis mine. So what exactly does fervent afterlife-belief serve as a catalyst for? It serves as a catalyst for one to believe that those closest to you are possessed by evil spirits, which gives you motivation and even justification for slaying them. Then it gets you committed to a nuthouse.

And these aren't any simple slayings. These are hardcore blood orgies among family members. Is a blood orgy between family members considered incestuous as well? Sorry I just had to ask it. Here are some more details from the article if you can stomach the visual:

After being tipped off to the killings by an anonymous phone call, officers traveled on foot to the family's hamlet and found the baby girl mutilated and the body of the 13-year-old tied to a stake and battered to death.

What is it that allows one to believe that one's infant and teenage daughters are a supernatural threat to oneself? Immaterial afterlife belief, that's what! Congratulations again on joining The Offspring Murder Club, you religious locos.

Kill The Filler: Winter Solstice Greeting

This week has been insanely busy for me, as it no doubt has been with many of my blog readers. Christmas is coming. Or Winter Solstice. Or whatever you call it. And I, along with hundreds of millions of other Americans, been busy shopping for presents.

On top of that, I’m taking a road trip to visit relatives this weekend. So don't expect any more posts from me until next week, after December 25th. And I apologize for this post being 99% filler.

I would like to close off this post with a little materialistic heartwarming. When you are celebrating the holidays this year, remember that the important things in life, love, family, friends, sincere communication, eggnog, etc... are all purely materialistic things that exist within and between material entities in a material universe.

If you want to celebrate the holidays, celebrate the joy of life and existence in this crazy crazy cosmos. To celebrate another dimension of immaterial spirits chained to an infinite and static existence only serves to cheapen and devalue the existence we are in right now. The only -and most important- existence is this one right here and right now. So celebrate it accordingly. Ooooooh, Heaven is a place on Earth.

Merry Christmas!

Another Pro-Afterlife Mother Slays Own Child

Thanks to BlackSun for posting about this first and bringing it to my attention.

Dawn Serrena Young recently joined Dena Schlosser, Andrea Yates, and other women of faith in what I have decided to call The Offspring Murder Club. Congratulations Dawn in murdering your own daughter. You are part of a very exclusive club that requires enormous amounts of religious conviction in order to join.

As I've noted before, Religiosity is more common among mothers who kill their children. While Christians have definitely taken the points lead in the The Offspring Murder Club, Dawn Serrena Young has literally burst onto the scene and made a strong showing with her blend of Voodoo and Santeria. Will the Christians be able to maintain their lead, or will they be eclipsed before the end of the year?

Read this snip... its so messed up:

A Eugene woman has told police that she killed her 17-month-old daughter to protect the baby from spirits.

Young was arrested Nov. 23 after she crashed her pickup truck into parked cars at a Red Bluff lumber store. Police found her covered in blood from self-inflicted chest wounds.

She later confessed to killing Ruby by suffocating her with her hand, police have said. She led Red Bluff detectives to an area near the Sacramento River, where Ruby's body was found.

I think Dawn missed the bulletin that said suffocating your own child is not an effective means of protecting it. Imagine a secular version of this logic, "Hey son, I have to protect you from the influence of drugs and gangs and bullies, so I'm going to shoot you in the head."

Now I want to get serious. The problem here is that these people believe in religions that claim that there is an afterlife dimension; an existence after or beyond this one, and that entities can move between the two. Dena Schlosser, Andrea Yates, and Dawn Serrena Young all shared the same delusion: They didn't understand that death = death. These women all believe that their children are still in existence in another dimension known as the afterlife.

Afterlife ideologies literally redefine the word "death" because they remove the state of non-existence from it. To pro-afterlifers, death no longer means the termination of a consciousness, but the transportation of it to another realm. The word "death" loses its power and meaning, and instead becomes a mere transition. I hope that I've stressed this enough at the risk of redundancy, because it is vital to understand it. I think that if you closely examine the phrase, "life after death," the contradictory nature of the afterlife becomes quite clear.

Now I would like to finish off this post with a call to all of my blog readers who are proficient with Photoshop. I need a JPG image in the shape of a banner or bumper sticker that says "Kill the afterlife, not children." As far as backgrounds go, I'm open to most anything. Maybe some color transition looking thing, or some kind of image would be cool too as long as it doesn't distract too much from the text. I really hope someone is up to the task, because if not, then I will have to make it myself and I already know that it won't be a pretty sight. Can anyone help me out?